The Cross-Roads Talking Point

Political Commentary and Blog


There were two kinds of Capitalist.  One was the Production Capitalist and the other the Finance Capitalist.  It is essential in our thinking that a broad line of distinction should be drawn between the producing capitalist and the finance capitalist, and the vast difference in the respective roles played by each.

Production Capitalism
The producing capitalist—large and small - produced goods and rendered service, and the amazing increase in production over the last 100 years is eloquent tribute to his achievement.  From the point of view of industrial development in all fields along with scientific knowledge, no one will dispute the proposition that the last century has been the most amazing in history.
An age of scarcity gave way to an Age of Abundance. Living standards were raised and hours of toil were reduced in industrialised countries.
Such achievements are a striking monument to the free initiative, enterprise, industry, and driving force of the industrial capitalist, be he small farmer, large industrialist, or medium-sized manufacturer.
Even the most bigoted Socialist, with any sense of fairness, must concede that production capitalism, so far as the production of goods and services are concerned, has done a great job, and brought the world into an era in which the Abundant Life is possible for all the people in every industrialised country.  That this abundant life is not being enjoyed by all is due solely to the fact that finance capitalism has not kept pace with production capitalism.

Finance Capitalism
The free-initiative of industrial capitalism gave us the Age of Plenty. Finance capitalism withheld our monetary claims to it.  A small measure of thought given to the subject should be sufficient to show that the evil, anti-social by-products of the capitalistic system are due entirely to the faults which inhere in finance capitalism.
By finance capitalism is meant the private banking system which controlled/controls monetary policy and governs the issue and cancellation of financial credit.  It is here that we will find the polluted source of social evil which lowers the economic health of the whole community, defeating all the efforts of the producer, the technician, the inventor and the scientist who increased in effort and efficiency but encountered such obstacles to distribution of production.
It is here that governments, municipalities, industry and business go cap in hand to borrow the financial credit which the community really creates, the Social Credit, by its labours and inventions, etc.

Monopoly Capitalism
And now we have Monopoly Capitalism!  That is where Big Business joins with Big Government and both are in cahoots with Big Finance!

Senator Cori Bernardi would have us believe:

“Historically, the Liberal Party has embraced lower taxes, stronger families, free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility as its foundational ethos. These principles are common to most centre-right parties across the Western world.
These principles are not shared by Labor or the Greens and any legislative deal with them would likely come at a heavy price.
That price will probably result in an increase in taxes being described as ‘savings’. It would see more money wasted on international programs, climate change initiatives, domestic social engineering agendas and the like.
We’ll see more attacks on capitalism, enterprise and production under the guise of ‘fairness’ - which is the new mantra of the statist agenda. The Left advocates will ignore the fact that capitalism is the economic model that best secures individual liberty, because they are more interested in growing the influence of the state over individual autonomy.
The siren call of socialism is seductive to sections of the community who are more concerned with getting a personal benefit today and give scant regard for tomorrow. Some politicians will also succumb to the spell, erroneously presuming that clinging to power will justify any means.
History demonstrates that the encroachment of the state in almost every area creates more ills than it cures. Many of those consequences are not felt immediately and this appeals to those who delight in the knowledge that a broken system will have to be fixed by someone else.
And so the Liberal government faces a pincer movement of sorts: on one side a crossbench with protectionist tendencies, and on the other a ‘mainstream’ Opposition with eerily similar views. Neither will be able to deliver what the country needs in terms of rebuilding our economy, shrinking the size of government, creating jobs and building a sustainable future for all Australians.
Whilst it may be tempting for the government to accede to the anti-market agenda in the hope of getting a few wins on the board, to do so would ultimately deliver worse outcomes for everyday Australians and our country.
It may also have significant implications for the future of the Liberal Party itself…”

But as long as he refuses to consider what the present financial policies are doing to this nation he really is no better than those he criticises.


“Distributism is often associated with bucolic scenes and G.K. Chesterton’s encomiums of a landed peasantry. Thus, the casual observer might be left with the notion that Distributism is something of a relic, with nothing to say to the high-tech world we have become. But nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, Distributism is, to date, the only articulated answer to a particular problem that advanced technology has brought upon us.... “
August 22, 2016:

Wallace Klinck
I have posted the following comment to the “Distributist Review”, August 23, 2016
There appear to be some very serious misconceptions being expressed here:
(1) The purpose of a rational economy is not to create work, i.e, “jobs”, but rather to produce goods and services for society as, when and where required with maximum efficiency and an absolute minimum of inconvenience for all concerned. Perverting the economy to create work, rather than eliminate it, is irrational, entrenches inefficiency and derives from the false and domineering philosophy known as “Puritanism”, i.e., the desire for power over individual human activity. At worst it is the basis of tyranny; at best it is pure superstition.
(2) It is wrongly implied that a form of profit-sharing from the proceeds of industrial sales under existing conventions of price-making will ensure that labour derives its “fair” recompense for effort expended on the manufacture of goods or provision of services. This a major and fatal error insofar as it is based upon the false assumption that the price-system is essentially balanced, i.e., that the act of production distributes in each costing cycle sufficient consumer income to liquidate the financial costs of that cycle. This is a scientific, technical or analytic error.
The financial price-system is not only not self-liquidating but increasingly not so as the economy is made more efficient by means of labour-saving and eliminating technology and improved “tools” or real capital. The rate of flow of industrial costs and prices increasingly exceeds the rate of flow of consumer incomes which are required to liquidate the cost of production. Distribution of an increasing insufficiency cannot make a sufficiency.
(3) Labour does not create all wealth and works with tools originating in past discovery and development to create both more consumer wealth and real capital or “tools”. Indeed, in the modern economy labour or human energy plays an increasingly diminishing role in production, per se. The notion that all wealth derives from labour is grossly in error and is Marxist in nature. The production of consumer and capital goods derives from the interplay of energy provided by nature, materials provided by nature, capital tools provided from past production and decreasingly from the input of human energy. This productivity is enormously assisted by knowledge and technique which has accumulated from the mists of history and has become what we call the “cultural heritage” which cannot be claimed by any individuals or classes and belongs to society as a whole. Labour from the past becomes crystallized capital which itself takes on over the passage of time a productive force of its own and becomes a relatively greater factor in production relative to human labour.
(4) The assumed fact that “labour” is insufficiently rewarded is true only insofar as it is true also of all citizens which are entitled in aggregate to access the full flow of consumer goods as these emerge from the production line. Labour deserves it own remuneration but all citizens including labour are entitled to an inalienable and equal share or inheritance in the wealth that has been made possible by the “cultural heritage”. The existing financial methods of industrial costing and national accountancy have no mechanisms by which to deliver this inheritance or what we might call the “wages of the machine” to the community at large.
(5) Currently, distribution is partially effected by means of earned incomes which are grossly and increasingly insufficient to purchase the product of industry in any given costing cycle. Costs and prices continue to spiral in excess of wages, salaries and dividends. We endeavour to overcome this difficulty by creating new purchasing-power in the form of bank loans extended to consumers, by increasingly irrelevant, wasteful and even destructive production such as war materials and excess real capital–and for promoting exports in excess of imports. While loans allow goods to be claimed, being a debt they do not finally liquidate the costs of production but merely transfer these as an increasing and inflationary mortgage on future production, which is no liquidation at all. The fundamental economic flaw is that the financial price-system is not self-liquidating and every genuine advance in efficiency which increases the capital component of cost and prices relative to labour costs make it evermore non-self-liquidating.
(6) The primary cause of the economic problem is that the banking system claims ownership of the credits which they create to monetize the wealth of the nation, which wealth they do not create but will foreclose upon in the case of non-performance of a loan. The technical name for this is counterfeiting and governments legalize the process by issuing charters to the banks to issue the nation’s money in this manner as debt only.
(7) Banks do what banks do. This results in accumulating private and public debts which increasingly burden society. What is required is that the Government must issue sufficient money without debt to bridge the widening chasm between consumer prices and incomes. The banks are doing this all the time, although in an irregular manner which causes cumulating debt and pendulum swings in the economy wherein they make large foreclosures when they contract credit and bankrupt both producers and consumers in an alleged attempt to slow or eliminate the inflation which they have caused in the first place by their wrongful claim to ownership of the community’s credit. What has happened is that the banks have appropriated the communal capital which actually belongs to society at large. The consumer is being quite properly charged with capital depreciation but wrongfully not credited with capital appreciation, which greatly exceeds capital depreciation. The solution to the economic conundrum lies in recovery of the communal capital and it restoration to each citizen an inalienable inheritance.
(8) The new consumer credits must be issued without debt, merely being debited from a properly and actuarially determined National Credit Account, being an estimation of the real credit of the nation, i.e, the available natural, capital and human resources which constitute its ability to produce goods and services and which if used might result in prices. These consumer credits must be issued as:
1. National (Consumer) Dividends equally and unconditionally as an inalienable inheritance to all citizens, and
2. to finance Compensated (lowered) Retail Prices at point of sale. Compensated Prices would be determined by application of a universal factor applied to all consumer sales, derived from the ratio of national consumption to national production in any given accounting cycle.
(9) In this manner consumers would always have access to all final production as it flows from the production line, all retailers would be able to recover their costs and repay their outstanding production loans with the banks. Falling prices would reflect actual lowering of real costs through increasing efficiency. Having balanced price-systems nations would no longer seek to compensate an increasing deficiency of purchasing-power by attempting to export more than they import–a practice which is the major cause of war.

Continue reading

CONTINUATION OF: Commonwealth Constitution Act: The Historical and Political Origins of the Current Preamble

The Baconian Phrase:  A Just Relationship between the Mind and Things
In a discussion paper read to the Science and Religion Forum 9 April, 1976 biologist and academic Geoffrey Dobbs noted that Science shares a dimension with Religion beyond the cerebro-verbal plane of academic philosophy, and that is: “namely that of the external world, in that its thoughts and symbols must be ‘bound back’, in detail, to an external, non-cerebral, non-verbal, reality.”
Dobbs insisted:

It is of the essence of the scientific method that theory must constantly be checked by observation and experiment.
It is of the essence of religion that the professed faith must be put to the test of practice, both on the individual scale, and on the more visible, general, social scale.
It is of the essence of words and of symbols of all sorts, that their connection with the referent is indirect – entirely through the human mind, and hence easily confused or diverted or even inverted.

And he saw it as natural enough that a scientist should view with some skepticism and distrust any lengthy or complex verbal process which is not constantly tied back to some observable reality, and to demand of it: “What does this mean in practice?” …
He felt he couldn’t stress this point too strongly.  Unless it is realised that every conception of the universe and of man’s place therein must issue in its resultant policy, it is not possible even to begin to consider, or discuss, or compare, the validity of different conceptions, or to study the vital process of religation (binding back) in any detail or with any understanding.
Expression in Practical Affairs – Binding Back
He believed that if the word ‘religion’ was restricted, as it usually is, to the organised Religions, or to a belief in God, or in the supernatural, those who reject these conceptions and adhere to atheistic, humanist, or materialist beliefs are never challenged to formulate their ideas and to relate them to policy.
He saw the policies which most of these people openly pursue are based upon assumptions about the universe and about man’s place in it which are every whit as much based upon faith as are the more precise statements formulated in the (Christian) Creeds, and called for the nature of this faith to be revealed or exposed.
He insisted:  the world cannot even start to escape from the present confusion, or begin to develop, in the Baconian phrase:  “a just familiarity between the mind and things”.
As for those who were calling for Science subjects to replace Religious subjects in the schools, he noted:  “Science, does not deal with ‘values’, as does Religion, it deals with observable facts. 

