Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Behold Their Unworthy Cause - Our Enemy Exposed
...And A Sure Defense Against Their Economic Weapons

By Richard Eastman
I want to expose the conspiracy to the world and describe the sure way of defeating their financial weapons.
The most important thing I have done was to assemble facts about Bernard Baruch and present them when I interviewed by Jeff Rense on Feb 21 2007 -- rense archives (pay $5 for a month of access) http://www.renseradio.com/signup.htm -- which interview I backed up with 90 pages of fully referenced quotations from the various diaries, biographies, histories -- available free to all here: http://www.rense.com/rewer.htm -- For example, Baruch's hand in electing Wilson and controlling Wilson and US policy during WWI, his ownership of Churchill, his role in the Stock Market Crash of 1929 which was a dliberate forced liquidation, contraction, deflation that resulted in transfer of ownership of US industry to the Baruch, the Rockefellers and other bankers. His role in getting us into WWII and in the cold war -- which name he coined. Including the control of FDR and FDR's murder by Morganthau. He also made Eisenhower supreme allied commander of WWII and made him president. A full grasp of the conspiracy that has us by the throat today was made clear as day in the history of that giant.
That information fell out dead at birth. Nothing came of it.
But at least that research has prepared my own mind to recognize, accept and value the full importance of the three items have been sent to me and which I present below.
We now have a picture of the conspiracy that explains its every policy, every action visiting ruin upon our heads.
The first came from Jim Condit Jr., the only Social Crediter to run for Congress in the last election -- the man who ran against John Boehner in a rigged election - Jim had 36,202 votes (20% or so the total) in the first "final count" at 12:30 AM ­ and was dropped to 3,404 ­ last place ­ in the second "final count" twenty minutes later. The 36,202 was consistent with what national and local TV stations put up all night on their TV stations and websites. This is verified by votefraud.org if you follow the link "Screen shots show vote manipulation in Boehner-Condit-Coussoule-Harlow race" Naturally the Tea Party candidate divided the anti-Boehner vote as intended -- but not satisfied with defeating the real anti-Money Power candidate in this way, they had to steal even the record of the votes Condit did win. Jim was the ideal candidate -- populist, social crediter, informed and vocal about all aspects of the conspiracy -- but who knew he was in the race until it was all over? no one told me -- and he assumed I knew! But this post is not an ad for Jim Condit -- it is about the following information on Coudenhove-Kalergi that he sent me. (It is also about a warning given by Gerturde Coogan (1934) and Sarah Dickey (1949) sent to by Daniel S. Krynicki and, from Dr. Jim Innes in Australia, an exposition of the economic system that is the very opposite of the debt-slavery system designed to create a new aristocracy over a new totally controlled serfdom.
Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington Every man is responsible to every other man. http://www.citizensamericaparty.org/socialcredit.htm
(1) Coudenhove-Kalergi funded by the Warburgs
From Jim Condit Jr. with supplementary information
From: jconditjr@fuse.net
To: oldickeastman@q.com
Subject: Coudenhove-Kalergi 16 Dec 2010
Dick ­ Coudenhove-Kalergi funded by the Warburgs sent Ludwig Von Mises to the USA. The Warburgs, of course, are those good business partners of the Rothschilds. Coudenhove-Kalergi was very devoted to the creation of the European Union, and is given credit as a forerunner in official EU literature as I recall. He wrote a book about making the white man a minority in Europe which is banned in Europe to this day, as I recall. . . . My point is that Von Mises was just another shill for the Rothschild mentality.
When you ask a "von Mises" devotee how we would know how much money to issue into circulation tomorrow, next week, and next year ­ if we fired the FED and Bernanke --- then the crazy answers really begin. The best I've heard is that we would all issue our own money !!! That's the BEST I heard.
Keep pushing forward.
Jim Condit Jr.
Dick -- This is the webpage that was first sent to me. Note that Von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Arthur Burns are mentioned near the last line on the page.
Richard Nikolaus Eijiro Graf Coudenhove-Kalergi ( November 16, 1894 - July 27, 1972) On his fathers side he was of mixed European descent (Flemish. Chech Hungarian Greek) with lots of nobility. His mother was a Japanese from an aristocratic family. He married the 13 year older Ida Roland [born Ida Klausner] Ida Roland died in 1951. In 1952 he married Alexandra Gräfin von Tiele, born Bally. In 1969 he married the Austrian Melanie Benatzky Hoffmann.
His first book, titled Pan-Europa was published in 1923, contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 Aristide Briand was elected honorary president. Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Coudenhove-Kalergi's program contains as serious proposals all of the elements that Hitler later accused Eurpopean Jewry of advocating and that have been wrongly treated in the history books as mere Nazi propaganda. Yes it was Nazi propaganda and it was also true -- because propaganda does not have to be false to be propaganda. Propaganda is simply information that is propagated.
Coudenhove-Kalergi in his autobiography:
"At the beginning of 1924, we received a call from Baron Louis de Rothschild; one of his friends, Max Warburg from Hamburg, had read my book and wanted to get to know us. "To my great surprise, Warburg spontaneously offered us 60,000 gold marks, to tide the movement over for its first three years ....
"Max Warburg, who was one of the most distinguished and wisest men that I have ever come into contact with, had a principle of financing these movements.
"He remained sincerely interested in Pan-Europe for his entire life.
"Max Warburg arranged his 1925 trip to the United States to introduce me to Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch."
Finance theorist Ludwig von Mises (supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation) also participated in Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-European Movement.
Later von Mises disciples Arthur Burns and Milton Friedman spread von Mises ideas through a network of secret 'conservative' think tanks, led by the Mont Pelerin Society. (unquote)
Note: Von Mises institute seems to be the opposite side of Communism, but both serving the same end, leaving the people without a solution to extinguish these parasitic, vulturous money-issuing systems that are now stunting mankind.
"The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals."
"Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe's feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation."
English translation of selections of Practical Idealism (Praktischer Idealismus)
By Count Richard N. Coudenhove Kalergi - published in Vienna 1925.
The man of the future will be a mongrel. Today's races and classes will disappear owing to the disappearing of space, time, and prejudice.
The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its outward appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
Christianity, ethically prepared by the Jewish Essays (John), spiritually prepared by the Jewish Alexandrians (Philo), was regenerated Jewry. Insofar as Europe is Christian, it is in a spiritual sense Jewish, insofar as Europe is moral, it is Jewish.
Almost all of European ethics are rooted in Jewry. All protagonists for a religious or non religious Christian morality, from Augustine to Rousseau, Kant and Tolstoy, were Jews of choice [Wahljuden] in a spiritual sense. Nietzsche is the only non Jew, the only European heathen moralist.
In the East the Chinese people are the ethical par excellence [..] - in the West it is the Jews.
God was the head of state of the ancient Jews, their moral laws civil law, sin was crime.
Through the ages Jewry has remained faithful to the theocratic idea of the identification of politics and ethics: Christianity and Socialism are both attempts to create an earthly paradise. [lit.: a State of God]
Two thousand years ago, the ancient Christians - not the Pharisees and Sadducees - were the revivers of the Mosaic tradition; today it is neither the Zionists nor the Christians, but the Jewish leaders of Socialism: because they wish, with the most exalted unselfishness, to erase the original sin of capitalism, to free the people from injustice, violence and subservience and to change the redeemed world into an earthly paradise.
From Moses to Weininger ethics have been the main problem for Jewish philosophy.
In this ethical basic attitude to the world lies one origin of the exceptional greatness of the Jewish people - at the same time also the danger that Jews who have forgotten their belief in the ethics sink to become cynical egoists: while people with another mentality - even after losing their ethical attitude - still retain some amount of chivalrous values and prejudices (man of honor, gentleman, cavalier etc.), which protects them from the fall into the abyss of values.
What mainly separates the Jews from the average city dwellers is the fact that they are inbred people.
Strength of character paired with sharpness of the mind predestinates the Jews in their most excellent specimen to become the leaders of urbane humanity, from the false to the genuine spiritual aristocrats to the protagonists of capitalism as well as of the revolution.
Now we stand at the threshold of the third epoch of the new times: Socialism.
Also socialism is supported by the urban class of industrial workers, led by the aristocracy of revolutionary writers. The influence of the aristocracy by blood, the influence of the aristocracy of the mind is growing.
This development, and with it the chaos of modern politics will only then find its end, when a spiritual aristocracy seizes the means of power of society: [gun] powder, gold, ink, and use them for the blessing of the general public.
Communist dictatorship: Important step on the way
Russian Bolshevism constitutes a decisive step towards this purpose where a small group of communist spiritual aristocrats govern the country and consciously break with the plutocratic [plutocratic = rule or power through wealth] democratism which nowadays controls the rest of the world.
The fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian spirit.
The general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe's spiritual leader race [Führerrasse] the Jews. Capitalism and Communism are both rational, both mechanical, both abstract, both urbane. The military nobility has definitively outplayed its role. The effect of the spirit, the power of the spirit, the belief in the spirit, the hope for the spirit is growing: and with it a new aristocracy.
[44] In order to ascend, to advance objectives are needed, to reach objectives people are needed who define objectives, leading on to objectives: aristocracy.
The aristocrat as a leader is a political concept, the aristocrat as example is an aesthetic ideal. The highest challenge demands that aristocracy coincide with nobility, leader with example: that leadership falls to perfect people.
European quantity people and Jewish quality people
From the European quantity-people, who only belief in numbers, the mass, two quality races rise up: blood aristocracy and Jewry.
Separate from each other both of them stick to their belief in their higher mission, of their better blood, in the different ranks of the people.
In both of these heterogenic merited races lies the core of the European nobility of the future: in the feudal blood aristocracy, as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by the farm, in the Jewish spiritual aristocracy as far as it did not let itself be corrupted by money [capitalism].
