eListas - My Lists: socialcredit: Messages

Jim has asked for more discussion about the philosophy of Social Credit. Keith has entered the discussion also. Pasted below is Douglas's "Chart" or Specification of 1951 which he drafted to combat distortions which seemed repeatedly and persistently to enter into discussions of Social Credit. This is accompanied by explanatory material offered some time ago by Vic Bridger. Hopefully, this material will help to illustrate the nature of Social Credit by showing certain aspects in order of priority and by demonstrating their inter-relatedness. I hope that the Chart formats properly. In any case, a PDF is attached as well.

Douglas Specification:

WHAT IS SOCIAL CREDIT?

This specification was drawn up by C. H. Douglas as one of his last public activities to counteract

the tendency of the Social Credit Movement, as of all movements which have a philosophical base,

to develop perspective disproportionately:

Social Credit assumes that society is primarily metaphysical, and must have regard to the organic

relationships of its prototype.

PHILOSOPHY

POLICY

________________|________________

| |

ECONOMICS ADMINISTRATION

___________|________________________________ |__________

| | | |

Consumer Control Integral Accounting Hierarchy Contracting-out

of Production Mechanisms

OBJECTIVE: Social Stability by the integration of means and ends.

INCOMPATIBLES: Collectivism, Dialectic, Materialism, Totalitarianism, Judæo-Masonic

Philosophy and policy. Ballot-box democracy embodies all of these.

C.H. Douglas

February, 1951.

********************

[COMMENTARY BY VICTOR BRIDGER]:

What is Social Credit?

C. H. Douglas laid down the specification in relation to what is Social Credit for the purpose of

ensuring that it could not be misinterpreted, changed, or abused from his original intentions.

Because so many have attempted to pervert or alter the meaning of Social Credit as he had

expressed it, this was an absolute necessity. His opening statement accompanied by the

Specification needs to be understood in terms expressed by Douglas himself.

Throughout his writings and addresses spanning from 1918 to 1951 he never ceased to stress the

importance of the underlying philosophy, which is the fountainhead of his specification. There can

be little doubt that Douglas was accepting a dictionary meaning of philosophy as, “the investigation

of the causes and laws underlying reality,” because he constantly referred to the necessity to “bind

back to reality”. The starting point is thus an acceptance of the “causes and laws underlying reality.”

In his address to a conference of Social Crediters in London, on June 26, 1937, Douglas explained

very clearly his use of the words Philosophy and Policy and the connection between them as shown

in his Specification:

There is a meaning of objective, a strong essence of objective, in the word ‘policy.’ It is not

merely administration. It is actually, if you like, governmental action, but it is action taken

towards a recognised and conscious objective, and it is in that sense that we use the word

‘policy;’ it is a little more, but it comprehends and comprises the word objective.

Douglas discusses the etymological derivation of the word “religion” and likens this to his use of

the word policy:

…I think that the agreed definition, its original meaning, was to bind back. In the sense that

I am going to use it, and I think I will be using it correctly, the word religion has to do with

a conception of reality. It is the binding back either of action, or of policy--particularly of

policy in the sense that I was using the word policy--to reality. In so far as it means to bind

back, to bring into close relation again, and in the sense I am going to use it, religion is any

sort of doctrine which is based on an attempt to relate action to some conception of reality.

Social Credit is the policy of a philosophy. It is something based on what you profoundly

believe-- what at any rate, I profoundly believe, and hope you will--to be a portion of reality,

and that conception of reality is a philosophy, and the action that we take based on that

conception is a policy, and that policy is Social Credit. It is in fact a policy based upon a

philosophy….

The philosophy, which takes regard of the “causes and laws underlying reality,” raises two

questions. One is the concept of reality and the other is his reference to Society being primarily

Metaphysical.

Douglas provided a further insight to what he referred to as a “concept of reality”, when he derided

the use of the words “Social Credit” as some sort of license to be used as a means to achieve

anything simply by uttering the words, particularly in regard to its monetary aspects. Again in the

same address he said:

All that you can say about Social Credit, either in its monetary aspects, or in these aspects

I am discussing tonight, is that we see-- and I profoundly believe that we do see-- just a little

bit of the way in which the universe does in fact act. We see, through the adulation, what the

nature of money is, and knowing the nature of money, we know what we can make it do, and

what we cannot. Our power is largely in this fact that we know a little, or believe we know

a little….

