* Title * Author * Contents * Part One * Part Two * Part Three * Supplements *







  Reprinted from " The Australian Social Crediter," March and April, 1946.

Conversion of Governments into Dictatorships.

  " At the moment (February, 1945), there does not appear to be much likelihood that the German contributions to the general hell will be overlooked, and if there is any truth in the statements that the German atrocities have been largely directed against the Jews, they will not be. But it is obvious that the International-New-Deal-Peppers-and-Planners are counting on using Germany as the scape-goat to which to divert attention from the consolidation of their war gains. That in this country not less than America, the Managerial State—" All Power to the Official "—was decided upon in 1931 if not long before, and organised in the sure and certain hope that a nice big war could be provoked and kept going while its position was buttressed " in war, or under threat of war " is so clear that only wilfulness or unfamiliarity with the facts can obscure it. We do not think we are likely to see a period of crude deflation on the cessation of hostilities, because the dog has learnt that trick. But that both individual purchasing-power and individual freedom of initiative will be curtailed by every possible means, and there are many, is evidenced by the care with which " the threat of war " is being prepared to replace " war." And God wot, the threat of war is not far to seek."

  We quote this paragraph from The Social Crediter of a year ago because it provides for those " unfamiliar with the facts " an excellent perspective of the past year's events. The military phase of the war ended with the terroristic demonstration of the atomic bomb; and it is clear in retrospect that hostilities were prolonged, despite the efforts of the Japanese, to enable the dropping of those bombs. On the conclusion of the military phase, the " threat of war " phase was substituted without so much as a day's delay, and the " administrative adjustments " referred to by Lord Rothschild were set in train.

  During the war, arrangements were consolidated to ensure a condition of apparent world famine. We are indebted to an editorial from the London Sunday Express, reprinted in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of February 26, 1946, for a demonstration that the appearance is false. This article reports that world stocks of wheat next June will be 2,000,000 tons more than in June, 1938. Elsewhere it has been reported that Argentina is burning grain in locomotives.

  Thus the " threat of war," plus artificial famine, provide the necessary background for the conversion of governments into dictatorships. In Eastern Europe the process is crude; totalitarian governments have been installed under the guidance of Soviet Russian-trained Russian agents, and are backed by Russian arms. Thus in Jugoslavia Marshal Tito has been installed. Tito is a Josef Broz, or his double; there is some doubt. The real Broz, after early Communist activities in Jugoslavia, took part in the Spanish civil war, then returned to Moscow, where he received special training. In 1941 he returned to Jugoslavia as head of the Secret International Terrorist Organisation (Tanya Internatsionalna Terroristichka Organizatsiya—i.e. T.I.T.O.). There is a report, however, that the real Broz " disappeared " under Russian auspices, and was replaced by a double, provided from the same larder.

  Again, in Poland, a Russian sponsored totalitarian government has been installed under M. Bierut, whose real name is Krasnodebski. This man in 1921 accepted Soviet citizenship. " Attached at once to the Polish section of the Commintern, he spent several years on theoretical training and practical courses in Moscow. In December, 1924, he was sent to Poland for the first time, and almost at once became one of the leading personalities of the Communist Party. For a time he was organising demonstrations and riots to undermine the institutions of the Polish State." (The Tablet, July 14,1945). Later he became head of the Polish section of the OGPU. In 1941 " he was dropped from a Soviet plane into Poland . . . was ordered to take advantage of the German occupation to build a network of Communist organisations, and with their assistance to set up institutions and an administration to rival the Underground Polish authorities acting under the Polish Government in London. In March, 1944, Bierut, accompanied by four other people . . . crossed the frontier into Russia. Upon their arrival at the Soviet capital they introduced themselves as the Polish National Home Council, and the only ' genuine representation of the Polish Nation.''

  The Times, and the socialist Press generally, connived at all this, and at the same time prepared the ground for the Socialist victory at the British General Elections. This achieved, the next step was taken. Without warning, American Lend-Lease supplies were cut off, precipitating an era of intensified austerity which could be held to justify the totalitarian measures of the new Government.

  A drive for exports took the place of the " period of crude deflation " which followed World War I. This is very important. Industry has grown up from its beginnings to serve the multitudinous needs of individuals. But " export trade," like war, provides an over-riding objective. It provides a reason, an excuse, for the organisation of industry; and the organisation of industry implies the organisation of the community to serve it.

  The measures known collectively as Social Security are, in reality, nothing but the administrative arrangements underlying the total organisation of the Community. They were originally developed for that purpose in Germany. The essential principle involved is to prevent the individual accumulating savings, and hence independence, and thus to force him into subjection to the mass of detailed regulations governing every aspect of existence, which are brought into being under special enabling clauses of the main Acts. This is the " Managerial State—' All Power to the Official.' "

    Managerial State Legislation—First Section British National Socialist legislation can be seen, in perspective, to fall into two chief divisions. The first comprises Lord Rothschild's " administrative adjustments," and includes the various measures for organisation of industry and community—nationalising of banking and industry, control of investment, and the reduction of all members of the community, except Government officials and bureaucrats (including the managerial class and labour Gauleiters), to a common level, " the managed." Included in this is the equalisation of income through controlled devaluation of money (planned inflation), plus taxation. The inflation—i.e., rise in prices—rapidly reduces the real value of professional and small business incomes; this process is offset by wage increases for the low wage earners. The objective is an approximate equalisation of all non-official incomes at a level which will not permit of individual savings. It is important to observe that this level may include, later on, a moderately high standard of living; but that standard will be compulsory, in order to absorb all income. The contingencies which normally would call for savings will be met by so-called " insurance." This is not genuine insurance. Contributions are simply taxation, and benefits are the provision of a minimum income, or special services (e.g., medical treatment) under narrowly defined and regulated conditions. Thus independence for the individual will be impossible. So long as he does as he is ordered to do—i.e., remains " fully employed " in the various jobs to which he is directed—he will be well-fed, and by degrees adequately housed and amused. If, however, he endeavours to assert his independence, his income will be cut off, and he will have no savings to carry him on, and no free-choice of alternative employment.