As guarantee for a better future a small rest of the morally high standing rustic [country-style] aristocracy and a small battle group of revolutionary intelligentsia remains.
Here the conformity between Lenin, the man from the lower country aristocracy, and Trotsky, the Jewish literate grows into a symbol: here the contrasts in character and spirit, from squire and literate, from country dwellers and the urbane, heathen and Christian people join into a creative synthesis of revolutionary aristocracy.
One step foreword in the spiritual sense would suffice to place the best elements of blood nobility, who in the country have protected their physical and moral health from the depraving influence of the farm scent, at the service of the new liberation of the people.
For they are pre destined to this positioning by their traditional courage, their anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist mentality, their responsibility, their contempt for material advantages, their stoic training of the will, their integrity, their idealism. ... The main representatives of the corrupt as well as the upright brain aristocracy: of capitalism, journalism and the literate are Jews.
The superiority of their spirit predestines them to become a main factor of the future nobility.
One look at the history of the Jewish people explains its lead in the struggle over the governance of humanity. For two thousand years Jewry was a religious community, made up of ethical and religious predisposed individuals from all nations of the classical cultural area, with a national Hebrew centre in Palestine..
Already at that time the common connecting and primary was not the nation, but the religion. In the course of the first millennium of our calendar proselytes from all peoples entered this denomination [religious sect] not least the king, nobility and the people of the Mongolian Khasars, the masters of southern Russia.
Only from then on the Jewish religious community joined itself in an artificial nation and closed itself off from all remaining peoples. Through unspeakable persecutions throughout a millennium Christian Europe tries to exterminate the Jewish people. The result was, that all Jews, who were of weak-willed, opportunistic or skeptical let themselves be baptized, in order to escape the torment of endless persecution.
On the other hand all Jews who were not skilled, clever and creative enough to survive this struggle for their existence under these many times harder conditions of life succumbed.
Thus in the end from all these persecutions arose a small community, shaped by a heroically endured martyrdom for the idea and cleansed of all weak-willed elements and poverty of mind.
Instead of destroying Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process.
No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. http://balder.org/judea/Richard-Coudenhove-Kalergi-Practical-Idealism-Vienna-1925.php
Here is one good piece on Coudenhove-Kalergi:
http://jewishracism.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-ties-to-jewish-supremacism.html -- this website is written by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, himself Jewish.
one last note of interest:
The family of (Samuel Moses) Del Branco in 1559 moved from Italy to Germany taking the name Warburg. In 1798, the family founded the bank of M. M. Warburg & Co. Paul Warburg was a German immigrant arriving in America together with his brother Felix. Both brothers, who were Illuminati and also member of B'nai B'rith, became partners of the banking house Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Warburg came to America to create the Federal Reserve System central bank.
The well-known freemason James Paul Warburg said before the US Senate on 17 February 1950: "We shall have World Government, whether we like it or not. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
Paul Warburg was married to Nina Loeb, daughter of the banker Salomon Loeb. Kuhn, Loeb & Co., of the most influential finance company in the United States in the early 1900s. Paul's brother Felix Warburg was married to Frieda Schiff, whose father was the notorious Jacob Schiff. Schiff, a leading Zionist, was the principal owner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He had helped finance Lev Trotsky when the bolsheviks seized power. Prior to that, he had helped Alexander Kerensky (Aron Kiirbis) to power. Jacob Schiff had further ordered Lenin to execute the tsar family, as demonstrated by the telegram he sent to Lenin.
Before you read this -- and if you can spare the $5.00 -- I recommend that you listen the Rense broadcaste of Feb 21 2007 to the necessary background on who Baruch and Morganthau were and the monstrous hand they had in shaping the misery of the 20th century, a history that has been kept from the world, from the victims, past, present and future, of their designs and actions.
(2) From Daniel S. Krynicki - Sarah Dickey (1949) summarizing Gertrude Coogan (1934)
This is their objective.
The Roosevelt-Morgenthau Baruch-Frankfurter regime is something new under the sun in this "sweet land of liberty". It has saddled us with the most extensive and extravagant bureaucracy in the history of the world. Since the days of NRA and WPA, it has multiplied tax- eating alphabetical agencies to such an extent that people can no longer interpret the letters without a New Deal lexicon. This regime throws public funds to the winds as irresponsibly as revelers scatter confetti at a carnival. It maneuvered us into a war involving most of the continents and the seven seas. Under false pretenses, it finds many occasions to finance the enemies of our country and persecute its friends. President Truman fell heir to the "queer" deal, but loyally gave his pledge to perpetuate it as a "Fair Deal".
And now we are dizzily on our way to a socialized One World. Through the Bretton Woods conference, Dumbarton Oaks, and other such schemes, Morgenthau has been moving to perfect a World bank, which would mean the surrender of United States Sovereignty. Comparatively few citizens realize that our participation in a World Bank or a world currency scheme directed by international bankers would bring to an end the rights of free enterprise and put all producers into ruinous competition with the oppressed peoples of Europe and Asia.
The "One Worlders" have a most deceptive propaganda line. In clever phrases that bespeak scholarship and altruism, they influence public sentiment in behalf of internationalism. A shining light to guide us in the broad way of internationalism "that leadeth to destruction" is James P. Warburg, son of Paul M., whose "advice" defeated the original purpose of the Federal Reserve Act, as we have seen. Through the years James P. has carried on the traditions of the Warburg clan. He was an international banker during the 1920s, and, although born in Hamburg, Germany, he served as financial adviser at the London Economic Conference in 1933, and during the last war he was director of propaganda policy for the Office of War Information. He now calls himself a "roving reporter" and generously shares his opinions with the American public through his lectures and books.
His 1949 book, Last Call For Common Sense, is timed to promote world federalism as a means to peace in this atomic age. He criticizes the administration at Washington for failing to revise the charter of the United Nations. "We shall not be firmly on the road to peace", he contends, "until the Government of the U.S. makes up its mind to move ­ no matter how cautiously ­ toward the transformation of the United Nations into a world Government.There can be no lasting peace so long as a world which has become physically one refuses to recognize its unity".
Disaster beyond one's apprehension lies in that direction. World Government, as the Internationalists plan it, means World Dictatorship with the kings of finance on the throne, ruling humanity with unspeakable ruthlessness.
There is no use to deny the fact that we are on the verge of the most distressing economic collapse in all our history. Moreover, we are on the way to losing our Constitution and its principles of representative government. Many citizens are now convinced that there is grave danger in piling up unlimited national debts, and that the tendency to ignore the protective mandates of the Constitution is a still graver menace; but, as yet, there is little agreement either in regard to underlying causes or in the methods of coping with the situation.
Some well-meaning people feel certain that a change of political party in national administration would solve every problem. It is a futile hope. If the last presidential campaign served any useful purpose, it was to show how completely all political parties in this country are controlled by the same manipulators. The spectacle reminded one of a three-ring circus, where each group of actors performs in a separate ring with its own leader, while all three groups are directed by the same master of ceremonies. In their party platforms did the Democrats, the Republicans, the Socialists, or the Wallace Communists advocate an honest monetary system? Or a return to a genuine constitutional government? Actually, there was less difference in their party planks than there is in tweedledum and tweedledee. Political leadership that refuses to take a stand for the basic principles that have been the nation's strength and glory in the past is unworthy of confidence. Mere partisanship is not the answer to our problems.
Before proceeding with a discussion of the probable outcome of present conditions, it seems necessary to digress long enough to determine the meaning of the word "inflation". It is a pet word used by the "hired economists" to frighten the populace away from any plan for a just and scientific monetary system. For example, in 1933, the late President Roosevelt made a step in the right direction when he announced his intention to raise the price of an ounce of gold.
"But immediately the newspapers throughout the country released a terrible campaign of terror and intimidation. Mr. Baruch had already favored the United States with a terrifying article on inflation, in which he wisely warned against repetition of the German inflation. It is so strange 'experts' do not explain that raising the price of an ounce of gold is not inflation in any sense of the word. sing the price of an ounce of gold is revaluation. Did Mr. Baruch explain that throughout the entire history of money, the internationalists wanted to destroy not only the value of the currency but also the government of a country? Never has any government itself conducted such an inflation.
"A vicious inflation is produced only by printing an enormous amount of paper money and putting it into the money stream of a nation without any regard to the actual amount of money required to conduct the nation's business at price levels which are honest and equitable.
"There are two kinds of inflation: one by expansion of bankers' credit; the other by expanding the currency (bill-fold money). The latter may be an expansion which will be scientific and adequate and no more; or the kind of expansion as was carried on by the private international bankers, during the 'French' Revolution, after the 'Russian' Revolution of 1917, and in Germany after the War, etc. This destruction of the value of currency (making it actually worthless) has never been brought about by politicians, but always by the international bankers themselves. It has never been the statesmen-politicians, but always the international bankers who have caused unjustified inflation wherever it has occurred in the past 150 years. There is not one example of a government which misused its national currency.
"Was it the international bankers, who know no patriotism, who were responsible for the German currency destruction in 1922 and 1923? It was a private money inflation of Reichsbank Notes perpetrated upon innocent Germans. This was intentionally done to dispossess the great middle class of German people. The same thing will be done to the middle class of American people if they do not arise and restore their money creation powers to the jurisdiction under which it belongs ­ the Congress of the United States.
"The German financial structure was in no condition whatever to warrant the destruction of the currency, if that had not been the planned intention of the international money lenders.From the time of the signing of the (Versailles) Treaty in June 1919 until the beginning of 1922, the international powers who were in control of the Reichsbank and the German Government were manipulating to gain control of actual physical property in Germany. They went so far as to get the banking laws of Germany drastically changed, so that they could borrow unlimited amounts from the Reichsbank and purchase physical property with the knowledge that the loans could later be repaid with worthless currency.