In an address to Social Crediters at Westminster, on March 7, 1936, Douglas had elaborated on his

conception of reality as it applied to what he was calling Social Credit:

As I conceive it, Social Credit covers and comprehends a great deal more than the money

problem. Important as that is, primarily important because it is a question of priority, Social

Credit fundamentally involves a conception, I feel a true conception--but you must enlarge

upon that for yourselves--of the relationships between individuals and their association in

countries and nations, between individuals and their association in groups.

We have reached the point where the various aspects come together. In his qualifying statement he

starts with the word Society. Society is an abstract word to describe a number of individuals in

association. It matters not whether there are two people or two million, so long as they are

associating there is a society. Nevertheless, people associate in order to achieve an objective or an

intended result, or at least that is what is regarded as the reason. Douglas also noted in his London

address:

...the trouble now is the people don’t know where they are going, nor how to get there. We

have something we want to achieve so we have to get into our minds a conception of the

mechanism of the universe in order to use it; whereas the average man in the street including

the average politician, the average statesman, and the average person, does not even know

where he is going much less how to get there. That is one of the chief explanations of the

chaos now, and it leaves the way clear to those who have a conception of the world they

want.

Why has the situation arisen where people do not know where they are going or how to get there,

when they have associated to achieve an objective or intended result with their efforts? That is one

portion of the concept of reality and it can be the result of either or both of two things. The first is

human nature and the other is the result of actions relating to the relationships of the individual to

the group. Douglas made a very practical observation in his book Social Credit. With regard to

human nature and its effect on the association of individuals or society there was a dichotomy. One

involved those who were not satisfied with the results of their association and who were powerless

to effect any change and the other involved those who were completely satisfied with the situation

and were not interested in any change. Douglas drew the conclusion from his observations to the

reality and wrote in his book Social Credit:

One of the first facts to be observed as part of the social ideal…is the elevation of the group

ideal and the minimising of individuality, i.e., the treatment of individuality as subordinate

to, e.g. nationality. The manifestations of this idea are almost endless. We have the national

idea, the class or international idea, the identification of the individual with the race, the

school, the regiment, the profession, and so forth. There is probably no more subtle and

elusive subject than the consideration of the exact relation of the group in all these and

countless other forms, to the individuals who compose the groups…The shifting of emphasis

from the individual to the group, which is involved in collectivism, logically involves the

shifting of responsibility for action.

Douglas recognized that human beings act according to the beliefs they hold. These beliefs stem

from various sources but it is the belief itself that causes an impulse a need to take some action.

Social Credit beliefs based upon reality in the world or universe, as we know it, imply that human

association is a voluntary conscious act, which is driven by some force. The desire to do something

or achieve something requires the will to do it and this will precedes an action that may occur. That

force may be regarded by some as a mystical force but it is no different from the force, which

governs the law of gravity or the law of motion. These are known as natural laws and Douglas was

quite specific when he commented on the necessity to obey natural laws and that departure from

them would be disastrous. Natural laws are universal and apply to all things and should be accepted

for the reality they demonstrate when tested. Thus the underlying reality, the reality to which it is

necessary to “bind back to,” is the basis of the philosophy of Social Credit. Philosophy, the starting

point of the Specification exists in the realm of metaphysics where desire and the impulse to act are

generated. This impulse, or metaphysical Will emerges into the world of physics and takes on the

realism of the things that are known in this world.

The word “Metaphysical” may provide a problem for some not familiar with it. It may be relevant

to quote from Fowlers Modern English Usage to understand the meaning attached by Douglas:

Metaphysics and metaphysical are so often used as quasi-learned and vaguely depreciatory

substitutes for various other terms, for theory and theoretical, subtle(ty), (the) supernatural,

occult(ism), obscure and obscurity, philosophy and philosophic, academic(s), and so forth,

that it is pardonable to forget that they have a real meaning, of their own--the more that the

usual resource of those who suddenly realize that their notion of a word's meaning is hazy,

an appeal to its etymology, will not serve. It is agreed that Metaphysics owes its name to the

accident that the part of Aristotle’s works in which metaphysical questions were treated of

stood after (meta) the part concerned with physics (ta phusika), and that the word’s

etymology is therefore devoid of significance.