The two ‘religions’: Trinitarian Christianity and various forms of Materialism tending towards Anthropotheism, religate (bind back) in widely different ways.
Policies implicit in these various concepts of the universe should be understood, and their religation, or expression in practical affairs, should be studied in detail, and, moreover, studied with integrity and by acute intellects, since the situation is far from simple.
Dogma and Doctrine
Now that ‘dogma’ and ‘doctrine’ have become ‘dirty words’, there are so many vague ideas passing under the name of Christianity that their relegation has become desperately confused; while on the other hand, most of the materialists and evolutionists have never verbally formulated their beliefs at all, so that in practice the only way of arriving at them is to work back from the real policies which they generate.

A further complication arises from the fact that many people suffer from a sort of religious schizophrenia, professing a Christian philosophy which they attempt to religate (bind back) in their ‘private’ lives, while supporting in public affairs an anti-Christian policy, derived, very often, from dialectical materialism which they have absorbed unconsciously through environmental pressure from their colleagues and from the mass media. The individual case, therefore, if not fully analysed, can be very misleading; but, even so, certain broad outlines in the relation between belief and policy can at least be discerned.

Dr. Dobbs full paper can be studied here…

As the new federal parliament gets under way, one does wonder how many members of that parliament will 'humbly rely on the blessing of Almighty God’ and how many Australians will study in more detail the relation between the beliefs and policies of their Representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senators in the Senate, the House of Review....  And most importantly, how many Australians will correspond with their local politician on important issues.  How can they know how to represent your views/interests if you don't let him know?

Continue reading

The Just Price: A Ratio, not a Moral Aspiration by Wallace Klinck

One of the major catastrophes of history was the failure of the Mediaeval Church to grasp the idea that the Just Price was a ratio, not a moral aspiration. 
As a result of this failure, we have lived in a welter of meaningless phrases such as “fair wages”, “reasonable prices”…
Perhaps the most curious psycho-political phenomenon of this odd period is the glorification, by considerable numbers of people whose memory comprises records of a world glut, both of preparations for the onset of an incomparably greater glut, and the imposition of every conceivable hindrance to its absorption.
 - - C.H. Douglas, 1943

A Message to Dr. Ben Carson about his reference to Indiana Governor Mike Pence's "Compassionate Conservatism”:  Wallace Klinck, Canada
Dear Dr. Carson,
“Compassionate Conservatism” sounds like some sort of vague platitude with possibly a connotation of “charity”. Charity may be of good intention in individual cases but most frequently does not adequately address a given circumstance or situation and is extended on a haphazard basis that misses general needs as they arise.  It is, in and of itself, a denial that all organisms have an inherent right in natural law to draw sustenance from their environment merely because they exist by the Grace of God or the fecundity or abundance of nature. “Charity” provided by the State is simply intrusive bureaucratic administration of “welfare” funded by appropriating the resources of citizens by taxation.  Such measures are not in themselves either adequate or appropriate. 
On a macroeconomic level the first essential is to ensure that every individual person has an inheritance in the nation, in the form of increasing economic security and independence. This has a realistic basis in that such an inheritance is comprised of the endless “increments of association” which have from time immemorial accumulated and accrued to constitute a vast and splendid “cultural heritage” of knowledge and technique which has enabled the enormous growing technological efficiencies which have made possible our stupendous productive capacity, accomplished increasingly without human energy input as a factor of production.  Such a “cultural heritage” cannot be designated as belonging to any specific persons or classes of society and its benefits should be equally accessible to all individual citizens—both rich and poor.
The first priority of wise and beneficial statesmanship is to ensure that all citizens participate in the general prosperity by instituting appropriate distributive measures which benefit not only all consumers but also all producers, whose survival depends upon consumers.  To this end it is necessary that 
(1) National Consumer Dividends be paid unconditionally as an inalienable inheritance to all citizens and
(2) Compensated Retail Prices at point of sale be instituted to ensure falling prices as the real (not financial) costs of production are continually reduced by growing technological efficiency. 
A rapidly shrinking work force no longer required for production, because of advances in automation and artificial intelligence, would continue to benefit from its reducing flow of earned income and would with all others enjoy increasingly the benefits of both National Dividends and Compensated Prices.  These measures would not be financed by taxation but would be a mere draft on a National Credit Account representing the realistic capacity of a nation to provide goods and services as, when and where required or desired, i.e, the nation’s "real (as opposed to financial) credit”. “Money” is simply accountancy and what is required is a sound accountancy which represents reality.
The great blessings of modern technology are widely expected, thankfully, to eliminate approximately fifty per cent. of American “jobs” alone within a short period of about twenty years.  This represents enormous productive capacity evermore unrelated to direct human energy input—made possible by previously unimagined increases in productive efficiency. We must therefore move into an increasingly distributive and less acquisitive economic mode.  This must be accomplished through realistic financial measures.  The prospect of requisitioning by taxation the incomes of, e.g., ten per cent of the working population to support the remaining non-working ninety per cent is simply neither economically viable nor conceptually credible. The required financial reforms would obviously eliminate the necessity for consumer debt, in recognition that the real or physical cost of production is met as production occurs.
We should be moving away from such divisive and impossible dialectical categorizations as “Left” and “Right”, which tend to serve the interests and machinations of third parties which thrive on human strife (primarily internationalist banking institutions) and proceed toward doing things that function and are not perpetually dysfunctional because of quite unnecessary conflict and unproductive controversy.
What is needed is a Third Resolvent Factor to solve the perennial paralyzing problem of the Impossible Left-Right Duality.