"It is one thing for a nation itself to issue sufficient currency, bearing its own imprint, to effect the volume of exchanges necessary to feed, clothe, and shelter its people, and it's quite another thing for a group of predatory internationalists to print money by the bale and inject it into the currency stream of a nation. That is exactly what was done when the French money system was destroyed at the time of the French Revolution. The money was really printed in England, and was injected into the French money system by paying it over to the conspirators to be used in bribing the 'adepts' and the 'dupes'. It has been reliably chronicled that seventeen printing presses and 400 men were employed in England at that time to manufacture and carry on the traffic in this counterfeit money. By this means the French Government money (Assignats) was destroyed, and later the same private individuals gained control of the new money system after they had acquired possession of most of the property in France.
"When the Russian currency was destroyed in 1917, the international money powers ordered a foreign warship to sail for Kronstadt, the naval station of S. Petersburg, carrying printing presses, which at once began to emit fake money, which was injected into the Russian currency stream and finally destroyed the entire money system of Russia.
"The fact is that only international bankers profit by this procedure. During the last 150 years, whenever the currency of a country has been destroyed, the government of that country has also been destroyed, and the country has been taken over in toto by the international bankers. They take possession and control of the entire country; loyal citizens lose everything, including their property and their rights. It is certain people who are now decrying an honest money system in the United States; shouting 'inflation' to who will destroy the currency which we now use when they are ready to act". (Money Creators, pp. 93, 119-122, 146- 147.)
These few pages from history will let us see just where we are on the road to chaos. They explain what is happening in China ­ and how a monetary crisis was used to deliver that great nation into the hands of international Communists.
They explain what is back of the "dollar crisis" in Great Britain. They also expose the real purpose back of the pretext, which sent the currency printing presses of the United States Government to Russia in 1945. According to Time, June 30, 1947, Henry Morgenthau explained what he called the "childishly simple" plan back in 1943:
"The British and American armies needed currency when they invaded Europe. So the Treasury had agreed to print invasion lire for use in Italy, invasion marks for Germany. The real beauty of the plan, in Morgenthau's view, was that the U.S. would have to redeem only the currency the army used to pay soldiers.But last week, as three Senate committees began a combined probe into the fantastic finance of invasion currency, they were shocked to discover how the plans had miscarried.
"Just how the blunder had occurred was explained chiefly by Assistant Secretary of War Howard C. Petersen. The marks for the U.S. and Britain were printed in Washington. The U.S. also offered to print marks for Russia. Of course, the Russians refused; they wanted to print their own. They demanded the printers' plates. Morgenthau with the approval of the Department of State and apparently of President Roosevelt, turned the plates over just before V-E Day. As far as the U.S. now knows, the Russians are still printing the marks." (This was 1949)
Ask informed businessmen what is happening in the large cities of this country, and they will tell you that Morgenthau's "funny money" has already been injected into our currency stream by "refugees", who have lugged it in by the bale and bought whole blocks of choice business buildings, hotels and fine homes, often paying two and three times the actual value of the property.
That is real and vicious inflation. As a taxpayer, how do you like the prospect of paying two hundred and fifty-four billion dollars of bonded indebtedness with worthless currency?
Viewing the dismal scene at this point, one seems justified in concluding that economic ruin is inevitable. Yet we maintain that a way out is even humanly possible; although, as stated before, it is hardly probable because our people as a whole are steeped in false teachings about the nature and function of money. The principles of an equitable money system are not complicated; on the contrary, they are so simple, both in theory and in practical application, that we are in danger of overlooking them altogether.
Information is the great need of the hour. People must know the truth about money and why so much mystery and deceit surrounds the subject. It is because of the need for reliable information that we have used most of our space in giving the background of financial chicanery. The pattern is ever the same. If one is led to see the plan as it has operated in the past, he can know what to expect as it unfolds in his own time.
The Austrian-born Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter, is quoted as saying, "The real rulers of a nation are undiscoverable". This sinister statement is only partly true. Any wide-awake person can discover a lot of things when he learns how to apply the pattern to events and individuals public can remove the veil of secrecy from the money question. As Frederick Soddy has wisely written in his book, Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt:
"Democracy so far has but seized the shadow and has yet to grasp the substance of sovereignty. Its first step must be to end the conspiracy of silence in its organs of publicity and instruction concerning the one power of government which underlies and controls all effective political action, and to insist upon its monetary system being as public and open to criticism and conscious alteration as its political system."
The next step is to do something about it.
The moneychangers must again be driven out of the temple. It is hazardous business, but it can be done. Jesus Himself set the example. It takes courage and drastic action. In a straightforward manner Gertrude M. Coogan points the way: created money forever; replace every 'credit' dollar with a real legal tender dollar; keep banking separate from government, and restore control of our money creation to Congress. The present un-American control of the United States Money System could be overthrown without war; without disturbing the public peace; without public expense; without interfering with the constitutional rights of any single American; without violating but by observing moral and constitutional law; and without upsetting in any manner or taking any value away from an owner of property in any form whether it be physical, tangible or stocks and bonds.
"Actually, the United States could and should set up a domestic money structure, without either gold or silver as a base. Gold and silver should be used only to settle international balances. They are not necessary as bases for the issuance of domestic money, and are not necessary as bases for domestic exchanges of goods and services. Gold and silver could be used for settling trade balances until other nations have followed our example in revoking the privilege of private issue, and can agree with ourselves and each other on the establishment of an international currency used in settling trade balances. Until that is done silver should be given a more important place in settling international balances. There should be no such thing as international loans. The absurdity of international loans will vanish as other nations also learn to issue their own currency.
"Individual banks must continue to be privately owned and managed but they should no longer have the power to manufacture and cancel money (now called expanding and contracting 'credit'). 3 They should be depositories for and lenders of real money; should collect a fee for acting as a depository for private citizens, and for performing all the non-monetary functions that banks now carry on. The basic difference would be that banks would no longer be able to create money and to cancel money. That prerogative would rest with the United States Government alone.
"America has opened the road to the greatest and freest development of the individual. The world money powers, through their weapons ­ Socialism, Fascism and Communism ­ are struggling to force it closed. True leaders must lead us away from the terrible economic perversion. Practical Christian leaders cannot justify themselves or their offices unless they are willing to attack the heart of this great moral problem.. Beware of those spiritual leaders who 'plead' for Social and Economic Justice while they refuse to attack the money problem.
Here is a very good short summary of the social credit idea, sent to me a few years ago by Jim Innes. Also see my exposition here: http://www.citizensamericaparty.org/socialcredit.htm
(2) A 1935 pamplet by Australian Social Crediter "J.H." -- with additional passages from two transcribed talks by C. H. Douglas
Ultimately the core of the problem can be put into four words -- "the monopoly of credit," and that the solution of the problem is also contained in four words -- "the distribution of credit."
Douglas Credit Simply Explained
After passing a Bill to authorize it: --
(1) A bank account would be opened in, say, the branches of the Commonwealth Bank, or any other banks, for every person in the nation
(2) Into this account will be entered an interest-free credit for consumers weekly, of, say £1 a week for each adult, and 10s. for every child. This could be drawn from the bank to spend. (The amount of this credit would be increased til the limit of consumption or production was reached.)
The inventive genius of man has been such that machines driven by water, steam or electricity have harnessed the power of the sun. Nuclear power is the same power as that of the sun, only emitted here on earth under controlled conditions.
It is the sun's nuclear power which causes the river to flow, and created in usable form all fuel ­ such as wood, coal or oil ­ that drives machines.
Machinery now does 90% of all the work in the world.
At the power house of the State Coal Mine at Yallourn coal costs fourpence per ton ready to burn.
Each of us inherited the right to the use of the power of the sun (of the atom) more naturally than we inherited our share of the national debt.
When a man invents a machine his patent is granted for say, 16 years, to allow him to get private recompence for the public benefits from his invention ­ then the right to the machine reverts to each and all of us. So the right ot the product of the "Cultural Heritage of the Past" belongs to each and every one of us.
So the harnessing of solar power by machinery, and the application of science to production, has given the world enormous riches in material goods, and capacity to create greater wealth still, to a degree that cannot be calculated.
Yet poverty exists, with both the physical evil of destitution and the psychological evil of mental slavery. THE EXPLANATION
While the sun through "The Cultural Heritage of the Past," is working evfery day for every one of us, employment is the only means by which most people can get those tokens called "money." Thus the right to live is denied to many, for whom our own as yet partially employed science has succeeded in eliminating employment.
Even if you are not working and consequently have no money, yet your share of applied sun power is creating wealth, and someone is getting it.
I will show that this is robbery and how to correct it.
The Socialist and Communist fail to see the reality of the exploitation of class by class.
They assert that the employer is exploiting the employee, while I shall prove that the real exploitation is that of industry (employer plus employee) by the usurers of the financial sector.
Actually the employed class gets to a greater or lesser degree the equivalent of its own labour.
At the same time the employer class gets more than the employee because the employers get most of the present available wealth produced by the "Cultural Heritage of the Past" inb the forms of machinery etc.
But there is not nearly enough purchasing power to enable industry to really produce and sell as much as it is both prepared and competent to do.
Therefore, neither the employer class nor the employee class is getting the wealth that rightly belongs to it. The present wide differences of classes is unnecessary in a machine age.
Classes really depend upon cultural development ­ not upon whether one is to a greater or lesser degree exploited by high finance, or exploiting the other.
And this system will persist until purchasing power is given by the State to the people, to the actual capacity of the producer to produceand the consumer to consume ­i.e., to the real needs of man that nature allows to be satisfied.
To a degree obviously inadequate to our social needs, the banking system is making purchasing power now, and lending it to industry and governments and charging interest on it.
But I assert that what the banks lend is "credit" ­ mere entires in their ledgers ­ and to charge interest on this is anti-social and essentially not ethical.
Thus the possibility of all classes of the community getting a progressively rising standard of life as machines become more efficient is prevented.