It is indeed actually misleading if it suggests the inference, as it has to some, that

metaphysics is the “science of things transcending what is physical or ‘natural’.” What is

wanted, then is a definition plain enough not to perplex, but precise enough not to mislead.

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature of things, or

considers the questions, what is the world of things we know? And, how do we know it?

Three kinds of definite answers are returned. Metaphysical materialism is the view that

everything known is body or matter. Metaphysical idealism is the view that everything

known is mind, or some mental state or other. Metaphysical realism is the intermediate view

that everything known is either body or soul, neither of which alone exhausts the universe

of being.

We know that Douglas regarded the binding back to reality in the universe as the basis of the

philosophy of Social Credit and that he used philosophy in the sense of the “causes and laws

underlying reality” and that is precisely the usage that he applies to the word “metaphysical.” If

metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the ultimate nature of things, and asks the

questions “what is the world of things we know,” and “how do we know it” then he is using

metaphysics in the sense of Metaphysical realism.

We have reached the stage where we can summarise the opening words of his statement, “Social

Credit assumes that Society is primarily metaphysical.” Social Credit is a policy of a philosophy

and that philosophy accepts the reality that individuals associate voluntarily and consciously to

obtain an objective the results of which are satisfactory to them. It would be nonsense to accept that

individuals associate to produce an objective that does not produce, nor intends to produce a

satisfactory result. Every question raised with respect to the philosophy of Social Credit takes into

account the ultimate nature of things, the underlying reality and does not admit of assumptions and

theories.

The problem, as Douglas saw it and thus Social Crediters who follow his work, is the problem of

the Individual and how he can associate in voluntary co-operation with his fellows within the limits

of the existing physical conditions without losing that individuality. This is one reason why Douglas

placed such importance on the relationship between the Individual and the Group, which is formed

for the benefit of the individuals composing it.

C.H. Douglas, in his first book Economic Democracy, gives a glimpse of the starting point of the

philosophy incorporating the association of individuals into a society. It starts with the individual:

Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is

self-development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.

Accepting this statement as a basis of constructive effort, it seems clear that all forms,

whether of government, industry or society must exist contingently to the furtherance of the

principles contained in it. If a State system can be shown to be inimical to them--it must go;

if social customs hamper their continuous expansion--they must be modified; if unbridled

industrialism checks their growth, then industrialism must be reined in. That is to say, we

must build up from the individual, not down from the State.

It is perfectly clear from this consideration that Douglas has placed the individual at the top of the

list. It is the individual in society that stands as the focal point. It is the individual alone, in

association and in conjunction with all of the activities undertaken, and the relationship of the

individual and the group of which he is a part. The actions that are taken by the individual alone or

collectively in society are judged by the results obtained and how they are affected in reality. The

position now reached is the dichotomy of the individual and the group; the subordination of the

individual to the group ideal and metaphysical realism which questions why this is so; this is

something we know, and how we know it, who is causing it, which leads to what can be done about

it.

In answering the question, what can be done about it, Douglas draws attention to the fact that it

“must have regard to the organic relationships of its prototype.”

Douglas suggested that the interest of man is self development and this in itself is an organic

process. It is not static and implies an on going process where the individual is involved in

increasing his self-development for his own benefit as well as those with whom he is associating.

It virtually invokes the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is

a Christian concept and one reason why Social Credit has been claimed by some to be practical

Christianity. It also relates to the question of religion, not a particular religious faith, but in the sense

of binding back to reality.

It requires little understanding that by “organic relationships” Douglas was referring to the growth

of the individual, and his relationship with other individuals in society, either as a nation or between

nations whilst at the same time retaining that principle of “do unto others….” The organic

relationships of its prototype become clear when taken together with the principle of “Do unto

others...,” and who is credited with this maxim. A prototype is the original thing or person in

relation to any copy, imitation, representation, later specimen, improved form etc. What is the

prototype for Man? Douglas is here referring to the original in whose form Man was made. This in

itself is not simply a reference to God but to good and evil and the nature of Man that develops

according to the growth of society of which each individual is a part.