Continue reading

Looks like the Folk in America are Waking Up!

“You Were Born to do MORE than just go to Work, Pay Bills and Die!” read the headlines of this article mentioning Social Credit and C.H. Douglas:
After Defeat of Swiss Basic Income Proposal, Let’s Name the Real Problems, Find the Real Solution  by The Truth Hound/ Mark Anderson,
The June 5 Swiss ballot proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income—an unconditional allowance for everyone in that neutral Alpine nation—was defeated largely on the basis of the Swiss government’s claim that the idea would “cost too much.”
Reuters added: “Swiss voters rejected by a wide margin . . .  a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for everyone living in the wealthy country after an uneasy debate about the future of work at a time of increasing automation. (Emphasis added).”

Yet, the plutocratic Financial Times acknowledged, “The Swiss may have just voted to reject a proposal for a guaranteed minimum income  . . . but that hardly means the idea is dead. Pilot projects and feasibility studies are in the works across the developed world, from the Netherlands [and Finland] to California. In Canada, the federal Liberals, along with governments in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta have expressed interest in the concept.”

However, the nearly universal misunderstanding of money is a major obstacle. For too long we’ve allowed a small coterie of bankers and “court economists” to hold the secrets and “tutor” us. So, it’s time for total openness.
First, regarding the claim that the Swiss proposal would’ve been too costly, what’s entirely omitted from the discussion is that the proposal (and similar proposals elsewhere) appear to call for re-distribution of existing money—taking money from certain sectors through taxation and re-allocating it to the people at-large. The implication is that the money supply is basically static and that re-distributing limited funds would require tough budget decisions—sparking tax hikes and associated spending increases in several areas; hence the claim “costs too much.”
But a successful basic-income plan can and must be based on the creation of new money, or “distributism,” not on reshuffling existing money, which is “re-distributism.” That’s the “state secret” that no one wants to touch.

The issuance of new money needs to happen to overcome the huge “gap” between today’s paltry purchasing power and the massive mountain of debt and the towering totality of prices on all available goods and services. We have full stores and empty wallets. (Ideally and importantly, governments should reclaim their interest-free money-creation rights and forbid private central banks from creating money any longer).

Given such matters, the social credit movement—rarely mentioned in basic-income circles—took root in the early 20th Century via Scottish engineer-author C.H. Douglas and American academic-author Gorham Munson, among others. As it became widely evident that a basic income to supplement employment earnings was (and still is) needed, social credit proponents were quick to explain their concept of introducing new money to bridge that gap and provide a universal allowance with new money. The amount of money would be equated with production data so empowered consumers could boost overall demand and liquidate inventories, which keep factory orders flowing properly. Yet the amount would not exceed the quantity of available goods, thereby avoiding a type of price inflation.

Our price increases mainly come from the cost-push process, where excessive taxes, interest charges and operational costs are pushed on to the end consumer—meaning that “printing too much money” is not the inflation-causing bogeyman that so many fright artists claim it is. This is especially important to point out, given that the world largely operates on an all-borrowed money supply, wherein new loans are constantly taken out to pay off old ones, public and private—a vicious cycle which stacks debts ever higher and depletes purchasing power via “interest drain.” Price increases and money shortages have become institutionalized.
As for the automation paradox, social crediters and other visionaries for years have spoken of the “wage of the machine,” meaning that we must cancel the rule that income can only come from jobs via human labour. Instead, under social credit, a basic income would come in the form of a regular dividend paid to the population at-large calculated, as noted above, on production output—regardless of whether that production required human labour or whether it was largely or completely automated. That critical distinction means increased leisure time along with better income, which makes automation a friend, not a foe.
Other social credit components would stabilize and lower prices. Thus, increased leisure, much more spending power and lower prices are all within reach, which could foster a renaissance in human thought and action because the unforgiving yoke of the obligatory “work state” would be lifted off our backs.

Put another way: We were born to do more than just go to work, pay bills and die.

Continue reading

A Nation's Weakness is its Economic Policy by Wallace Klinck

The following message was posted to Paul Craig Roberts in response to an article by Paul Craig Roberts and Michael Hudson: "Russia's Weakness is its Economic Policy."

The essential problem with the modern economy, per se, is that nations generate industrial costs and prices at a greater rate of flow than they distribute effective consumer incomes capable of liquidating the costs of production.  This is consequent to a fundamental flaw in the operations of the Banking (i.e,., credit) system as it interacts with industrial cost-accountancy.  Simply put, the price system is intrinsically non- self-liquidating.  This problem magnifies as we become more capital intensive through modern technology and increasingly displace the need for human input into productive processes--a wonderful and marvelous development in itself.  The problem is that it creates an increasing gulf between costs and incomes--a gap which we can only "bridge" by increasing bank debt and attempting to export more than we import, an obvious impossibility for all nations of the world   Of course the dysfunctional nature of the price-system leads to the alternating economy and periodic bankruptcies and foreclosures which liquidate debts, but at the expense of loss of borrowers' assets to the banking industry..

The appropriate solution is for each nation to finance internally its capital development and business enterprise in accordance with its own real credit, i.e,, ability to deliver goods and services as, when and where required or desired and to ensure that consumers always have at their disposal adequate cash income to purchase the entire national production of consumer wealth output as it emanates from the production line.  The real as opposed to financial cost of production, i.e.., the human and non-human energy and material,  is met as production takes place and is fully met when any produced good is completed and ready for consumption.  Otherwise it could not exist.  That is simply axiomatic.  The financial system, which is simply a system of accountancy, must be made to reflect this elementary fact.