Man has become merely a means of production, instead of production being organized to meet the needs of man. The lords of finance continue to increase their tyrannical control of industry ­ leading on the one side to Communism and on the other to Fascism (which also is a precursor to Communism.)
Man's personality has become incapable of development, and the normal desire for peace has been defeated by the unnecessary fight for markets.
We will all agree that the era of world shortage has passed.
We can produce much more than at the present time we can use.
We agree that everyone who is willing to render service to society should be able to get the equivalent to this service from society.
We agree that by cooperation in spirit of creative effort we can be happier and wealthier than when we fight and destroy.
We agree that without consumption (or destruction) there cannot be production.
We know that the farmers are so much in debt that many of their boys and girls cannot afford to marry, being virtually slaves to the banks, mortgage companies, etc. They can never get out of debt without State interest-free credit, or complete repudiation.
We most of us agree that with the progress made under Communism in Russia there has been a considerable loss of personal liberty; and at the same time real power is still in the hands of a few.
The "rule of the proletariat" is a fantasy, but the danger of Communism is real.
The Belief of some people that the banks lend other people's bank deposits is not true.
The fact is that the Australian banks have issued as credit nine times as much credit as the banking system has in notes and metallic coin. Australian bank loans are at present £500,000,000, while the not issue is between 30 and 40 millions.
This credit consists merely of entries in the books of the banks, and is secured by the banks, by the banks holding deeds and the right to sell ­ assets of the borrowers of much greater value than the credits created and "loaned."
Why the banks cannot issue enough credit to meet the logical needs of the community is too long a story to tell here.
But the fact is that the banks consider their own safety first, and the actual vital needs of the community next. The result is the 99% of the people are relatively poor, anhd the other 1 % are so rich that they cannot spend their wealth ­ and dominated by the lust of power, have enslaved mankind with a brutality more ruthless than the law of the jungle.
Those who dominate finance and governments are relatively few. An examination of the directories of the banks, the insurance companies, the trustee, mortgage and similar companies, the exector companies (they have got you even after you are dead), the press, transport and amusement companies show that the same names consistently are found. Either personally, or through dummies or representatives, these financial barons and lords of mankind completely dominate the lives of civilized communities. Wealth comes to them as simply and as automatically as a river flows from the mountains to the sea.
The so-called governments are impotent ­ money talks: and is obeyed ­ and unhappiness, material and cultural poverty, squalor, disease and misery stalk through the land.
Uneducated and diseased children (through malnutrition) cannot be treated, educated or suitably fed to make them fit for happiness and competent to render service to the community.
We are always told that "there is not enough money." There is money enough now, in fact, to greatly ameliorate these conditions, and there can be and there must be money enough if civilization is to survive. How much spending power there logically should be Major Douglas has clearly shown. We need a monetary system that will be a reflex of the great realities. The immediate real need is credit for consumption.
Thus it has been made clear that wealth and purchasing power is migrating from industry to the financial system. The wealthy become wealthier, but the purchasing power becomes "frozen," for it is not in the form of debentures and shares, which are held as wealth, and not spent as purchasing power.
The Australian Government has carefully safeguarded the right to issue legal tender. But there has developed another form of money ­ the cheque system, which is operated by the banks. This has displaced the authorized currency for most financial transactions, til the latter is used chiefly for petty cash and hand transactions.
Early in the history of banking it was found unnecessary to move metallic money from one bank vault to another ­ the customers merely transferred book entries from one bank account to another. Thus the principle was established that releasing a debt is equivalent to making a payment.
However, for some time the amount on the leger was always equal to the money in the vaults.
It was soon found, however, that only a small proportion of the real money was required to meet the needs of the banks' customers. Then the banks initiated the present credit system by allowing the amounts in the bank's ledger to be greater than the money in the bank. The bank thus made "advances" to customers and charged interest upon it, or discounted or "cashed" the promissory notes of its customers.
Some bank officials at that time were punished for malfeasance for this departure from honest banking, but the principle was established that this could be successfully done. At the same time, it paid the banks well and gave them tremendous power over industry, to be used in its exploitation by the banks and their allies.
Since the money thus made available soon returned to the banks as the deposits of those who were paid, it soon became obvious that credit could be inflated to the limits of the capactiyu of the people to trust the banks, and to the limits of the bank to make profits by this credit inflation without destroying the trust of the people.
No government has ever controlled this extension of credit, partly because banks soon were able to finance governments by providing purchasing power, of which there has for many yuears been an obvious shortage. If a government had tried to control them, the financial interests, by a withdrawal or refusal of credit, could have destroyed that government.
Thus credit originated in production of an article. It was destroyed when it was consumed. But in the meantime it becaue purchasing power regulated by the needs of the goods to be produced, and the greater the credit the greater was the market for the sale of goods. Credit remained all the time in existence, and increased in amount, because more goods were created than consumed.
But the banker need not advance credit ­ he advances it only where it suits the bank, not to the actual vital needs of industry, or the potentialities of the people to consume goods.
And one would not totally blame the banker while he is legally allowed to treat money as a commodity, and while he is allowed to create and lend the crediut which many believe is not his property but really the propert of all the people ­ i.e., the nation.
While the world's leading economists are not agreed as to procedure, in Britain: Douglas, Kelon, McKenna, d'Abernon, Keynes, Stamp and Blackett; in Sweden: Cassell; in U.S.A.: Kemmerer, Fisher and Ostrolenck, all agree that a managed currency is both necessary and inevitable.
Many of them agree that the power of the private banks to make credit in addition to the State credit should be limited ­ some, chiefly Douglas, believing that it is the sole right of the State.
One should beware of the professional economists as their judgment is liable to be biased by the retaining fees they obtain as advisers to banks and financial institutions.
In his book, "Credit, Power and Democracy," Major C. H. Douglas states (and you must understand this before proceeding further): --
(1) "The only sane limit to the issue of credit for use as purchasing power is the limit imposed by ability to deliver the goods for which it forms an effective demand, providing that the community agrees to their manufacture" and
(2) "The business of a modern and effective financial system is to issue credit to the consumer, uip to the limit of the productive capacity of the producer, so that either the consumer's real demand is satiated, or the producer's capacity is exhausted, whichever happens first." It will be noted that Douglas issues credit to the consumer. This is Credit for Consumption, a new conception made necessary because we have mastered the problems of production, and cannot consume our products.
Now the consumer is (a) the ordinary wage earner or owner of or shareholder in a business who at present gets the basic wage or more,m (b) or the less than basic wage earner, (c) or their dependents, (d) or those who for some reason cannot take part in the actual supply of goods and services to the community, but who must nevertheless obtain the products of industry.
Here it must be noted that of the people in Victoria receiving salaries, two-fifths get less than £1 per week, three-quarters get less than £3 per week, and one-tenth get more than £5 per week.
So Major Douglas would make the issue of credit a matter for the Government, and not for the Banking System, and says that credit is to be issued to the "Consumer, up to the limit of the productive capacity of the producer, provided that the community agrees to their manufacture."
Now how much more production would take place, and how many more things would be bought, if there was more purchasing power in the hands of those who are at present poor (and most people are relatively poor compared to what they could be) one could not say; it would be enormous.
But obviously if the people had purchasing pwer, there would be a decrease in the hours they would work. Indeed it can be shown that the need for work is much less than we at present think, and the urge for that leisure (which is our right) to acquire physical, mental and spiritual culture, would be tremendous when we become free of the fetters of finance.
So, while I do not propose to say how much credit could be issued, I will start byu asking you two questions concerning the proposals of Major Douglas:--
1. Could every adult spend £1 per week more, and every child 10s., if these amounts were made available every week as national credit, free of interest, as book entries in an account opened for everyone in the Commonwealth Bank or any of the present banks?
2. Assuming they did have this purchasing power of £1 a week for every adult and 10s. a week for every child, could industry supply enough goods and services to meet the demand of this new purchasing power?
You must agree that this extra purchasing power would hardly upset industry at all. Perhaps all the unemployed willing to work would soon be employed, but organized industry would soon adjust itself to this addition to spending power, and the need for industrial and social planning would be more effectively recognized.
It has been very frequently stated during the past fifteen years or so that there is no escape from inexorable economic laws.
As a matter of fact, there are no inexorable economic laws with which I am familiar; they are practically all conventions. What we call an economic law is what happens if you agree to pursue certain ends in industrial, economic, and social organisations governed by certain conventions. That is about all that so-called economic laws amount to.
For instance, we say at the present time that one of the troubles which assails the present economic system is what we call the problem of unemployment. When we say that the problem of unemployment is one of the major features of the crisis at the present time we are, at any rate unconsciously, if not consciously, suggesting that one of the objectives of a policy, of an economic system, is to provide employment.
It may possibly be true - I do not myself think there is a grain of truth in it whatever - it is conceivable that you might want to run an economic system for the purpose of providing employment. If you wanted to run an economic system for the purpose that you would have to do to rectify the present position of providing employment, quite obviously the first thing - the only sensible thing to do - would be, as far as possible, to put the clock back about two hundred or three hundred years.
You would destroy as far as possible all your labour-saving machines; you would cease to use the power which you have developed from water and otherwise, and you would revert to handicraft, and in doing the handicraft you would avoid, as far as possible, the use of any tools which would facilitate that handicraft. You would do everything as laboriously as possible, and you would undoubtedly solve the unemployment problem.
Everyone would undoubtedly have to work very hard indeed to get a living.
That simple idea, as a matter of fact, was the first idea that struck the Russians when they made the Revolution of 1917. The first thing they did was to remove, or in some cases imprison, their scientists and their organisers. They said they did not want them: they said they wanted the population to work, and they got them to work quite easily.
You must make up your mind whether you want to provide leisure, by an economic system, accompanied by goods and services producing what we call a high standard of living with an increasing amount of leisure, or, conversely, you must admit that what you want to do is to provide employment, in which case your policy is exactly opposite.