If the requirement is to “do unto others…,” then why is it that there is so much division in society,

and what is the main cause of the dissension that exists? The policy of Social Credit contains a

strategy to create social conditions favourable to the policy of the individual. Accepting this as a

correct approach to the social problems that exist, Social Credit represents the systematic advocacy

of the of the maximum liberty of the individual limited only by his not encroaching upon the

functional activities of his fellows. In other words it is the “social stability by the integration of

means and ends.” If this is accepted as an objective to strive for and is in the interests of the

individual and the society, which he forms, why is there such opposition to it?

Douglas is quite emphatic about the reasons. It is the will to power exercised through the control of

the money system and this is the basis of the Policy of Social Credit. It is a Policy designed to

incarnate or to put into concrete form the means by which the social problem can be addressed. It

is a Policy designed to balance the scales, as it were, so that the individual in association can obtain

the benefits of his association with his fellows.

Power is in the nature of Reality. Power has been defined as the capacity to act, to exert influence,

control, to impose one’s will. Power is exerted by human beings over other human beings and is the

capacity to impose a line of action upon individuals. Centralised power requires the sanctions of

administration. This simply means that centralised power has the sanctions of the police and the

military. The pressure of administration is probably the greatest in the field of finance, with all it’s

manifestations--debt, taxation, the control and issue of finance, the terms on which we get it, and

the conditions under which it is taken away.

Once we grasp this in essence, the subject of power is the central question concerning man in the

world and living together in society. When placed alongside the concept of Social Credit which

comprises interlocking concepts of economics and politics and which deal with the Just Relationship

between man and the society in which he lives, the reality becomes clearer.

Although the problem may be the will to power and the control of the money system, it is reinforced

by the lack of understanding realities and the metaphysical will to act upon a physical reality. Not

only is it necessary to undertake the Policy of Social Credit to achieve a turn around; it is also

necessary to have sufficient people who will undertake a mental or metaphysical turn around. It is

necessary to recognise that every extension of extraneous control, i.e., outside the ambit of the

individual, is inherent in the nature of the individual, i.e., contrary to reality. To those who wish to

understand what Douglas meant it is necessary to understand that human nature may be good or bad,

that the aim of the individual is totalitarian and that therefore all forms of control that are external

to that of the individual are not acceptable as being contrary to reality as expressed in the words

“ the organic relationships of its prototype.” That is why he has listed those forms, which are

incompatible with Social Credit Philosophy and why the Policy of Social Credit (The Policy of a

Philosophy) contains measures to counter them.

What is Social Credit?

This specification was drawn up by C.H. Douglas as one of his last public activities to counteract

the tendency of the social Credit Movement, as of all movements, which have a philosophical base,

to develop perspective disproportionately:

Social Credit assumes that society is primarily metaphysical, and must have regard to the organic

relationships of its prototype:

As I conceive it, Social Credit covers and comprehends a great deal more than the money

problem. Important as that is, primarily important because it is a question of priority, Social

Credit fundamentally involves a conception, I feel a true conception--but you must enlarge

upon that for yourselves--of the relationships between individuals and their association in

countries and nations, between individuals and their association in groups. (The Approach

to Reality--C.H. Douglas)

These words of C.H. Douglas, as he said, “involves a conception,” and it is that conception that is

so often overlooked by both those who know nothing or little about Social Credit as well as those

who proclaim to be Social Crediters. It is for this reason we now extend the discussion further to

deal entirely with aspects of Social Credit as defined in his Specification.

There are two main headings under which Social Credit principles may be dealt. The first relates to

Philosophy and the second is Policy.

It is important to understand that the Philosophy comes first and is the guiding force, which activates

the Policy. For decades the writer has been asked a simple question to explain Social Credit, briefly,

in a few words, in a more comprehensible manner than contained in the writings of Douglas.