  The propaganda for " Social Security " is merely an elaborate disguise for the conditions that obtain in the Army, and it is not improbable that once the total organisation of the community, with the abolition of all independence, is achieved, the disguise will be dropped. But this is chiefly a question of administrative convenience.

     Managerial State Legislation—Second Section The second division into which legislation falls comprises sanctions—means of enforcing the " administrative adjustments."   Under this heading are grouped international commitments, propaganda, and direct coercion.

  International commitments (with which the export drive may be classified) provide a justification, a " total " objective. Contributions to UNRRA, maintenance of occupation forces, acquisition of dollars, membership of UNO, etc., etc., are super-national objectives, and hence external to national politics, and hence outside the sphere of the individual. Now quite casual inspection of supernational politics of the present day reveals that it is a mass of lies, murders, corruption, wars and destruction; Satanism. But the reader may call it what he will, so long as he will judge contemporary supernationalism by its fruits. He may find his own interpretation for the expression " Possessed by the Devil."

  Propaganda is quite obviously " possessed by the Devil." It is driving Man to destruction. International " News " is derived from international news-agencies; but it is not, for the most part, news, but propaganda, and at times of decisive importance, it carries the policy of international Communism. On the principle of admitting freely what is already known, it is now freely enough admi tted that we made a " mistake " in supporting Tito. It is now clear, in retrospect, that the Press clamour, lead by The Times, in favour of E.L.A.S. in Greece might have been fatal to the British Empire; and it will become clear that the international propaganda campaign against Franco is in order to promote fatal developments.

  Under cover of the situation created and maintained by international commitments and propaganda (" the threat of war "), the means of direct coercion are being steadily consolidated. Russia and its satellites are undeniably police-states. In Great Britain, the police forces have been centralised, the Ministry of Social Security—i.e., of central control of the individual—set up, and officials of various departments have been armed with powers of entering private homes on various pretexts, and of securing 'evidence' in connection with industrial accidents. Every day sees an increase in the power of the official to mind the individual's business, with, of course, a reciprocal decrease in the individual's self-determination.

      The State of the World is not an Accident. If people are deceived by the ostensible objectives of socialist legislation, they will pay the price. " By their fruits shall ye know them."

  By their fruits: not by the advertisements. It is only atural that these things should be put forward in disguise; and if we cannot distinguish between words and things, we shall perish. Judge by the socialism we have; judge by falling production, rising prices, murderous taxation, increasing anarchy, loathsome austerity; that is policy in practice, the proletarianising of the community.

  How can the sincere Socialist—the one who merely votes Socialism—believe that the tin-pot mechanism of the Party vote will enable him to overthrow the ultimate possessors of power? Does he seriously think that the ' Capitalist' Press will assist in its own overthrow? On the very premises of the Socialist, Socialism as advocated must be a ' Capitalist' plot for the final enslavement of the worker. But the ' Capitalist' is not the independent business-man; he is the International Capitalist—the Cartelist and the Financier, who control the international news-agencies, and own government debts, and who through those debts hold a lien on the physical assets of every country, and who, under the guise of Socialism, are putting the bailiffs in. It is childish to believe that Socialism has come into power against the will of the ultimate International Power.

  The state of the world is no accident; for those who will look, it bears every mark of design. The Mark of the Beast.

  And? F. A. Voight, in Nineteenth Century and After writes: " The question What can we do ? has many answers, and whoever gives an answer may do so according to his knowledge, his capacity, and his station (there are many, indeed, who give answer beyond all these). But one answer, at least, is possible to the humblest: To bear witness. It is the duty of all who can do so, whether in print, in their letters, or in talk, to withstand or rectify, in however restricted a manner, the cumulative falsification of history perpetrated by the principal media of-publicity in our time . . ."

  One of the functions of the Press is to mislead public opinion, even informed public opinion, as to the timing of the plot. The public is taught to think that if after all they don't like " Socialism," they can simply change the Government in five years time, and revert to freedom. It is not so. Under cover of party politics, the shackles are being bolted. It is intended that when we find we don't like what we've got, it will be too late to do anything about it.   And that won't take long.

  " In this, the gravest crisis of the world's history, it is essential to realise that the stakes which are being played for are so high that the players on one side, at least, care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent than for the death of a sparrow.. . . There is a working coalition between the scum of the underworld and the richest men in the world to murder those from whom alone redemption for the underworld can come, in order that any threat to the power of the financier may be removed. The underworld will be dealt with just as easily as Stalin deals with any opposition, when the underworld has done its job." (The Social Crediter, February 10, 1945). We warn the decent men of the Left as well as of the Right that if they don't wake up now their massacre is certain.

The Great Powers of the World.

  On February the 18th, Mr. Churchill was closeted in Miami with Mr. Bernard Baruch and his U.S.A. Branch Manager, Mr. James Byrnes. On March the 5th Mr. Churchill gave the signal we have been expecting. From 1942, when Germany double-crossed Russia, until, virtually, March, 1946, the international news-agencies have systematically concealed the development of the situation. Under cover of the " line " that we must secure Russia's co-operation, and therefore must say nothing which might offend her, we have sacrificed the Poles, and connived at the installation of police-governments run by specially trained Russian agents in every country traversed by the Red Armies. The facts that have not been concealed have been explained by the plea that Russia is " nervous " (poor mighty child), and therefore entitled, at any cost of human slaughter and suffering, to make her boundaries secure by extending those boundaries by the incorporation of her neighbours and the " social-engineering " of their populations.

  British foreign policy, in particular, appears senseless. Not content with the outcome of the policy of appeasing Germany, we have adopted the identical policy as regards Russia. To try to reconstruct our foreign policy is like trying to piece together a jig-saw puzzle that has a key piece missing; it won't hang together.