Having put the matter to you in the way I did you will practically all have decided that we do not want to produce for the sake of producing, but that we do want to deliver goods and services - that what we want from the economic system is goods and services to provide a high standard of living
Now, if you do agree with me, for the sake of hypothesis we will say, that the only object of an economic system is to deliver goods and services to the population concerned, with the minimum amount of trouble and friction to anybody, then the next thing to do is to analyse whether that is possible, to what extent it is possible, and what, if anything, interferes with carrying out your plans.
Now, at this point you have to make - not a mental effort - but an effort of self-demesmerisation. I want you to demesmerise yourselves from the idea that money is the same thing as wealth and goods and services. You say that you cannot get goods and services without having money. That does not mean to say that those two things are the same; they are not.
I want you to separate them in your minds and to look with a clear and unbiased eye at the purely physical side of the production system today.
Can you imagine yourself, if you had sufficient money, going to any shop for any article that you can conceive of and not getting it? Is there any requirement of common use in the world today of which you could tell me that there is a definite physical shortage? If you can, I shall be interested.
I can tell you, conversely, of a long string of articles which are actually greatly surplus to the actual requirements of the world at the present time. For instance, to take a very simple instance, more coffee was wilfully destroyed in Brazil during the past year than would have provided the whole coffee-drinking population of the world with all the coffee they wanted.
The same thing is true of practically every staple article of which you can think. There is too much rubber: there is more rubber than we can at the moment use. They are making elaborate preparations in the United States to pay quite a large bonus for NOT growing wheat. The same thing is happening in the Southern States of America in regard to cotton.
In almost every direction in which you can turn you will find evidence of overflowing - either actual or potential - and easily realisable physical wealth to such an extent that it is quite impossible for anybody who knows anything about the subject at all to avoid the conclusion that physical plenty and complete freedom from economic trouble associated with bed, board, and clothes, is literally waiting at the door of everyone of us if we realised it. That is the physical fact.
So that it is not to the physical side of the production process that we have to turn when we want to find out why it is and what are the difficulties which prevent us from realising the objective that I suggested we wanted to realise, and that is sufficient goods and services for everybody with a minimum of trouble to everybody. It is not on the physical side that we shall find the difficulty.
Where do we "go off the rails?" as we might say, in endeavouring to reach this objective.
What is happening which is not in line with this objective that we have decided we want to reach?
Well, first of all I will just deal with a few points which I think you will recognise as existing at the present time. We have surplus - by which I mean unpurchasable, not necessarily unnecessary - but unpurchasable production. We know that is so, and that it is being destroyed in many cases. We have consequent unemployment as the phrase goes because no further production is for the moment necessary; but that consequent unemployment can be translated into the words "surplus productive capacity."
If we have a large number of unemployed producers, then, quite obviously, we have a surplus productive capacity which is not being drawn upon, so that, in addition to the actual surplus production, we have evidence all over the world of surplus productive capacity.
Now, the third, a symptom which we have at the present time, is consequent poverty, consequent on unemployment according to this phrase. Remember that I translated unemployment in this connection as surplus productive capacity, and we have the curious but quite undeniable result of surplus productive capacity, that we have poverty. It is an extraordinary thing that it is possible to have poverty as the result of surplus productive capacity; but that is exactly what we have got.
Now I will translate poverty again into something which you will agree is the correct translation. Poverty is lack of sufficient purchasing power accompanied by economic need.
I think that if you will think that over you will find it quite impossible to deny that translation. The next thing that we have is redundant machinery and plant; that is to say, we have mills and factories and farms and fields, all of which are there and could be made to produce a great deal more than they do produce. That so- called redundant machinery and plant can also again be translated into surplus productive capacity.
Now what is the result of surplus productive capacity in plant and in agriculture and so forth?
It is another phase of exactly what we found in regard to surplus labour capacity. It results in consequent cut-throat competition to sell at prices which are unremunerative - and when I say unremunerative, I mean that they do not provide any purchasing power to the people who are producing. That is what that means; nothing else.
When we say that the production of an article is unremunerative we do not mean to say that nobody wants the article; we simply mean that according to the conventions under which we produce that article, the person who produces it does not get any purchasing power as a result.
Now the next thing, which is of course the same extension of that, is the disappearance of industrial profits
Now then, let us assume - and I believe it is quite impossible to deny - that it is not physical poverty which is afflicting us: it is lack of. purchasing power which is preventing us from getting the physical riches which are waiting to our hands.
What is this thing that I am talking about as purchasing power? Well, of course, in one sense any of you could answer that. What you want for purchasing power is money in your pocket, and that, of course, does not get us very far - an answer like that.
What is the nature of purchasing power, and what is the nature of this thing-money?
There is a very good definition of money which I will give you first of all.
Quite an orthodox definition which will not be denied by anybody who knows anything about the subject, and that is that "money is anything, no matter of what it is made, nor why people want it, which no one will refuse in exchange for his goods if he is a willing seller."
You will see that that definition immediately rules out anything specific of which money has to be made. Money is not, for instance, gold or silver, or any of those things. Those things may be money, but money is in no sense confined to any particular metal.
Now, thinking that over, it ought at once to occur to anybody that if, under certain circumstances, anything will do for money that there ought to be no shortage of money. If money had to be made of gold, and if there was only so much gold in the world as presumably there is - I believe there is only a block of gold about forty feet cubed which is all the existing gold in the world today that has been mined during the past two thousand years - and we cannot do without purchasing power, we should be in a difficult position, obviously.
But when we say that money is anything, no matter of what it is made nor why people want it, that no one will refuse for his goods, then we are getting into quite a different region.
Money is something that acts as what we call "effective demand."
Something which people will exchange, will take in exchange, for the goods that they want to dispose of.
Now let me draw your attention to what you might call the simplest form of effective demand with which you are probably acquainted, and that is a railway ticket.
A railway ticket is effective demand for a journey: for the journey which is described on the ticket. That is exactly what a railway ticket is. How does a railway ticket differ from a one-pound note? A railway ticket is effective demand for one particular thing, and that is a railway journey. A one-pound note is a ticket which is effective demand for anything which has the figure of £1 marked on it in the form of price. They are both tickets. There is no difference in nature whatever between a ticket which is good for transportation and a ticket which is good for anything else, except that one of them has a universal purchasing power and the other only has a limited purchasing power. When you buy a ticket, when you go to the booking office of a railway, you exchange one type of ticket for a more limited type of ticket, and that is all you do in effect.
Now, supposing that you imagined that the whole of this productive system which we have been examining and finding to be so rich, supposing that you imagined it to be all of one kind, and that kind nothing but transportation: that all the wealth of the world, instead of being so diverse in the form of motor-cars, food, houses, and so forth, supposing it were to coalesce into one thing like transportation. Supposing you found that there was any amount of transportation; that there were plenty of railways and plenty of locomotives; plenty of rolling stock and plenty of people to operate the railways; plenty of fuel and so forth; but for some reason a different organisation from the railway had obtained control of the issue of all the tickets which were required to travel on the railway, and if you were quite sure that there was a great deal of distress in the world and if everything appeared to be going wrong, and you were quite clear that it was for lack of transportation facilities and yet you knew that there were plenty of transportation facilities, you would naturally say, without very much waste of time:
"What has happened to the ticket system? How is it that we cannot get the tickets on the railway?"
Now exactly that thing has happened to the present economic system. The whole of the productive system has become completely separated from the ticket system that we call the financial or money system.
in the Middle Ages when, as no doubt many of you know, the goldsmiths were the custodians of wealth in a portable form. They had the best strong-rooms. They took care of valuables as well as actual money though, and they gave receipts for the valuables that they took care of.
Now, those goldsmiths' receipts were signed by the goldsmith and they came into use in exactly the same way that your one or five- pound notes are in use. The goldsmith's receipts, signed by the goldsmith, are the lineal ancestors of our modern banknotes, and the signature which you will find on the bottom right-hand corner of a bank-note in almost any country is simply a continuation of the custom of the goldsmith to sign that receipt on the bottom right- hand corner.
Those receipts were receipts for wealth, and they were not issued by the people who owned the wealth: they were issued by the custodians of the wealth, which was quite a different matter.
You got at that point a separation of the issue of these things that we call money from the wealth-producing centre; you got a separate centre which did not produce wealth at all - it simply took care of it under those conditions.
Now that condition was continuous up to a very short time ago, practically up to the beginning of the European War, and the convention was that either a bank-note or a cheque on a deposit - which was simply an order to a goldsmith to pay so much to somebody else, which is exactly what was done in the old days - when both of those things, the bank-note or the cheque, were supposedly cashable at any time in tangible wealth at the bank.
The idea was that the bank was a custodian of a certain amount of tangible wealth, and that could be drawn out by means either of a bank-note, which was payable on demand, or by a cheque, and the actual tangible wealth could be taken away. That was the convention. There is an idea put forward by people, who ought to know better, at the present time, that banking is that sort of thing now. It is nothing like that, as I propose to show you.
Well, now, there used to be, of course, a lot of bank failures, even in Great Britain, and those banks failed because people suddenly decided, all at once, to draw out the things for which they had orders on the bank in the form of bank-notes or cheques, and when they all tried to draw out at once they found it was not there. That is what happened.
It never was there; it never has been there for at least a hundred years. The bank has never consisted, in the last hundred years, of merely handing out at one end of the counter what was put in at the other. No bank ever paid a dividend in the last hundred years on the process of merely lending that which it took in. There is no possible doubt at all about this thing.
I sometimes wonder why it is that certain protagonists - certain defenders of the present banking system - go on arguing about this matter. There is no possible doubt about it. There are any number of authorities who are all agreed about it, and one of them is the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you will turn up the article on "Banking" in the Encyclopedia Britannica you will find this written: "Banks lend by creating the means of payment." Not merely by lending the means of payment, but by CREATING the means of payment.