The vast sums of consumer bank credit which are issued as inflationary debt mortgaging future production are absolutely required.  The goods exist and await consumer acquisition.  We have demonstrated our ability to produce them and have every right to access them.   When incomes are used to purchase them these incomes are cancelled as businesses retire their initial bank loans or place funds to reserve.   They do not "pile up" to enlarge the existing money supply as existing consumer monetary demand.  The money required to compensate for the inherent deficiency of consumer income, or effective demand, should be issued without debt from an actuarily constructed National Credit Account, being simply an approximated accountancy evaluation of all the nation's real assets which if used for production might result in financial prices.  This National Credit Account would nevertheless alway be growing as it was credited with the value of all new capital assets.

The new "debt-free" consumer credits (for which there is an outstanding claim in the cost of retail goods) should be issued as an inalienable inheritance to each citizen in the form of a regular National Dividend and to retailers at point of sale, allowing them to sell at Compensated (reduced) Consumer Prices--the latter to be determined macro-economically in relation to the statistically determined ratio of national consumption to production--this ratio to replace the traditional bank rate.  The Compensated Price would be the essence of simplicity:  The retailer would sell to the consumer at regular price.  The consumer would tender his "i.O.U." (debit card, credit card or cheque) as usual.  The bank would credit the retailer's account for the full amount but debit the consumer only for the compensated price and claim the outstanding balance from the National Credit Account.. 

International trade should be balanced.  So long as all nations are forced to attempt to balance their domestic price-systems by exporting more than they import there will never be peace in the world and international friction will continue to grow.  As the problem intensifies sinister schemes designed allegedly to solve the problem by making it larger through the destruction of nation states will continue the malignant drive toward a World State.*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Major C.H. Douglas on "Causes of War" - part 1 - YouTube
Major C.H. Douglas on 'The Causes of War' - part 2 - YouTube

Continue reading

Commonwealth Constitution Act: The Historical and Political Origins of the Current Preamble

It is written, one of the few human freedoms “guaranteed in the Australian Constitution - the free exercise of religion (s.116) - owes its existence in part to the insertion of the phrase 'humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God' in the Preamble…”

Which was “added at the Federation Convention in Melbourne in 1898, s.116 largely at the behest of the Victorian, Henry Bournes Higgins, while the inclusion of God's blessing in the Preamble was due to the efforts of the South Australian, Patrick McMahon Glynn… Glynn's public justification for reference to the Almighty in the Preamble referred to the 'great central fact of faith' and the 'spirit of reverence for the unseen' which pervaded civil life in Australia.”(4)…

4. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Convention, vol. I-V, Legal Books, Sydney, 1986. See e.g. Higgins at Melbourne Convention 1898, p. 656. Also see pp. 1740-1, Glynn at the Adelaide Convention in 1897, pp. 1184-5.

Glynn's private reflections in his diary were quite different. After ensuring God's inclusion in Melbourne, Glynn wrote in a matter of fact style-'Today I succeeded in getting the words humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God in the Preamble. It was chiefly intended to secure greater support from a large number of voters', Patrick Glynn, diaries, Mortlock Library, State Library of South Australia, 2 March 1898….

So, whether Glynn personally believed in ‘humbly rely on the blessings of Almighty God’ I would not know – but he must have believed ‘a large number of voters’ did and would thus ensure greater support at the proposed 1890s referendums.

Over a hundred years later, the beliefs of many, even most, descendants of those earlier voters have no memory of why that Preamble insertion was important to those who went before.  So, what was it that Australians of the 1900s thought foundational for their new nation that we in the 21st century have lost sight of?

Stating the obvious, it was their belief in a supernatural realm
that must be taken into account in their national affairs.
But this was the 1900s and ‘the scientific age’ was then upon them.  But let’s backtrack a little for a while, and it is the work of Dorothy L. Sayers (Begin Here”) that I draw upon for the following.

The Mediaeval Age
In the Mediaeval Age ‘freedom’ was understood, not in the sense given that word today but in a more philosophical sense: the freedom to be true to man’s real nature, that is, to stand in a right relation to God. As a stone, left free to follow its own natural law, falls to the ground, so the spirit of man, made free to follow its own natural law, flies to God. The stone, if set free, is not free to follow some erratic direction; it will only do that if compelled from without. It was in that sense that theological society understood freedom.

‘Equality’ also was understood theologically. It was a spiritual equality.  Still it did not have to be claimed and fought for as a right; it was there already, the admitted and unchallenged cornerstone of society.

In the temporal world, it displayed itself neither as political nor social equality, nor yet as an equality of natural endowments, but rather as a vast interlocking network of reciprocal duty. As man was bound to God by the law of human nature, so, by the very essence of His Divine nature, God was bound to man. At every point, theological society exhibited the working of this universal law. The people owed service to the king, and the king owed protection to the people—not in reason of any mutual contract expressed or implied, but because both owed service to the same universal law.

It is not suggested that society in this age conformed to the ideal pattern.  This society no more than any other was able to start from scratch.  It grew piecemeal over a long period of time and in every district had to impose its social structure upon an already existing structure in full working order.

From the period of the Norman Conquest, the emerging principles of the English Common Law were shaped by Christian kings, and by Churchmen who were also Canonists.  The Canon Law ‘made a natural bridge to connect legal ideas with ethical and theological discussion’. 

The Holy Roman Empire – and a New Way of Thinking
What was the real reason of its collapse? It was not altogether the purely administrative difficulty about temporal power. What disrupted the theological world-state was not any local disharmony between its separate members, but something that affected the whole body. It was the appearance in the world of a new way of thinking, which led to the demand for an entirely new manifestation of human liberty and equality.

