|
Hello Bill, and All,
There is a passage, number 159, in C H
Douglas's post-WW II book "The Development of World Dominion", (found on page
128 in my copy), in which Douglas states:-
"We should be prepared to agree that in
technical ability, and, in the narrow sense, moral integrity, the upper
administrative personnel of the Bank "of England" is equal, if not
superior, to that of any institution of its kind in the world. At least
since 1920, its structure has been modelled on the German-Jew cartel controlling
Banks, each industry having one or more Directors who have only to make a case
to get all the finance they need. Other mechanisms, such as Nuffield
Trusts, etc., mould science, art, and thought."
"This being so, it is difficult to
assess the activities of various monetary reformers, and their schools of
thought, which agitate for " the restoration of money issue to
the Government (or 'the people' ) to spend money into circulation to keep prices
constant."
"We are not concerned at the moment with the
technical falsity of the objective; what we should like to get at is the nature
of the idea they have in mind. If corruption, in the ordinary sense, is
ruled out (as it is), what do they think they can 'do' to the Bank "of
England"? Do they seriously think Parliamentary mechanisms can control
it?"
"As things are, we consider that the demand, under
various names , for the further centralisation of money-creation is the most
dangerous activity extant. And many monetary reformers, who appear to be more
concerned to damage private banking than to achieve individual benefit, are
doing their half-baked best to assist."
The one fact which becomes clearer daily is
that the value of the Parliamentary system depended almost entirely on the
fact that in the days of metal-coinage systems, the central
Government, whether it was King or Prime Minister, had to get its finance
from individuals."
"The foundation of the Bank "of England",
the Whig shop-window for Amsterdam and Frankfort, struck a mortal blow, as it
was intended to do, at the English governmental system. To ''nationalise''
the Bank, or to transfer its functions to the Treasury, would be merely to
put what little remains of the lady inside the tiger." July 28, 1945. (end
of Douglas quote.)
Yet here we have today many "Social Crediters" in
various countries, some even organized as political parties, calling for the
very thing Douglas was warning above against. Could we get a clear
statement just what Douglas envisioned throughout his works when he called
for 'de-centralised finance'?
Obviously, despite his reference to it above, he
was not advocating a return to a 'metal-coinage'. ( I seem to remember I've
read somewhere, perhaps on the old Topica list quite some time ago,
someone writing that one prominent Social Crediter possibly connected to the
Secretariat seemed to think there was some merit in returning to the 'gold
standard' ~ but perhaps I'm mistaken. I can't see Douglas ever advocating
that!)
What would be helpful, I think, is to take what Douglas has written
above, where he has compressed a great many thoughts into a very short series of
paragraphs, (many of which COULD, out of context, be taken the wrong way), and
explain just exactly what he means in relation to the Social Credit financial
proposals.
Best wishes,
Joe
|
Re: (Social Credit
Reply to this message