Nowadays the banking system is a. mechanism for actually creating purchasing power, and is a separate organisation from the producing system, which is controlled by the ticket system, and it is there that you have to look for the lack of purchasing power and for the means to put right this lack of purchasing power.
Now, what is it that we have to do to put right the lack of purchasing power, assuming for the moment that we have the power to do it? That is a separate story. But, assuming for the moment that we have the power, what is it that we want to do?
There are two sides to this question of a ticket representing something that we can call, if we like, a value. There is the ticket itself - the money which forms the thing we call "effective demand" - and there is something we call a price opposite to it.
If we have a one-pound note as a certain value dependent on the price against which it is offered, we can generalise that by saying this: that the purchasing power of money is inversely proportional to the price level, by which we mean, of course, that if the average of all things that you want to buy goes down, then the purchasing power of money goes up. That is what we mean by saying that the purchasing power of money is inversely proportional to the price level.
Now, if you have a lack of purchasing power there are two things that you can do in regard to it. The first and most obvious thing, but, as so very often happens, not the right thing to do, in regard to it, is to issue more tickets to make up the lack between the purchasing power available and the prices of the goods for same. But if you do that you come up against a difficulty which is well known, and that is that you get a rise in the prices of articles against which the money is offered, because there is nothing to prevent the prices being raised when the sellers find there is more money about
Supposing that you decide that you want to double the purchasing power: you can, as I say, quite obviously double the amount of tickets; but supposing you say,
"Well I will not give those tickets to the public because that will raise prices, I will apply the same amount of purchasing power to the reduction of prices. That is to say, that I will give the purchasing power to the man who produces in the first place to enable him to sell at half price so that the public will then have twice the purchasing power, and the price will be halved. That will reduce the gap between purchasing power and prices, and will not produce a loss to the producer."
Now, it is constantly being stated that that is inflation. Of course, these words are bandied about because there are certain very powerful influences who do not want a change in the financial system - do not want it rectified. No monopoly has ever existed in the world such as the monopoly of credit: the monopoly of those tickets which are producing your effective demand.
No monopoly has ever existed of such far-reaching powers as this monopoly, and it would be absurd for us to say that those who are in possession of that monopoly will not fight to retain it, and therefore you may expect that all possible misrepresentation and confusion, which can be thrown into this matter, will be thrown into it, and is thrown into it, and one of the very favoured devices is to suggest that anything which is a change towards producing more purchasing power is something that is called "inflation."
Well, now, let me define the thing. There is such a thing as inflation: there was inflation in Germany after the War, and in Russia and elsewhere.
Inflation is an increase in the number of tickets accompanied, mark you, by a corresponding increase in prices so that both price and effective demand are equally raised, and the purchasing power in that case is decreased.
That is true inflation, and simply amounts to a tax upon those people who already have purchasing power because their purchasing power, owing to the rise of prices which is produced by true inflation, will buy less. They are simply taxed to the extent of the inflation, and that is exactly the thing which the orthodox economists and the bankers are asking to take place at the present time when they say that what is required is a rise in prices.
So that we are at one with those people who say that inflation is to be avoided.
Now a rise in purchasing power accompanied by a fall in prices is not inflation - it is an increased purchasing power, which is quite a different thing, and if you do apply credit as we call it - the source from which purchasing power is drawn - to a reduction of prices you cannot produce inflation.
We have had during the past ten or twelve years an absolute demonstration of the fact that it is possible to pay for an article from two sources, thus lowering the price, and not producing inflation. Nobody would suggest that the last few years was a period of inflation, either in Great Britain or even in New Zealand. During that time any number of articles have been sold below cost, and it has been done by the public paying the price of those articles at which they were sold, and the producer, out of his own private reserves, paying the difference and making a loss, and that is a demonstration of paying for an article from two sources and not raising prices.
Now if you can pay for an article from two sources, one of which is the private reserves of the individual, you can certainly pay for an article from two sources when the public credit is there to second it, without raising prices. But, as a matter of fact, while that constitutes a bridge between the lack of purchasing power and the goods which are demonstrably there to be purchased, it does not meet what is one of the increasingly important aspects of the present situation, and that is this:
There exists at the present time an entirely new productive system which has been growing up inevitably in the past seventy-five years.
We are accustomed to look on the productive and economic system as if it was the same thing that Adam Smith talked about one hundred years ago when individuals or small productive concerns - very small productive concerns, chiefly individuals - produced practically all the wealth of the world and exchanged it with each other, and it was probably fairly true to say at that time that "money was a medium of exchange."
Now from the economic point of view in the modem world, an increasing number of people have got nothing to exchange. That increasing number of people are the people that we call the "unemployed." Their labour is not wanted by the present economic system. It has changed from being an individualistic producing system to being what you might call a "pooled co-operative producing system."
The fact that we have not got what we call a "cooperative state" in the Socialist sense does not in the least mean that we have not got a co-operative State in the technical sense. We have got it now - we are all co-operating in making that thing which we call the standard of living. One man makes one thing; another man makes another thing, and those things are no use to these men unless they are pooled and drawn upon by something that we call "effective demand."
So that the modern economic system has completely changed from the system of exchange between individuals to a single wealth-producing system on which we all require to draw from the centre to the circumference, as you might say.
The creation of wealth at the present time is inevitably a co- operative matter. One man, by means of a most ingenious machine, makes a nut and a bolt. That nut and bolt is no good to him by itself - he does not live on nuts and bolts. Some other man has to make some other little bit of machinery, and together with a hundred or two of them, makes up what we call a motor-car. While a motorcar is useful, you cannot live on motor-cars.
Somebody else has to make a lot of things through more ingenious machinery. We have steam-baked bread, machine-baked bread, plumbing and so on, all of which form the single pool of wealth from which we all draw.
Now this single pool of wealth is produced primarily by power and by ingenious kinds of machines. It is not produced primarily by labour at all, and it requires less and less labour to produce it, and from the point of view from which I am looking at the thing, the perfect industrial system will be one which requires no labour at all.
We have not got to that point yet: we are getting there pretty fast if something does not stop us.
We have to recognise that there is an increasing number of people - a number which is bound to increase continuously up to the point where it forms the major portion of the population - which will not be required, for any considerable length of time of their lives, in the economic and productive system at all. That is one of the facts that you have to face along the lines on which we are going - and the proper lines too.
Now then we have to arrange that those people can get goods without being employed. Our objective is not to employ those people but to disemploy them and yet give them the goods
. Now you can do that quite easily by something that we know as the dividend system. If you have a dividend at the present time - if you are the owner of some of those very few shares existing in the world, still paying dividends - you are in fact getting a piece of paper which entitles you to a fraction of the production - not of the particular thing in which you have shares - but of the total production of the world.
We have this pool of wealth, and if we extend this dividend system so that all of us who are not employed can have our dividend warrants, and those who are employed can be paid in addition to being employed, then we would have a state of affairs which exactly parallels the physical facts of the case, and nothing else.
I can well realise that there is need of great mental adjustment to agree to proceed along those lines.
We have developed on the physical and productive sides to a stage which we can quite properly call middle twentieth century. We have not developed in our economic thinking processes, which are middle fourteenth century, and we have got to make up a great deal of lost time in a very short space; but the only way to do that is to clear your minds of any doubt whatever as to what it is you are trying to do.
If you will persist in assuming that the economic system is going to be some sort of governmental system - that all sorts of moral questions as to whether a certain man is worthy to have what you call a dividend, or whether it would be demoralising to him to have a dividend or something of that sort - you are simply introducing into what is an arithmetical proposition all sorts of propositions which have nothing to do with arithmetic at all.
Make up your minds what it is you want your productive and your financial systems to do. Do you want them to be a governmental system? Do you want to make certain conditions which will govern a man getting these things? Do you wish to promote general human happiness or the satisfaction of envy and the power to regulate what the other fellow can own -- because if you do you want to dampen down your producing system; if you want to cut down your producing system, and stop your producers from producing wealth, and your chemists from finding fresh methods of producing wealth, then you had better come out and say it: "We do not want any more wealth; there are quite a number of people in the world who are not worthy of having wealth, and we do not want them to have it."
I think it is very wrong from my point of view, but if you are going to do that sort of thing, be conscious of what you are doing, and do not mix it up with arithmetic - that is the important point.
The difficulties are not at all on the productive side - the problem is not on the productive side at all, nor is it on the administrative side. It has nothing whatever to do, for instance, with the respective merits of administering, let us say, a large productive factory as a nationalised factory or as a private factory - those are questions of administration.
What we do know at the present time, beyond any possibility of doubt, is that whether the administrative system is perfect or not it is producing, not merely all that we can use by our financial system at the present time, but large surpluses, and in my opinion it is nothing less than suicidal to start reorganising an admittedly effective producing system before you have touched upon where the real trouble lies, and that is in the effective demand system, the purchasing power, so that you have to realise that it is neither in the actual processes of production nor in the methods called administration of production, that this trouble lies.
It lies simply and solely in this ticket system which is summed up in the words, "the monopoly of credit," and the monopoly of credit is to all effects and purposes the same thing as the banking system.
Now I do not want to suggest and I never have suggested at any time, that bankers are anything less than ordinary persons of society, so far as 95 per cent, of them are concerned. I make a reservation of 5 per cent. And I wish to say that none of those 5 per cent, are in New Zealand, so that no one can say that I am criticising New Zealand.
But you have to recognise this fact: that this monopoly of credit is, as I say, the most terrific weapon for controlling the bodies and even the souls of the population of this earth, because it is controlled very often by publicity, and as there are various ways of disseminating publicity, it has terrible effects - the fear of the economic system - on the people, and does not only control their bodies, but their very souls to a large extent, and that is not going to be rectified without a very severe struggle.