It was the rise of the New Learning, which led eventually to the Reformation, to the Renaissance and to the invention of the Scientific Method.  It was the demand for individual liberty in the spiritual sphere, in the emotional sphere and in the sphere of the mind.

Now this revolution in thought is often represented as a revolt against the authority of the Church, and so it was; but not quite in the sense commonly supposed. The Church had only one Authority, and that was God Himself; ‘and the New Learning was not a revolt against God.  Nor did it come from outside the Church, but from within, for the Church was all Christendom; that is why I have been careful to distinguish between the Church and her officials. It was the official Church that had not the courage of her own convictions and by that timidity broke up the structure of Christendom.

The explanation usually put forward is that the theological state rested upon a particular set of doctrines which could not be altered and had to be interpreted in a particular way by a particular set of people and along a particular line of thought; and that it fell to pieces when certain individual people, working along a new line of thought, brought those doctrines to the test of experimental inquiry.

There is a great deal of truth in this explanation, but it is not the whole truth. It is quite true that the state rested upon the truth of God’s revelation in Christ; but the rest is only partially true.  What actually happened was this, the Church had fallen into the same lazy habit which we discussed in the first chapter. She had allowed the professionals to do most of her thinking for her. And the professionals had become old-fashioned in their method of thinking. It was certain amateur thinkers who ‘hit upon that new method of thought which we now call “scientific”; by which we mean the method that collects facts by observation, uses them to form a theory, and then tests the theory by fresh experiments with facts. This method they applied to the material world, by way of astronomy and physics; to the world of art and letters, by way of exploring classical sources; and to the spiritual world, by way of linguistic and critical research into the Scriptures.

In all these fields, the results were both fruitful, and disconcerting to the professional ecclesiastical thinkers. Astronomy and physics offered explanations of the material universe that did not appear to agree with the story of Genesis; art and letters not only encouraged an unseemly enthusiasm for physical beauty, but unearthed unexpected beauties of thought among heathen poets in a way that seemed to threaten the Christian foundations of ethics; while a critical examination of the Scriptures shed certain doubts upon the official interpretations while at the same time throwing a glaring light
upon the behaviour of ecclesiastical officialdom as compared with that of the first Apostles.

Officialdom was alarmed. Not all officialdom, for many of the greatest exponents of the New Learning were churchmen. But as a body it was alarmed and uneasy, just as, for example, official medical opinion is alarmed and uneasy when a Lister or a Pasteur arises to challenge its traditional methods
of practice. It could not see that, if it really trusted its Supreme Authority, it had nothing to fear.

If God was eternal Reason, then any valid method of reasoning must be a manifestation of Himself; if He could display Himself in a material Sacrament, then all material beauty was His tabernacle; if His Spirit had been with men from the beginning, then any beauty of spirit wheresoever and whensoever
was the work of His presence; if the Scriptures were truly His Word, then the most stringent examination could only confirm their truth.

But a radical change in methods of thought is always terrifying, as the Pharisees realized when Christ interpreted the old Law in a new way; it sounds and is dangerous, and the immediate reaction is to resist it. And there is always this to be said for the specialists’ side of the controversy: that when you open the closed ring of interpretation, you may let in a Pasteur, but you may also let in all the quacks. Long and often painful experiment is then necessary to weed out the false from the true. The official Church was as genuinely afraid of the effect of quack religions upon people’s souls as the most careful medical practitioner of the effect of quack medicines upon their bodies.
At any rate, the New Learning was an adventure of the spirit, and the professional Church was not ready for adventure. She thrust the Reformers out, or let them leave of their own accord. And through the open gate marched in the hosts of Caesar.

To be continued….

Continue reading


Source: On Line Opinion,  19 August 2016
Louis O'Neill, who is studying writing at Macquarie University defended his right to freedom of speech:

“Frequently I find myself holding what one might consider a politically incorrect opinion, such as having scorn for Islam, disagreeing with myths peddled by the third wave feminist movement or finding no legitimacy in the claims of the black lives matter movement.
As a result my adversaries are more than ready to deviate from the laws of discourse, veering off into ad hominem, red herring or appeal to emotion fallacies. The legitimacy of my political viewpoint is often times devalued, as I occupy the “privileged” end of the spectrum, being a heterosexual white male, and so I'm told that I mustn't speak on issues which aren't specifically related to my own demographic.
Sometimes the sanctimony of my ideological combatants is so abundant that they feel they need not even engage further in conversation once I've pushed their buttons enough.
Well to them I say, if your idea cannot withstand the corrosive qualities of informed conversation, then your idea is not one worth having. We must herald logic as the great sieve through which we may push idiocy and illogicality, and allow the juices of truth to percolate from it…”
Read further here …

Canadian Wallace Klinck responded to a colleague on that very point:

The return of the Pharisee.  The zealots will never desist.  Only their opinions matter and their oppressive decrees are not only to be accepted but enforced as absolute.  They have usurped the authority of God.
How different from the 1960’s when I listened to the most outrageous and diverse tirades and expositions, often delightfully challenging and humorously insulting, in London at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park.  How wonderful it was to be able to listen to and evaluate these messages for myself.  Some of the speakers knew themselves that many or all of the ideas they were uttering were nonsensical and they were just honing their literary and elocutionary skills. 
Humour with its potential for provoking serious thought was still alive. There is no humour and no life in the law of the tyrant which destroys the spirit of man.  “The Law Killeth; the Spirit Maketh Alive”.
The New Tyrants care nothing for Life borne of the Spirit which because of their envy they wish only to destroy.  Naked power, “legitimized” and exercised behind the mask and hypocrisy of unjust law is the only Truth which they recognize.
Read here…

'The law criminalises “using [a] public electronic communications network in order to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety,” and can result in a six-month prison term or fine of up to £5,000.'  Rather vague terminology.