  And there is the vital clue. There is a piece missing. The essential fact to grasp is that national foreign policies are the resultant of the natural foreign policy plus an international component. And because in general the nature of the international policy deflecting the national policy is unrecognised, foreign policies are essentially unpredictable, and we are plunged into a series of wars which we do not want, and which could certainly have been avoided by a realistic national foreign policy. Wars are actually outmoded, in the sense that modern industrial development provides potential plenty for every nation. The British Empire, however it came into existence, is not now in any sense an aggressive entity. For some time past it has practised the essential requirements of non-aggressiveness—economic and political decentralisation. Yet the British Empire has been chiefly concerned in the last two wars, and is clearly to be involved in the next—hence Mr. Churchill's speech.

  It can be stated quite definitely that our continued existence as an Empire, as a set of Nations, and as a culture—all three or any of them—depends on our recognising, and dealing with, the alien policy which deflects our own. The situation is analogous to a chemical experiment in which the results do not conform to those predicted, because of the unsuspected presence of an impurity in the reagents. Discover and eliminate the impurity, and theory and practice coincide.

   This alien policy has been described and analysed by Major C. H. Douglas in his books The Big Idea, Programme for the Third World War, and The Brief for the Prosecution. It has, as its immediate objective, the elimination of the British Empire and its culture.

  To describe the situation very briefly: In addition to the recognised Great Powers in the world—let us say, the Big Three—there is a fourth. The fourth Great Power is the Jewish nation, which, because it has no fixed geographical State, is overlooked as such. Nevertheless, it has a Government, which is largely secret, and that Government has a policy. The policy is derived from the mystic philosophy of the Jews—the belief that they are the Chosen People, with a mission to organise and govern the other peoples of the world.

  Now, since this Power has no country, and no army, its foreign policy must be pursued by other than the methods of direct armed conquest. Its most important weapon is Finance—money-power. Thus at the centre is Jewish State policy. Outside this, as it were, is the organisation of International Finance, which is predominantly, though not entirely, Jewish. International Finance, as such, has a policy; but that policy is derived from, and furthers, Jewish State policy.

  The technique of the policy is really absurdly simple; in essence it consists of mortgaging property, and foreclosing. The foreclosure is, in practice, the dictation of policy. Thus all governments are in debt, and all have to borrow. The conditions on which they can borrow are conditions dictated by the policy of International Finance, and put forward as principles of "sound finance." Now financial policy dictates economic policy, and economic policy, as things are, delimits politics so-called.

  Theoretically, virtually the assets of the whole world are mortgaged to the banking system—i.e., the Money Power; legally, there is no reason why the Money Power should not take possession. But practically it is impossible, because public opinion would revolt; so that some form of police force to prevent revolt must be established. So that over and above the purely financial technique by which the Money Power has established its claim to ownership of the world, on behalf of its hidden masters, politics have been controlled so as to lead to a world police-force.

  This is being achieved by the elimination of nations through wars, and the subordination of the remaining nations to their bureaucracies through Socialism.

  In 1942, Major Douglas wrote: "Socialism, or to give it its correct name, Monopoly, is not a production system, which is exactly what one would expect from its origins."

  The idea so skilfully inculcated that confiscation of property will assist in the distribution of wealth is, of course, completely without foundation. Socialism is a restriction system, as any examination of Socialistic practice in the Trades Unions will confirm, and it has two well-defined principles—centralisation of power, both economic and political, and espionage.

  " That is to say, every advance towards Socialism is an advance towards the Police State . . ." (The Big Idea.)

  Nearly a year after the end of the war, conditions in Great Britain are much worse than during the war. This means, not that Socialism has failed, but that it is succeeding. It is doing what its true authors intended it should do— reduce the people to a condition of penury and slavery. Politics and economics are both predominantly in the service of the secret Fourth Great Power.

  Now the operation of this fourth major foreign policy in the world must normally be to call forth a " healthy reaction," both economic and political, to it. But as the policy is a secret policy, the effect is simply a confusion of policies, until the threat is so obvious that a distinct policy does emerge. The British policy towards the threat of Russia can be seen more and more clearly to have been absurd; but equally, the threat is becoming so obvious that only one British policy is becoming possible. But, of course, immense damage has been done.

  The main strategy of the Fourth Power is destruction of the national institutions of the other three Powers from within, and the manipulation of the three Powers into conflict with each other. As the fourth Power " owns " each of the others, it will dominate the world when one of the three dominates the world. But, since Russia already has a developed secret-police system, and is militaristic, Russia may be billed to eliminate the other two. But in the meantime the next phase is apparently intended to be the destruction of the British Empire by Russia. To this end, by paralysis of British resistance, the strategic position of Russia has been enormously strengthened, while the economic position of Great Britain has been ruined. Food and coal reserves have gone, industry has been wrecked by interference and the threat of nationalisation, and morale has been virtually destroyed by a combination of Utopian but impossible promises, and austerity. Moreover, Russia has an enormous fifth-column in all countries of the British-Empire, and the integrity of the Armed Forces has been sapped by the propaganda of the Services' " educational " organisations.

  We have been manoeuvred into a position where it is too late to do anything about the military situation. That was intended. If anything can be done about the general situation, it can be done only by a direct challenge to the power of the Fourth State. The genuine nationals of the British Empire and the United States will have to eliminate the power and the policy of the International Jew. Once that is done—and only if it is done—Russia may be stayed. But God knows how little time remains.

   Only a few weeks ago, there was but an occasional bare whisper in the daily Press that Russia just conceivably, in certain circumstances—if we offended her by saying so, for example—might become a threat. We were told just enough to warn us of the danger of saying more. But that phase has passed. Mr. Baruch has given the " go " signal to Mr. Churchill, and Mr. Churchill has passed it on through all the modern resources of controlled propaganda. Even the fatal words " appeasement " and " Munich " are once more becoming common currency, and with the aid of little daily doses of instruction, the Common Man is rapidly becoming an expert in foreign affairs, and soon should be able to realise that the Third World War is on the way.

Marxist Strategy and Tactics.

  The Russian Government is the exponent of a fairly highly elaborated dogma derived from a philosophy known as dialectical and historical materialism. The doctrines involved in this dogma have various origins and histories, but their modern expression began with their formulation as a system by Karl Marx (Mordecai) and Frederick Engels, and their extension by Vladimir Lenin (Ulianov). The current system is generally known as Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism has, however, been further adapted by Stalin, whose pronouncements are surely authoritative.

  Russia is governed through the hierarchy of the Communist Party. Party membership is absolutely conditional on a thorough grounding in Marxism-Leninism, and promotion in the hierarchy requires a high degree of " theoretical" knowledge— i.e., knowledge of the theory of Marxism-Leninism. The over-all policy pursued by Soviet Russia is, of course, derived from the beliefs so thoroughly inculcated.

  According to Marxism-Leninism, the real social structure of the world, under Capitalism, consists of its class structure, and nation-States are quite secondary. That is to say, men are united primarily by their classes, so that to belong to the proletarian, or " toiling masses," class, over-rides considerations of nationality. The proletarian class is considered to be a world fact; the class is homogeneous, and opposed in interest and outlook throughout the world to all other classes which it will, " step by step," hurl from power.

  The picture is, therefore, that of two forces like two armies, radically opposed throughout the world. Because of the inherent defects in the Capitalist system which gives the Capitalists and their sub-classes their power, sooner or later, and somewhere or other, the proletarian force must " break through" the line of the Capitalist forces. Once this happens, the whole nature of the struggle is changed, for the victorious segment of the proletariat becomes the leader of the rest of the world-proletariat, and strategy alters accordingly.

  Stalin describes the strategy of this stage, which was reached with the October Revolution in Russia, quite explicitly:

  " Objective: to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, using it as a base for the overthrow of imperialism in all countries. The revolution is spreading beyond the confines of one country; the period of world revolution has commenced.

  The main forces of the revolution: the dictatorship of the proletariat in one country, the revolutionary movement of the proletariat in all countries.

  Main reserves: the semi-proletarian and small-peasant masses in all developed countries.

  Direction of the main blow: isolation of the petty-bourgeois democrats, isolation of the parties of the Second International, which constitute the main support of the policy of compromise with imperialism.

  Plan for the disposition of forces: alliance of the proletarian revolution with the liberation movement in the colonies and the dependent countries." (Foundation of Leninism.) (Italics in original. Our paragraphs.)

  " The fundamental question of revolution is power." (Lenin). In order to achieve the maximum power, it is necessary for the first country achieving the initial victory of the proletariat to organise itself in such a way as to obtain the greatest power. That is to say, it must organise itself on totalitarian lines under the direction of a General Staff under a Chief of the General Staff; in short, it must become a fully organised army, in order to play its necessary part in the continuation of the world revolution. This is the true and only meaning of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." Jokes about "dictatorship over the proletariat" are entirely beside the point. "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is purely and simply a technical term in the vocabulary of Marxism-Leninism, and relates to the strategic concept of having a properly organized force available to assist revolution as it occurs elsewhere in the world. "The revolution in the victorious country must regard itself not as a self-sufficient entity but as an aid, as a means of hastening the victory of the proletariat in other countries." (Stalin).

  Similarly, the terms "petty-bourgeois democrats" and "parties of the Second International" refer to what we call "Labour" or "Labour-Socialism." The formation of such groups is regarded by the theoreticians as a natural phenomenon in the development of the world revolution. Their role is to demonstrate to the oppressed toiling masses that only revolution can succour them! and one of the first tasks of the victorious revolution must be to liquidate these "compromisers with imperialism" who have committed the crime of betraying the revolution, and who are rivals for the leadership of the proletariat. The appearance of these groups is only a demonstration of the progress of the general revolution, which, according to Lenin, would take some decades to run its course, during which the deepening crisis would be marked by depression, unemployment, and war, as well as by such "petty bourgeois expedients" as Fabianism and Social Democracy. All this would have to be, however; the first country to achieve revolution could do no more than help to intensify the crisis, act as a beacon to the toiling masses, and prepare for the decisive moment by building up its own strength and organisation.

  While the strategy of Marxism-Leninism remains steady and consistent through this period (i.e., the period between the Russian Revolution and World Revolution), tactics, which are largely the concern of the Communist Parties in various countries, vary with "the ebb and flow" of the developing situation in those countries. Any criticism of the contradictions of Communist activities therefore misses the point entirely; there is no variation in strategy, which is centred in the General Staff (Politbureau) in Russia, and which is consistently preparing for general revolution; but it is in the very nature of tactics to vary with the fluctuating fortunes of the struggle. For example, the recent Iron Workers' strike is said to have resulted in a defeat for the Communists. That is not so. The objective of the strike was to reduce the reserves of critical materials—iron and coal—in order to hasten on the " nation-wide crisis," and " weaken the Government"; and in that it succeeded. The tactics were designed to lead the workers in and out of the strike, covering both manoeuvres with suitable slogans and propaganda. From the strategical point of view it was essential that the strike should " fail " at a point short of a full crisis. The strategical objective of all such tactics at present is to worsen the lot of the community, and increase the difficulties of the " petty-bourgeois " (compromising) Government. The recent Coal Report is striking evidence of the strategical success of tactics as applied to the coal industry.

  It must be admitted that the Marxist-Leninist theory appears to find practically complete confirmation in the state of the world. The end of the " Imperialist war " (into which Russia was, despite her detachment, drawn) finds the " Capitalist crisis " still more intensified, and " petty-bourgeois governments " still less able to cope with it. The changes " demanded " by the oppressed masses are quite clearly not alleviating their condition, and the various factions of " the ruling classes" (including Labour parties) are at loggerheads. A fresh outbreak of revolution is anticipated in Greece, and local tactics are being directed accordingly. France is highly unstable, and would detonate into revolution if fresh civil war could be promoted in Spain. The British Empire is distracted by " liberation movements in colonies and dependent countries " and by threats to Empire security as in Persia and Palestine.

Financial Rules favouring Revolution can be changed.

  There is, however, another side to the picture. The vital and fundamental premiss of the Marxist-Leninist theory is the automatic and inevitable nature of the " contradiction " in Capitalist economy. The Capitalist does not oppress and exploit the Worker because he likes it, but because he cannot avoid it. He, like the Worker, is caught up in a System he cannot control. As Lenin emphasised, Revolution would be impossible unless a general crisis arose.

  The central aspect of the Capitalist system is money. The Capitalist " produces for profit," and profit is taken in money. That is to say, the vital aspect of Capitalist economy is in its relation to the financial system and the financial system itself consists of certain " principles," or rules, or laws; for example, the principles of " sound finance." Thus the Capitalist conducts his business and makes his profits according to the rules which govern the use of money.

  The Marxist-Leninist position therefore rests ultimately on the question of those rules. Are those rules in the nature of things, genuine " laws " like the laws of physics; or are they conventions, man-made ?

  On the hypothesis that the rules are laws, and therefore unchangeable, it follows that the Capitalist is helpless, and faultless; the case for his liquidation hardly rests on a very satisfactory moral basis. But it also follows that no improvement is possible, even in Russia's case, unless the use of money is abolished; but Russia has not abolished money, and claims an improvement; in point of fact, Russia has modified the rules. In general, however, it is quite clear that the rules are modified constantly, not only by Russia, but everywhere. Whether or not a country is on the gold standard is a case in point—it is the result of a decision. But the " laws " of a strict gold standard are different from the " laws " of a dollar or sterling standard.

  Thus the Marxist-Leninist strategy is applicable to a situation that has its origin in the results of the operation of rules of finance. Who is responsible for those rules ?

  Although there is some overlapping of personnel, especially in the case of Big Business and the cartels, through interlocking directorates, it is quite clear that the production and the financial systems are separate entities. It is also clear that the financial system is far more highly centralised than is the production system. In practically every country there is now a Central Bank, which has well-defined functions, including especially the regulation of the volume of money. But these Central Banks in turn come under a super-Central Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, though at the moment there is some indication that this Bank's function will be transferred to the World Bank working in co-operation with the International Fund. However that may be, it is the case that there is a world centralised financial system. In the case of industry—the production system—on the other hand, such world centralisation as there is relates only to specific industries, notably the chemical industry, while the greater part of industry is relatively independent, and unco-ordinated.

  Now in the nature of things an unco-ordinated industry cannot impose a consistent policy on centralised world finance; but, by setting up and maintaining the rules of the system, finance can, and does, impose a policy on industry. Broadly, the rules are in the system of accounting, and in the necessity of making a financial profit, according to the accounting conventions.

  Marxist-Leninist strategy is derived from and dependent on an intensifying crisis; and that crisis derives from the financial rules under which industry is conducted. If the crisis disappeared, Communism would retrogress.

  Now as long as finance and production are lumped together under the term " Capitalism," there appears to be no escape from the necessity for Communism. But finance and production are not identities; they are entirely separate systems. To fail to discriminate, of course, adds to the confusion, for what is required is not any re-organisation of industry, but an alteration in the financial rules which impose a policy on industry.

  An alteration in these rules was proposed by the Government of Alberta, and was opposed by financial interests; not only opposed, but prevented.

  Further than this, there is documentary evidence that International Financiers financed the Russian Revolution.

  Surely, now, the nature of the situation is plain. The greatest power in the world is wielded by International Finance, which directs its policy to produce an intensifying crisis as a result of which World Revolution is promoted, the effect of which would be a world dictatorship through, in the first place, the agency of Russia. The purpose is to disposses every individual of any form of property which could confer independence, and centralise all ownership in institutions themselves centralised under a World State.

   Misunderstanding of this situation at this stage only accelerates our progress to disaster. It must be realised that every effort is made to maintain the fiction of class-war on the one hand, and the threat of Russia as a great national power on the other. As a result, perfectly well-meaning, sincere and able politicians constantly make the situation worse.

   Russia is not a " Great Power " in the national sense; she does not want war or territorial aggrandisement in the ordinary sense. Russia is a reservoir of strength and highly-trained personnel awaiting, expecting, and promoting revolution which she is prepared to back. Every intensification of the crisis brings the critical moment nearer; the greater the confusion, the easier her task. Therefore the apparent threat of war aids her, and the confusion as to her policy—i.e., whether she just wants to secure her boundaries, or whether she is following Hitler's path of aggression—makes the situation more favourable for revolution.

   We can now put the whole jig-saw puzzle together. The responsible agents in the world are the men controlling the international financial system. Through financial power— the indebtedness of governments and institutions to them— they can either dictate or heavily influence policy. Their efforts are directed along two main lines: the maintenance of such financial rules as must lead to a world crisis, and the sponsoring of the Marxist-Leninist theory and its exponents to take advantage of the crisis to institute a World Police State. Financial power has enabled them to secure control of all the main channels of publicity, especially the international news-agencies through which a bias can be imparted to the presentation of world news so as to intensify the crisis. During the war, they secured the setting up of UNRRA whose purpose is to restrict the distribution of food, and lead to famine in Europe. Through such institutions as the London School of Economics and Political and Economic Planning, as well as the more frankly Socialist organisations, they have disseminated doctrines which have gradually resulted in the institution of a system of bureaucratic socialism in Great Britain which has strangled private initiative and paralysed recovery from the ravages of war, and transferred power from Parliament to a junta concealed behind the bureaucracy.

  Europe has now been brought to near-detonation point. Its peoples are being driven to desperation by gross food-shortage, and lack of recovery from the desolation of war. Greece and France are in a highly unstable condition, and might be precipitated into revolution at any time. Whenever this happens, Russia is waiting to come to the assistance of the " victorious proletariat" and to set up the Federated States of Soviet Europe. In the commotion, the life-lines of the British empire, already frayed, will be completely severed, leaving Great Britain easy prey for either " liquidation " as " reactionary petty-bourgeois " or its own revolution.

  Once this strategic situation is grasped, it becomes clear that the well-meaning words of, say, Mr. Menzies, are like petrol as a fire-extinguisher. It is also clear why Mr. Baruch, the international financier, gave Mr. Churchill the go-ahead signal, providing Russia was misrepresented as a military menace.