There are two ways by which the problem can be attacked, and one of those ways has to do with the fact - which I honestly believe - that 95 per cent, of the personnel of the banking system are just ordinary, every-day hardworking business people like anybody else. You can make it clear to that 95 per cent, that they are engaged in a very anti-social business as carried on at the present time, and you can - and I say this with a full appreciation of the implications to be put upon it - drive a wedge between the 95 per cent. and the irreclaimable 5 per cent. (not situated in New Zealand).
That has been done to my certain knowledge in many countries of the world, and there is no doubt at all about it that this cleavage in opinion in regard to this vital question is penetrating into the very highest quarters of financial circles at the present time, and a great deal of pressure is being placed in very high places indeed to get that 5 per cent. to see sense.
I speak with some knowledge of what I am talking about: but I do not believe they will ever make that irreclaimable 5 per cent, see sense.
Then the answer is that they have got to be put out. If they cannot be put out by the pressure of their own associates and subordinates, backed up by an increasingly firm and powerful public opinion, then they have got to be put out by constitutional means: by which I mean they have got to be put out by bringing the powers of politics to bear upon them.
That I put second amongst the methods by which this matter can be achieved.
I am perfectly certain of is that if you unite the powers of governments with the powers of banking before you have changed the banking system, you have got a problem which is doubly difficult to solve.
So that what you have to do, if necessary, is to set the Government against the banks.
That is what has got to be done, but that has only got to be done, in my opinion, second, when all other things have failed, and first of all the pressure ought to be increased from every outside source on those who are in control over this system to see sense, and to realise that any continuation of this present absurd situation - because tragic as it is, it is almost equally absurd - cannot continue for more than a very limited space of time without a world- wide catastrophe, and whether with or without that catastrophe I am certain it cannot continue more than three or four years.
So, as I have said before, I do suggest to those people who are in power in these matters that they have no earthly chance of retaining this position in the control of forces which - very largely by negligence on our part - we have allowed them to usurp, and as they have no chance of retaining it, the sensible thing is to come down before they are brought down, because they are going to be brought down whatever the consequence.
Unless this is done, the consequences to the world at large are too terrible to contemplate.
The financial system is nothing but a ticket system. The ticket system must be made to reflect the actual truth of the productive system and not attempt to control it. Finance must be made to follow industry and business and not control them, and the actual means by which real wealth is produced must be recognised as being largely descended to us from the labours and the genius and the work of very large numbers of inventors, and so forth, who are now dead, and these inventions are the legacy of civilisation and therefore the product of their legacy is something to which we all have a right, and because that is the chief form of production, it is the factor in production which we all of us have a right to share.
Only in that way can this absurd anomaly - this unbelievable anomaly between poverty and tremendous, either actual or potential, plenty - be solved, and if that anomaly, that paradox between poverty and distress on the one hand and potential plenty on the other, is not quickly solved, then the civilisation to which we have devoted such wonderful care, and brought on to the very edge of a golden age, will go down with those of Greece and Rome.
The crisis, the poverty, the mental and physical stress of these times are in a certain sense artificial.
· Many are starving in the midst of plenty.
· It is not goods and services which are lacking, it is the money with which to buy them.
· The 'problem' is described as an 'unemployment' crisis. It's not!
It is this volume of money, and not the amount of available goods, which governs the purchasing power of the general population. In order, for goods to be disposed of in the face of an inadequate supply of purchasing power, prices are driven down, with the result that producers make a loss and their producing plants are put out of action.
While the technical details of this situation are too complex for treatment in a short article, it is accurate to say that ultimately the core of the problem can be put into four words -- "the monopoly of credit," and that the solution of the problem is also contained in four words -- "the distribution of credit."
Put simply, this means:
· The cultural inheritance is the birthright of the community, and forms the main basis of our immense productive capacity. · The financial purchasing power necessary to transfer this production to the members of the community essentially belongs to them and not to the banking system.
· We are all of us entitled not merely by right, but by expediency, (i.e., suited to the end in view) to a large and increasing dividend based not upon work, but upon our inheritance.
· Without that dividend, it is impossible for the economic system to function since it is obviously useless to produce goods if they cannot be used, and the orderly production and distribution of goods depends upon orders backed by money. It is also obvious that If your only method of getting the goods and services which you require was by obtaining cheques from me for the purpose of handing them on to someone else, that so long as I retained the monopoly of writing cheques I should be potentially the owner of everything you and your neighbours could produce.
Although banks have the monopoly of the creation of money, no bank has ever been known to give money away. It lends money: that is its business, and it expects repayment, with interest. In consequence, there is a certain volume of money flowing out from the banks in the form of loans, and a certain volume of money always returning to the banks in the form of repayment of loans.
It is this volume of money, and not the amount of available goods, which governs the purchasing power of the general population. In order, quite ineffectively, to enable goods to be disposed of in the face of an inadequate supply of purchasing power, prices are driven down, with the result that producers make a loss and their producing plants are put out of action.
While the technical details of this situation are too complex for treatment in a short article, it is accurate to say that ultimately the core of the problem can be put into four words - "the monopoly of credit," and that the solution of the problem is also contained in four words - "the distribution of credit."
Put into language which anyone can understand, this means that just as the cultural inheritance, to which I previously referred, is the birthright of the community and forms the main basis of our immense productive capacity, so the financial purchasing power necessary to transfer this production to the members of the community essentially belongs to them and not to the banking system.
We are all of us entitled not merely by right, but by expediency, to a large and increasing dividend based not upon work, but upon our inheritance, and without that dividend it is impossible for the economic system to function since it is obviously useless to produce goods if they cannot be used, and the orderly production and distribution of goods depends upon orders backed by money.
If our present civilisation survives the growing stresses and strains which are being placed upon it by an ineffective monetary system, future generations will owe a great debt to such individuals as Mr. Montagu Norman, the present Governor of the Bank of England. For he has succeeded in demonstrating, even to the more public spirited amongst our bankers, that the banking mentality is conspicuously unsuitable for the position of immense power in which circumstances have combined to place it.
Neither a change of system nor a change of personnel by itself is sufficient, and in the last resort the issue lies in the outcome of a conflict between reactionary financiers and the general population.
Not only do we require a radical modification in the credit and financial system, but this modification requires for its operation a type of mentality which is capable of distinguishing facts from figures.
If our civilisation can provide both this change of system and the personnel to operate it, we can pass within a short period of time into, at any rate, an economic millennium.
· Organisers, scientists and engineers have been engaged for hundreds of years, in successfully producing this so-called 'unemployment' crisis.
· The so-called 'problem' is really the transfer of economic labor from the backs of men on to the backs of machines.
· We have been trying to do it for centuries, and have succeeded!
· The machines are capable of making the goods, but the unemployed lack the money to buy.
· Our situation should be one of freedom and leisure, but is disguised as one of 'economic catastrophe'.
· The actual and potential wealth of the world is far beyond the requirements of the highest standard of living -- for the whole of the population.
· Why do our politicians and 'inspired' press keep harping that we cannot afford even our present standard of living, that our taxes must be increased?
· Why do they keep harping we must work harder and our social services must be curtailed? Why do they keep insisting our wages must be lowered? Sound familiar?
· Which, in effect, means: more taxes and lower wages.
· Which equals: less money to spend and we draw less upon the real wealth of the country.
The two claims cannot both be right:
· First, that the world is rich and getting richer (which is the claim of the engineer and the scientist).
· Second: On the other hand, that it is poor and getting poorer (which is the claim of the financier and his protagonist, the orthodox politician).
· (Both claims cannot at one and the same time be true.)
· The man in the street is finally arriving at the conclusion; the scientist is right, and the financier is wrong!
Steps toward understanding:
How is it that the financial system presents a fictitious picture of poverty when, in fact, there is no fundamental poverty anywhere?
Do you realise that when you make goods or grow food - you do not make the money with which to buy the goods that you have made, or the food that you have grown?
The greatest factor in the creation of real wealth is the cultural inheritance of civilisation --scientific knowledge, tools, processes, organisation, and so forth.
Then comes raw materials, and especially solar energy, and of diminishing importance, is that of labour.
This cultural inheritance is beyond dispute the birthright of the whole community and not of any section of it.
The money which is required to distribute this real wealth comes from an entirely different quarter.
It is actually made by the banks, and the ownership of it is claimed by the banks.
The process is mainly a book-keeping process and has been epitomised by an historically well-known banker -- the Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna -- in the words:
"Every bank loan and the purchase of every security creates a deposit, and the repayment of every bank loan and the sale of a security destroys a deposit."
Suppose you grew a ton of potatoes, and I wrote you out a cheque for £5 (remember this was written in the 1920s) and took your potatoes. If you were willing to accept my cheque indefinitely, it is obvious that as fast as you grew potatoes I could come into possession of them by writing out cheques for them.
If your only method of getting the goods and services which you require was by obtaining cheques from me for the purpose of handing them on to someone else, so long as I retained the monopoly of writing cheques, I should be potentially the owner of everything you and your neighbours could produce.
Although banks have the monopoly of the creation of money, no bank has ever been known to give money away. It lends money: that is its business, and it expects repayment, with interest.
In consequence, there is a certain volume of money flowing out from the banks in the form of loans, and a certain volume of money always returning to the banks. What flows from the banks is the amount of loans. What flows back to the banks is the amount of the loans plus compound interest.
End of Douglas quote.
I personally think that the first national dividend could be at least £2 weekly for adults and £1 for children, but if we made it £1 and 10s. for a start we could bring in "douglas Social Credit" and an era of freedom, prosperity and happiness in which many lines of credit would disappear from facts, and the bloody revolution which the Communist regards as necesessery to bring about
1. The Married Woman, Sick People, Pensioners, etc., are as much entitled to money of their own from industry as the soldier behind the front line is entitled to and gets as much as the man at the front. We do not kill our unfit as the animals do. In the national dividend they would, to a degree, achieve a standard of freedom from what is often pretty close to slavery. Only women themselves know what this freedom, with all its implications, could mean to them. This money is their right.