Continue reading

So, Who Did Get Here First? by Brian Simpson

The headlines back in June 2016, loudly proclaimed:

New DNA Technology Confirms Aboriginal People as First Australians.” (ABC News, June 7, 2016)

With all the talk about recognition and “first people,” perhaps many were surprised to learn that the “New DNA Technology” reference is to a research paper allegedly refuting an earlier paper of 2001, that had argued that the oldest known Australian human remains, near Lake Mungo, New South Wales (“Mungo Man”), were alleged to not be Aboriginal at all, but from an extinct human linage. This would mean that the Aborigines, in pre-history “displaced” this race of people. This could have been by interbreeding, but more likely involved warfare. Things were tough and different from today.

This would directly challenge the “first person” ideology, but we did not hear much about it.
(continue reading)

The 2001 paper, for reference is: G. J. Adcock (et al.), “Mitochondrial DNA Sequences in Ancient Australians: Implications for Modern Human Origins,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, 2001, pp. 537-542.

A more recent paper by T. Heupink (et al.), “Ancient mtDNA Sequences from the First Australians Revisited,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, 2016, pp. 6892-6897, alleges that the original samples were contaminated. Media comments state that there were doubts about the 2001 samples from the “community” of researchers, because the material refuted the proposal that the Aborigines were the first people in Australia, and thus “displaced” an earlier race of people.
Talk about circular reasoning!

The 2001 paper used a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. The 2016 paper uses more advanced second-generation DNA sequencing techniques, including PCR-based techniques.

Turning to the actual 2016 paper, rather than the media reports, Heupink (et al.), examined the four Willandia Lakes and Kow Swamp 8 (KS 8) remains studied by Adcock (et al.). There were two samples with no identifiable human DNA and the Mungo Man sample “contained no Aboriginal Australian DNA.”

The KS8 sample “reveals human mitochondrial sequences that differ from the previously inferred sequence.”

They recovered a “total of five modern European contaminants from Mungo Man (WLH3). From the remaining sample there was a “previously unidentified Aboriginal Australian haplotype belonging to haplogroup S2” and the other “a contaminating modern European mitochondrial haplotype.”

What can be immediately said is that if the samples are contaminated then they are scientifically invalid for drawing inferences from, simpliciter. For all one knows, the contamination could have accidentally been made by the 2016 research team, or at any time after the 2001 research. The samples could have been contaminated by Aboriginal DNA.  In other words, all bets are off.

If, on the other hand, the samples were contaminated by the Europeans in the 2001 research team, which seems to be what is being said, then it would be easy enough to test the samples for this, both by carbon dating and mtDNA. If the samples proved to have ancient mtDNA, then the “first Australians” ideology would be back in trouble.

The notion that the European DNA is a “contamination,” presupposes that the Aborigines were actually the first people here. But, what if, as has been alleged by some for America (see Solutrean hypothesis), that Europeans were here before the Aborigines?
Fringe archaeology has proposed this, and maybe the official narrative is wrong?

There is at present no none-circular proof of contamination. More testing please!

What is very strange about all of this is how the 2001 team allegedly contaminated the samples.
A look at their research paper indicates that they did follow basic procedures. And even if contamination did occur, this would have easily been detected by the 2001 technology. A lot of people have gone to gaol based on the same tests, so the 2001 tests are not likely to be flawed.

All the new tests do is increase power and accuracy, in principle. But here we are dealing with gross errors. Remember, the 2001 paper made it into the highly scientifically prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and this is strongly peer-reviewed.
It is hard to believe that an elementary error would

Continue reading


My ego received some rather large dents when a loyal reader and supporter from Victoria phoned the editor complaining that article was ‘boring’.  After knocking a few of the dents out and recovering some semblance of equilibrium I thought a good deal about the matter and thought that I failed to get my message across as was intended.  So here goes… again.

The response is based upon an article which appeared in the OT Christmass issue of December 2004.

In “Releasing Reality” Eric Butler writes: “One of the most illuminating statements made by C.H. Douglas, one which reveals his proper humility in the search for Truth, was that the rules of the Universe transcend human thinking, and that if the individual wished to live in a world of harmony, he should make every endeavour to discover those rules and obey them.”

It comes as a bit of a shock when one realises that at the last judgement Christ will judge us, not by our great exploits, not by our great ‘faith’ or ‘belief,’ not even for the number of convert ‘scalps’ we have ‘chalked up’, -- but by how we have treated our fellow man: “I was hungry and you fed me; thirsty and you gave me drink; a stranger and you took me in; in prison and you visited me… Inasmuch as you did it unto one of the least of my brethren you did it unto Me.” Matthew 25.37.

Continue reading


There is an interesting discussion taking place amongst Social Crediters and while it centres on Oliver Heydorn’s recently published a book “Social Credit Philosophy”, it raises interesting questions for the serious student. 

Readers might like to consider the following for themselves:

J.S. writes:  The purpose of the book is to put Douglas’ philosophy in one treatise on the subject.  In this regard, Oliver Heydorn does an admirable job. 
Anyone who has read Douglas’ works knows that he only touches on the subject of philosophy, and all of his writings on the subject are scattered throughout his works. Oliver does a tremendous job pulling all of this together into a coherent whole.  As such, any serious student of Social Credit needs to read this book.

Douglas referred to Social Credit as “the policy of a philosophy”.  As such, you would think that the philosophy of Social Credit would be front and centre in any of Douglas’ books or articles.  On the contrary, Douglas seems to ever only mention it in passing and scattered about in segments of his works.  I believe that this is because, as Oliver points out, that Douglas was really dis(un)covering his philosophical beliefs as he proceeded.

Continue reading

What is Canada?

On Aug 13, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Al Romanchuk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

My goodness to Murgatroid!  I didn’t know that I was promoting fascism and communism, as though there is any difference.  Lordy, lordy I also didn’t know that NO work by humans produces anything.  I didn’t know that HUMAN BEINGS were NOT behind the inventions of all the technology, devices and gadgets people play with today and have been for decades.  Gosh, if I ever knew that someone OTHER than humans were behind all of this I would extoll the virtue of comfort, relaxation, non-production, idleness and simply rely on all those wonderful, productive taxpayers to supply me with all the amenities WITHOUT IT COSTING ME A CENT!
    But, Wallace, YOU FAILED MISERABLY IN NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION and you perambulated on and on and lectured us about economics, cost-accountancy, state-mandated projects and a plethora of other matters of which you are much more intelligent than me.  I tend to be, and have been for the better part of my life, rather simplistic in these matters.  I look at the bottom line; do my expenses exceed my income, do I have to get a loan from the bank to make up for the deficiency and thus become even more indebted?  How can I possibly take home any kind of wage or salary when I have no income?  I’m in a conundrum!
    I have no quarrel with your dissertation and you may be right for all I know.  But it is all pigeon-English to me and although I have PLEADED with you for years to address these matters using UNDERSTANDABLE ENGLISH, you continue to provide your analyses in language which is almost alien.  Oh, on the question of my atheism let me put it to you this way: I have been an atheist all my life except for being married twice in the United Church and because of the Christianity surrounding them, my marriages failed miserably.  I don’t need an awakening nor have I asked for one from anyone.  My friends and colleagues take me for what I am; nothing more and nothing less.  But enough of this religious hogwash!
    So, if I might tap your brain, would you kindly answer my question.  If you don’t I can only presume that the question has very little relevance to you and should be dismissed out of hand!  BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES.


Wally Responded:

Continue reading


On Aug 12, 2016, at 9:57 PM, Al... wrote:

Good evening my friends, mes amis, mi priateli, mein freunds, and generally all of you good, unhyphenated Canadians,
    First, in CFL action although the Eskies beat the Alouettes yesterday 23-12 it was a sleeper, a lack-lustre game with absolutely no excitement.  They played as though they were on a binge the night before.  But today’s game where Winnipeg beat Toronto 34-17 the game was exciting but when the cameras focused on the fans more than half had emptied.  That’s how much they think of their Argonauts.  I’m glad that Winnipeg thumped Toronto.  There are two good games tomorrow.

And while I was watching the game today a number of questions about our country crossed my mind.  I settled on two questions which I pose to you:  

WHAT IS CANADA?  Is it “our home and native land” or is it “a land of hope for all who toil?”  My answer is pretty simple: I think Canada SHOULD be a “land of hope for all who toil” and that it should be a country where our elected representatives ACTUALLY represent our Canadian interests and maintain our former traditions and culture and laws.  
It should be a land where our politicians hold regular old-fashioned town hall meetings with no holds barred and no bloody time limits.  
It should be a land where our elected officials are always ACCOUNTABLE TO US AND ALWAYS BE TRANSPARENT.  

It should be a land where the people should be consulted by referendum on important questions affecting the defense, security and taxation of our people.  
It should be a land where our politicians extoll those who produce for the greater good and that welfare be minimized.  
It should be a land where education should be the mainstay of our society and that students remain in school for a purpose.  
It should be a nation where our politicians bring back total, unfettered, uncluttered FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS.  

Continue reading

The Haircut: a Tale ‘doing the rounds’ in Canada

        Blessed are those that can give without remembering, and take without forgetting.
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he
        asked about his bill, and the barber replied, 'I cannot accept money
        from you, I'm doing community service this week.'
        The florist was pleased and left the shop.
        When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a
        'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
        Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill,
         the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing
        community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop.
        The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a 'thank
        you ' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
        Then a Member of Parliament came in for a haircut, and when he went to
        pay his bill , the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from
        you. I'm doing community service this week.  'The Member of Parliament
        was very happy and left the shop.
        The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen
        Members of Parliament lined up waiting for a free haircut.
       And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between
        the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it… Smile… Al.
To which Wallace Klinck replied:

Continue reading

Keeping the Australian Public Out: Race Inquiry by Ian Wilson LL.B.

The Human Rights Commission is seeking to have the public prevented from commenting on an inquiry into their handling of the University student race-hate case. (The Australian, August 8, 2016, p.5) The commission submitted that it would not be appropriate to consider submissions from the public.That, I think, is the best argument which one can give...
Continue reading

Identity Politics and Australia by Chris Knight

Although I seldom agree with The Australian's "editor-at-large", Paul Kelly, his article "Race, Gender: The Risk of Identity Politics" (The W.E. Australian, August 6-7, 2016, p.15), raises issues that conservatives have become too afraid to address. In fact Kelly does talk about the question of "weakness":
"This movement proves the ideological creativity of the Left, the manipulative power of human rights law and the perversion of the idea of justice - seen in this country in Section 18 C of the Racial Discrimination Act where individuals can (initiate) legal action because they are "offended" by others".

"The politics of identity speaks to deep human need. Yet its application veers towards narcissism, censoring of public debate, vicious campaigns of intimidation and a diminished public square. It is extraordinary to see how many institutions and prominent figures buckle before the campaigns of identity politics, too weak to stand on principle".

The problem is, as I see it, the creation of the multicultural society, founded on Leftist principles of political correctness, and fuelled by mass migration. Really, what else could have happened?

Continue reading