  The situation is indeed formidable. Now, obviously a strategy opposed to a misconception can do nothing but worsen the situation. That is to say, as long as our policy is based on the assumption that Russia is a potential aggressor in the ordinary sense, every move is likely only to lead to irrevocable disaster. And similarly, every attempted denunciation of, or opposition to, the tactics, as such of the local Communists only furthers their strategy, because it helps to intensify the crisis. The vital necessity is rapid amelioration of the crisis, combined with frank exposure of the real situation.

  We most earnestly appeal to those with the potential power to deal with the situation to examine what we say impartially, and to realise that a great deal of what they believe and take for granted is the result of years of the most careful and subtle propaganda; that certain courses of action, unorthodox in appearance, are practicable and urgently necessary.1


1. The full text of this Article can be had from The Australian Social Crediter, Box 3266, Sydney, N.S.W.





  " A lawyer, who assisted at the two trials, published in the review Hammer of December, 1937, a statement according to which the Judge (of the Lower Court) was in debt to a Jew at the time of the trial. This very serious allegation has never to my knowledge been denied. The Neue Berner Zeitung of October 29, 1937, formulated a not less serious complaint against the same Judge, who was obliged by his superiors to take an action against the paper. At the time of writing the action is not yet over. It would seem that the Judge was hardly the proper man to decide such a delicate question.

  " It must be remarked also that, contrary to what appeared in many newspapers, the Court of Appeal found that, in spite of the prescriptions of the law, the reports of certain depositions had been drawn up by the private reporters of the Jewish plaintiffs. ' The proceedings as carried out in the Lower Court were not in accordance with custom and law. .. . The manner of drawing up the reports was in contradiction with the binding prescriptions of the law (Art. 92 and 215 Str. V).'2

  " That seems clear and definite. Besides, the reports had not been read to the accused and had not been signed, as the law prescribes. In addition, witnesses for the defence had not been convoked and the Judge (of the Lower Court) had accepted from the plaintiffs, as coming from Moscow, photographs which had been insufficiently legalized as well as faulty translations of Russian documents. Is it astonishing then that the accused were condemned by the Lower Court and that the Jews rejoiced? The proof that the Protocols were a forgery had been furnished at last.

   " But they had to change their tune. The Bernese Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Lower Court. The Higher Court found fault with the setting-up of a commission of experts to examine the question of the authenticity of the Protocols, since the authenticity or non-authenticity of the Protocols did not concern the Court. Moreover, the Court of Appeal severely criticized the choice of the experts, especially the selection of the third. ' If we leave out of account the completely unnecessary expense of the other judgments, in the circumstances, this would have been satisfactory, provided that the third expert selected had been completely impartial and unprejudiced. C. A. Loosli, however, had already, in 1937, published a pamphlet entitled Die Schlimmen Juden, in which he had characterized the Protocols as a recklessly malevolent fabrication and had heaped scorn on them as a forgery, in a manner that was purely polemical and absolutely unscientific. The form that Loosli's judgment in the matter would take was, therefore, capable of being to a large degree calculated in advance, so that he did not enjoy the requisite confidence of all parties'.3. The Court then drew the obvious conclusion: ' Such a mode of appointing an expert is not up to standard.'

  " It will be enough to mention one fact in order to justify this criticism of the expert, Loosli. A few pages back I showed that the testimony of Radziwill was valueless, since it has been proved that the Protocols had already been published in 1903. Loosli wanted, nevertheless, to make use of Radziwill's testimony in his professional report of October, 1934. To get out of the difficulty, he simply changed the date of Radziwill's testimony from 1903 to 1895.

" The result of the second trial was never in doubt. The accused (Fischer and Schnell) were acquitted, and one of them had to pay 100 francs costs out of a total of about 28,000 francs. Here it is interesting to note that the whole Jewish Press took good care not to mention that this slight penalty had nothing to do with the Protocols. You will remember what I said at the beginning, namely, that the Jews had included other publications in their action. The 100 francs costs were imposed on Mr. T. Fischer because of the article entitled Shweizermadchen hiite dich vor schandenden Juden.

  " A more disastrous result for the Jews could hardly be imagined. And what made it harder for them to bear was the fact that the Bernese Higher Court alluded to a judgment of the Federal Court, in which it was stated that the Swiss Law does not forbid and ' could not forbid journalists to express even very advanced opinions on the Jewish question, however painful these expressions of opinion might be for the Israelites.'

  " The Jews however are already ' putting across ' their own version of the trial. The Jewish Daily Post of April 28, 1935, wrote that the first trial had shown " the success that could be achieved by means of good Jewish organization ". This excellent organization was ready to go into action after the disaster of the second trial, as a couple of examples will show.

  " The Jewish Chronicle of November 5, 1937, wrote that the Court of Appeal had declared the Protocols a forgery and had held that they must be regarded as trashy literature. The same review asserted that the Court found that the falsity of the Protocols had been proved. In reality the Court of Appeal had declared that the authenticity of the Protocols had not been proved, which does not mean that their falsity had been proved. The Higher Tribunal added that the Lower Court should not have entered upon that question at all. ' To enter upon an expert examination of that question and carry it out was altogether superfluous '.*. The statement of the Jewish Chronicle must be stigmatized as contrary to the truth.

  " The Revue de Geneve (Jewish Review of Geneva), in its issue of November 1937, and the Journal des Nations, in its issue of November 3, 1937, were nearer the truth and sinned only by omission. They wrote that " the proofs of the authenticity of the Protocols had not been furnished," but they left out that the Lower Court had been blamed for having raised the question of authenticity, as that question did not concern it.

  " It is a universally admitted principle of historical criticism that when a document has been discovered, that document must be held to be authentic so long as its lack of authenticity, in other words, its falsity, has not been proved. This has always been the rule in regard to historical criticism. When it is stated that proof of the authenticity of the Protocols has not been furnished, the cart is put before the horse. It is for the Jews to prove that the Protocols constitute a forgery, and we know that all the attempts to prove this have been lamentable failures. What is more, it is known that the Provisional [Russian] Government of Prince Lwow, Freemason, handed over to the Jew Winawer, all the documents concerning the Protocols that were to be found in the Russian Home Office or at the Police Headquarters. If a proof or even a shadow of a proof, of the falsity of the Protocols had been found amongst these documents, the Jews would have published it immediately.

  " I do not intend to weary my readers with the account of other misrepresentations and skilfully concocted affirmations similar to those I have mentioned. It is a pity that writers, whose good faith cannot be called in question, take their information from such dubious sources. They make the mistake of not subjecting those sources to the severe criticism indispensable in a matter that aroused so much passionate feeling, and they neglect to consult the official documents. They thus contribute to get the false Jewish version accepted. They consider that they are acting charitably in defending unfortunate victims of persecution and calumny, while in reality they are working for the triumph of the Jews.

  " A Belgian religious wrote a short time ago that the decision of the Higher Cantonal Court confirmed the judgment of the Lower Court magistrate with regard to the falsity of the Protocols. The same author also asserted that the Court declared the Protocols to be ' a document written in bad faith, a malignant and poisonous forgery'.5 The Reverend Father is wrong. It was not the Court, but the barristers for the Jews who attacked the Protocols as the vilest product of the printing press ever published in Switzerland. I have carefully perused the 53 folio pages of the judgment and I can affirm that the Court nowhere declared the Protocols to be ' a document written in bad faith, a malignant and poisonous forgery.' That statement is absolutely opposed to the truth.

  " The Court certainly made use of some very severe epithets, such as ' stupid Jew-baiting,' ' attempt to defame the Jews as a body,' but these were employed with reference to the article Shweizermadchen hiite dich vor schandenden Juden, which had nothing to do with the Protocols, but which the Jews had cleverly included in their case.

   " The Court declared that the Protocols were ' shoddy or trashy literature in the aesthetic and literary.. . sense.' With that judgment we are in complete agreement. What remains to be determined is who is the author of this ' trashy literature.' On that point the Court declared itself incompetent."


1. Extract from Les Protocols des Sages de Sion constituent-ils un faux by H. de Vries de Heekelingen (Printed at Lausanne, 1938). In May 1935, the Judge of the Lower Court of the Swiss Canton of Berne, Meyer, gave judgment in the action taken by the Swiss Jewish Association and the Jewish Community of Berne against Theodore Fischer and Silvio Schnell concerning the Protocols and other publications. An appeal was lodged by Fischer and Schnell against the judgment, and the Court of Appeal or Higher Court of Berne gave its decision in October, 1937.

2. M. de Vries de Heekelingen here quotes the German text of the Judgment.

3. M. de Vries de Heekelingen again quotes from the German text of the High Court's decision.

4. M. de Vries de Heekelingen again quotes from the German text of the High Court's decision.

5. Article in La Nouvelle Revue tHeologique (January, 1938, p. 57) by the R. Pere Pierre Charles, S.J.





  On the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet the following are all Jews: N. Shvernik, Chairman; A. F. Gorkin, Secretary; A. M. Kirchenstein, Deputy Chairman; Ilya Ehrenberg; S. V. Kaftanov (5 out of 12).

  On the Council of Ministers—L. M. Kaganovich, L. P. Beria, while of the remaining 10 three members are married to Jewesses—Stalin, Voroshilov and Molotov.

  On the Politbureau of the Central Committee all the above are included with only four others. And there is a Jew at the head of every one of the following Ministries:—Agricultural Stocks, Building Industry, Food and Material Reserves, Heavy Industry Construction. The Information Services are under the control of the Jew S. Lozovsky. The Jewish control of Russia was even more apparent immediately after the Communist Revolution when the Jew content of the Government became close on 90%, from having been none under the Tzardom.

Puppet Governments of Communist Europe.

  In Poland the Jew Jacob Bergman exercises most control, supported by six other Jews out of eleven members of the Politbureau, besides a Jew at the head of the Ministry of Education, as Public Prosecutor and Chief of the Youth Movement. In Hungary the Government of five members is all-Jewish. In Czecho-Slovakia the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Communist Party are both Jews. In Yugoslavia the man behind Tito is the Jew Moishe Pjade. In Roumania the Jewess Anna Pauker is the real ruler.


  Names of the Jews in the above appointments have been published in FREE BRITAIN and will be provided, where asked for, as will the names of the six Jews who led the Dock Strike of last year and the Jews at the head of the Communist Movements in Canada and South Africa. In Britain the most important one is Ivor Montagu, one of the leading members of the " British " Communist Party and son of a Jew Peer.

These are the People you would have to fight for in another


  Here are some of the appointments in the United Nations Executive and in its Agencies; they are all Jews:

Department of Economic Affairs

Special Adviser: A. Rosenberg.

  Economic Stability Director: D. Weintraub. Department of Public Information

Assistant Secretary General: Ben Cohen.

  Films Division Director: J. Benoit-Levy. Legal Department: Chief: A. H. Feller. Director of Interpreters: G. Rabinovitch. Administrative Department

Deputy Director: Max Abramovitz.

  Executive (Personnel) : M. Bergmann. International Labour Office

  Director General: A. Morse. UNESCO

Educational Reconstruction Director, J. Eisenhart.

International Understanding Director, M. F. Luffman.

Tension Division Director, O. Klineberg.

Public Information Director, H. Kaplan.

Administrative Bureau Director, C. H. Weitz.

Personnel Bureau Director, S. S. Selsky.

  Housing Director, M. B. Abramski. International Bank Secretary: M. M. Mendels. International Monetary Fund

Managing Director: C. Gutt assisted by O. L. Altman.