2. Children.-- There are three basic rights that children can logically demand from the "Cultural Heriage of the Past" while they compulsorily prepare to become producers of goods and services: -- (a) Health in its fullest sense -- dental, medical and mental. (b) Education in its fullest sense, wich includes free education to University standard on a competitive basis, and philosophical education in addition to education for the needs of the material world. (c) Sustenance in its fullest sense. (It is starvation for instance, for a child which needs a mother's care to be deprived of it.)
3. Housing. -- Very shortly every householder from the national credit would be able to buy or build his own house.
The drab semi-slums of our industrial suburbs will soon disappear, and almost everyone who wanted a better house could get it. THe results of this on building and allied industries, and the health of the community, I leave to my reader's imagination.
Simultaneously, those who are living on the community by owning homes for renting would, in time, be obliged to sell their houses, or they could not let them. Amounts of money would thus become available for the capital expansion of industry, which would become nexessary. Any cases of hardship occuring fromthis could be met from the national dividend.
4. Conditions and Hours of Labour (The Alleged "Class Struggle").-- The creation of the national dividend would at the same time stimulate efficiency in industry, due to the intense competition that would follow, and make the employed class so much in demand, and so free, that many jobs now laboriously done by hand would ahve to be done by machinery. Labour would work for those employers who offered the most humanity in, and pleasant conditions of, labour.
It is pretty certain that six hours a day, five days a week, would more than meet the desires of the community to work.
The efficient and human, who at the present time cannot get capital enough to go into business, would be able to do so. Freed capital would be looking for suitable executives to trust it to in industry. So everyone would be able to find the position where he or she could express and develop his or her personality and capacity best in the service of society.
Those who cause war do not run vertically in nations, but horizontally through a stratum of all nations. These human vampires do not worry about the nationality fo the mothers who send their sons to be "cannon fodder." They are concerned with the profits that can be made during the wars and from the decrease in, and, later, increase in, the value of industrial shares, etc. For when poverty and misery and wholesale slaughter are the order of the day, the profits from munitions and war materials can be invested best. The shares of industry are then purchasable at the lowest terms, to be sold or exploited later at an enormous profit. The millions of British capitalinvested in the last few years in Japan indicates that capital is international. The poverty of Lancashire and the industrial slavery of the Japanese workers are necessary incidentals to the great god Profit.
The threat of war is due to the inevitable workings to its logical conclusion of the presenent financial system.
Every country producing more than it can consume is trying to export more than it imports.
Consequently one county extends credit to another with which to buy the leanding country's goods.
Spheres of influence are schemed for to gain power to force loans upon others -- resistance to the acceptance of laons develops -- power concentrates in the hands of those who create large credits (which are the entries, not realities). -- and the stage is set for the war mongers, the "cannon fodder," the flame throwers, the "death ray" and the killing of civil populations with bacteria.
So every mother and father of sons who want to prevent them from fighting for they know-not-what, who want to prevent national jealousies and misunderstandings being deliberately fostered by the war mongers to have their sons murdered and maimed and brutalised on the alter of Mars, had better realize that the power of finance lies in the control of credit. This credit belongs to the people. And the people want peace, not war.
There are issues and principles for which honest men will fight, but to fight imperialistic wars, at the will and for the profit of high finance, is so incredibly mad that the inherent sanity of mankind must be mobilised to forbid it and prevent the collapse of civilization. THe Communist points out that one can only oppose force by force. This is correct -- let it be the enlightened intellectual power of man: not physical force.
The Treasury officials could easily prevent inflation if Government policy dictated a national dividend.
To prevent prices rising and inflation occuring when the national dividend is declared and there is more purchasing power, Major Dougals has devised a very simple expedient This is called assisted price for regestired businesses." [Note from Dick Eastman: In my variation, anti-trust and greatly increased ease of market entry due to rollback off all "regulation" the real purpose of which has been to drive out competitors and to keep competitiors from starting up -- and removal of taxes on small business and - the forcing of balanced trade so that exports do not crowd out domestic production -- in short all removal of everything that favors the international corporation over the small domestic business will be removed -- making higher prices only temporary and none-inflationary as this new demand calls forth new supply. This will make unnecessary the expedience of price controls described the Australian pamphlet here presented. -- Dick Eastman]
How "assisted price for registered business operates is thus:
[ Let me explain this before you read the pamphlet explanation. To keep sellers from simply capturing the new social credit purchasing power by raising prices through monopoly power and collusion among a few big sellers -- the state will have a voluntary system whereby sellers can have their books audited to ensure that their profits are not excessive -- application of the already existing economic analysis for prosecution of anti-monopoly pricing -- with those passing the test getting a sticker to put in the window and a special kind of approved recepit which when given to the buyer enables the buyer to go to his bank and receive a social credit crediting of 25 % of the amount of sale to their account -- which they can then go out and spend anywhere they want. This way the social credit amount does not go to the seller who raises his prices, but to the seller who lowers his prices to attract the added purchasing power created after each sale is made. Now back to the pamphlet.}
An announcement would be published that any or all business undertakings will be accepted for registration under the assisted price scheme. Those businesses which join this "assisted price" scheme will do two things: --
1. They will agree with Governemnt to regulate their prices so that they will make an equitable profit. (Competition would exist as at present.)
2. They will then receive from the Government (a) a sign (such as the "Blue Eagle" of the N.R.A. in America), and (b) a book of official receipt forms.
Anyone buying in a "Blue Eagle" shop will receive a Government official receipt for the amount of the purchase These he will lodge with his bank, and his bank account will be increased by the 25% (or more) of the amount of his purchase. (Thus for every £1 worth of goods purchased the buyer will have his bank account increased by 5s.) [Note: Twenty shillings to the pound.] Totalling these receipts would be done by automatic machinery.
This simple arrangement would cause all businesses to obain the Blue Eagle sign by becoming a registered business for the "assisted price," and inflation would be prevented.
N.B. -- Credit could be created ultimately equal to and backed by the totl wealth of the nation in all its forms. It is partically created now by the banks backed by part of the same security.
The 1933 Commonwealth Year Book estimates the private walth of Australia at £3,350,000,000, and to this can be added the complete areas of productive land not yet alienated, other forms of wealth such as the untapped mineral and oil resources, forests, the possibilities of hydro-electric development, the extension of irrigation and intensive cultivation, and the use of our own raw materials in our own secondary industries.
The discount rate of 25% or more is another way of distributing the naitonal credit and based upon the fact that Major Douglas has pointed out that the money distributed as purchasing power in the manufacture, distribution and sale of any single article is insufficient by this 25% or more to purchase it. [To to leakage of interest payments to the financial sector over and above the muutally cancelling flows of loans injected and principal withdrawn in repayment.] If this contention of Douglas' were not correct still this is a fair method of distributing national dividend.
[Once again the 2010 American plan differs from the Douglas plan in that it favors total repudiation of all debt to international criminal finance. Yes, we would destroy our credit with them because we would never again resort to them for money. We do so on the principle that fraud vitiates all contracts and the Usuary system has been completely fraudulent. Furthermore for the great crimes of the last two hundred years require restitution at least to the tune of all the debt that is owed high finance. And so back to the pamphlet:]
The effects of the Douglas proposals on these would be such that immoral debts would gradually disappear, and only those which were based upon service to the community and upon humanity would be "honored." Any cases of hardship occuring would be met from the national debt.
Bank shareholders, etc., and those who have paid sums into insurance companies would, if necessaryt, eaily be fully reimbursed from the naitonal dividend if their investments from these depreciated in value. The present assets of the banks are much greater than their called-up capital.
The need for experts in finance would be such that the services of bank officials, etc. would be more keenly sought after than at present. So the ordianry banking official need not fear. He has to be and is as honest as most of us. It is the banking and financial syem that is anti-social, not the banker.
The system described for you, or some system similar, is so incontrovertible and logical that you, or some system similar, will thus destroy poverty, or poverty will destroy civilization. Alternatively, the bloody revolution of the Communist will be inevitable, and sooner than many think.
As the powers of finance could dominate the military and police forces of governments the horrors of revolution cannot be contemplated by ordinary people. We know the ruthlessness of "high finance."
The ballot box is the last logical weapon in British communities, and before the kings of finance, under the pretext of nation security remove the vote from us, to be replaced by an autocrat, the tool of high finance, it is the duty of every right thinking citizen to use his vote to kill the octopus of finance that threatens to completely strangle human freedom and enslave mankind beyond hope of salvation.
But the time is short, prosperity is not round the corner. There is every sign that the world is rapidly progressing to a crisis, with an unprecedented welter of blood and misery.
Major Douglas has created a simple systemthat can bring humanity to man and develop each man's initiative, personality and environment until the best that strives in him can come to the fore.
All books by Major Douglas and other authoritative Social Credit literature can be obtained at
SOCAIL CREDIT PRESS 20 Queen Street, Melbourne, C.1.
Populist Nationalist Social Credit Brotherhood of American Citizen Peacemakers of All Races and Creeds -- This is our Common Ground!!!
Note: I have accepted invitation discuss Social Credit with Kevin Barrett for one hour on his radio program Tuesday December 4th, from 4 to 5 pm U.S. pacific time http://www.mujca.com/airwaves.htm
-- and -- provided I don't do more damage than good on Kevin Barrett's program -- I will be a guest of Deanna Spingola on her populist issues program sometime in January. http://republicbroadcasting.org/ Call In Number:800-313-9443 Monday ­ Friday 1:00 PM ­ 2:00 PM Deanna's website: www.Spingola.com
Social Credit is the message I want to finish up with.
Yours sincerely,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros