Conversion of Governments into Dictatorships. 1946

Reprinted from “The Australian Social Crediter” March and April of 1946.

“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 admitted 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 natural 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.

About the author

The Australian Social Crediter

Leave a Comment