Research Director:   E. M. Bernstein;   Senior Counsellor: Joseph Gold. World Health Organisation

  Technology Director: Z. Deutschmann G. Meyer. International Refugee Organisation

  M. Cohen and P. Jacobsen. U.N.O. Observer in Korea Col. Alfred Katzin.

  The links of the vast Jewish organisation which controls Communism on both sides of the Iron Curtain extends into every country—not only into openly Communist groups and to the less important members of the Soviet Spy system where most of those so-far convicted have been Jews. The links are such as to show that those who control Soviet policy inside Russia are merely part of a much wider Jewish organization whose central control need not be in Russia at all. There can be no doubt that some of its most influential members are in America and very high up in American politics, that is, when you consider the following:—

  Bernard Baruch—80 year old " Elder Statesman," " Key figure in politics," etc. . . . Chairman, War Industries Board from 1918, when he admitted before Congress that he had more power than the President. He was Adviser to Jas. F. Byrnes, War Mobilisation Director, from 1943. " One President after another has made him a confidante " said the paper American Hebrew of 17th June, 1946. He is a great friend of Mr. Churchill. He was Economic Adviser to U.S.A. Peace Commission in 1st World War and Master Mind of the New Deal Policy which has been called " Sovietism by Stealth."

  He was often denounced by Senator Huey Long, who was shot dead in 1933. He first made his money in Wall Street and is now credited with owning 50 million dollars. He is generally regarded by Jews throughout the world as their leader and champion, a position previously held by Jacob H. Schiff (died 1920), the head partner in the Jewish Wall St. Bank of Kuhn Loeb and Co., which financed the Communist Revolution in Russia, providing considerable material and moral aid for Trotsky. Schiff personally had taken a close interest in promoting the revolutionary movement in Tzarist Russia from the days of the Russo-Japanese war which he financed for Japan, Baruch then is the successor of this man described by the Jews themselves as their " beloved leader."

  Felix Frankfurter—Judge of the Supreme Court; described as the Man behind the Men behind the President. His first big job was assistant Secretary for War under Newton Baker (President Wilson's time); represented the Zionists at Paris Peace Conference, 1919. His influence has made him appointer of all sorts of Reds, Zionists and Pinks in important Government posts. He has been the chief legal expert in the New Deal. He is today the most influential single individual in the U.S.A. The Jew Henry H. Klein says " Frankfurter is the head and front of the Sanhedrin in the U.S.A.", and " Roosevelt was a puppet in his hands." He is responsible for introducing into politics, among many others, Dean Acheson, the traitor Alger Hiss, Benjamin V. Cohen of U.N.O., Sidney Hillman and David Niles.

  David Niles (real name Neyhus)—is a Frankfurter appointee who has in turn honeycombed the Government with his own appointees. He is behind the civil rights programme, calculated to reduce the White Man's influence, and is official spokesman for organised labour and racial minorities. He opposes anti-Government measures.

  Henry Morgenthau, Jr.—Secretary to the Treasury 1934-45. Responsible for the plan which was to reduce Germany to a pasture. Introduced plan for camouflaged Gold Standard at International Monetary Conference, Bretton Woods, 1944. His wife is Eleanor Roosevelt's closest friend.

  David E. Lilienthal—Director and Chairman of Tennessee Valley Authority from 1933 until he was made first Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission which consisted of five members of which at least three were Jews. After the Russians had been handed the secrets by spies, he resigned in 1950.

  Others in strategic positions include Herbert H. Lehman, banker, Governor of New York State, 1932-42, then Director-General of UNRRA, to whom the British General Sir Fredk. Morgan was called upon to apologize for expressing the flourishing state of Jews under UNRRA in East Europe; Walter Lippmann, most widely quoted political writer in the world, was Secretary of the organisation directed by the Jew Col. House to prepare data for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, drafted Wilson's Fourteen Points and invented the League of Nations; Walter Winchell, widely publicised writer and chief character-smearing expert against the leading anti-Communists; Benjamin J. Buttenweiser, member of the Jewish bank which financed Lenin and Trotski (Kuhn Loeb & Co.) and this year became Assistant to the Zinsser-married High Commissioner in West Germany, J. J. McCloy. In this Jewish-Communist conspiracy, there is also Adolf A. Berle Jr.— son of the author of " The World Significance of a Jewish State," which forecast that Zion would rule the world, who became Assistant Secretary of State. It was he who, when warned by Whittaker Chambers about Alger Hiss's treachery in 1939, took no action but allowed Hiss to do his fell work through the war, which made the cold war possible today.

Extract from Social Credit (Canada), November, 1950. Christian Liquidation.

  The Zionists' own mouthpiece, The Jewish Standard, October, 1950, published the following revealing figures:

  Before the end of the British mandate, Palestine's Christian population (excluding British officials, police and army personnel) totalled 145,000. Of these, roughly 100,000 are estimated to have lived in the area now known as Israel.

  At present, Christians in Israel number between 45,000 and 50,000.

  Roman Catholics have dropped in number, since 1947, from 30,000 to 5,000; Protestants from 6,000 to 1,500.

  It would seem that the Christian population of Israel is faring even worse than the Jews are alleged to have fared under Hitler. But where are our " free " press and radio and C.B.C. ? Imagine the hullabaloo they would be making if America were meting out this treatment to her Zionist population !

Extract from The Tablet (Brooklyn), October 14, 1950.

       REPORTS FIGURES ON PERSECUTION. Vatican Radio analyses Effect of Red Tyranny in Europe.

  In a country-by-country analysis, a Vatican Radio broadcast gave the following report on the persecution of priests and monks in areas behind the Iron Curtain.

   Ukraine: Five thousand priests killed and a thousand churches destroyed or closed.

Baltic Countries: A thousand priests murdered or jailed.

Poland: A thousand priests deported to Siberia.

  Czechoslovakia: Three hundred priests and an undetermined number of monks and nuns imprisoned.

  Hungary: A thousand priests and monks murdered or deported, and another 589 prevented from carrying out their duties.

  Bulgaria: One hundred and twenty priests killed or exiled.

   Yugoslavia: A total of 1,954 priests killed, arrested or deported.

  Albania: Some 715 priests and monks, including all the Bishops of the country, rendered incapable of performing their ministry.



* Title * Author * Contents * Part One * Part Two * Part Three * Supplements *