Although it may be difficult for some, who have entrenched ideas or beliefs and who are not willing

to accept changes in their thinking, it is for others an exercise in laziness. They do not wish to spend

their time in learning or trying to understand. Yet these very same people will spend endless hours

writing to newspapers, attend demonstrations, attend meetings, support political parties blindly, and

complain to their friends, neighbours or relatives on current affairs that affect their daily lives. All

of this is just so much wastage of energy time and in many cases money. It is simply wasted action.

PHILOSOPHY

The Philosophy of Social Credit is very simple. It is based upon what Douglas referred to as a

perception of reality. It is the acceptance of those things that are governed by natural law and which

have been described as practical Christianity. This is not to be mistaken as a theological perception

bound up in some religious faith, although it is necessary to have a faith, but that it is an entirely

separate issue.

Many people have in the past mistaken Social Credit as a religious organisation and yet it is

religious in the correct etymology of the word religion. The correct meaning of religion is; “ re,”

back or again, and “ligio” to bind. Social Credit Philosophy and Policy are a means to bind back to

reality. It is used in Social Credit as the binding back of action or of policy, i.e., Social Credit Policy

to Reality. It is entirely necessary to have faith in what one believes, but that is, by itself, not

consistent with Social Credit philosophy. Faith without works is death. If one believes in something,

and that something is important, then it follows that some action must be taken (the implementation

of a policy) to bring it into being.

L.D. Byrne in his Faith, Power and Action expresses it very clearly when he wrote: “There can be

no consciousness of Reality for any of us except the ‘here and now.’ What is happening to us--our

experiences--here and now seems vividly real.…The only consciousness of Reality for each of us

is what we are actually experiencing in the present--in the ‘here and now’.”

We experience poverty, a drug problem, violence and aggression which is ever increasing,

increasing debt that forces people to require a two person income for a family, lack of health

facilities, lack of decent education, and increasing centralisation of power through finance and so

on.

Douglas wrote of the Canon, that something that although difficult to define is recognised by

everyone when confronted. The Reality expressed in terms of that which is right. Does the soup taste

“ right”?--add a little salt. Is the cake mixture “right?”--add a little something to obtain the texture

required, every cook experiences it. Is the painting “right?”--add another stroke or another tone of

colour, every artist knows it. Is the symphony played by the orchestra “right?”--the conductor knows

it.

THE RIGHT ACTION

In The Social Crediter, August 3, 1946, Douglas provided an example of what is meant by taking

action. There is little to be gained by quoting from the Bible to explain what is right or wrong and

what should be done because it is written there. It is the doing that is required. Christian principles

provide the yardstick or the standard to be achieved; they are nothing without their application. It

is of similar character to those who use the words “Social Credit” as though they were the magic

words that when uttered, all would be well. Douglas writes of a call by Earl of Darnley in the House

of Lords for people to replace Power Politics by the Christian Ethic:

Where it may be asked, is there any problem in that, other than one of wholesale conversion?

Let us, in order to elucidate the difficulty, compare Christianity to the theory of

Thermo-Dynamics, and assume, for the purposes of the argument, that all the essentials of

that theory were widely known two thousand years ago. It is not difficult to imagine that

those who grasped the implications of it might say, “Here is the key to a better society. Here

is the title deed to a leisure world. Disregard all else, and apply thermo-dynamics.”

Remember that we are assuming that James Watt was still to be born. And the world at large

would have said, “This man says the magic word is Thermo-Dynamics. Crucify him.”

Now the fact, which ought to be patent to anyone, is that it is the Policy of a Philosophy

which is important (because it is the evidence of things not seen): and that

Thermo-Dynamics means nothing without Heat Engines, and Christianity means nothing

without the Incarnation. You cannot drive a dynamo with Boyle’s Law, or the “Queen

Elizabeth” with Joule’s Equivalent. This country is not now the Policy of a Christian

Philosophy, and before it can again, as an organisation, put into practice those Christian

principles, for which Lord Darnley pleads, it must understand their application through

proper mechanisms….

Similarly, it requires more than the reading of a cookbook to became a cook. It requires more than

just reading about the rules of cricket to become a cricketer. It requires more than the theoretical

study of music to become a musician. They all require practice “at the nets.”

In all spheres of life we know what is right and what is wrong and in most cases we know what to

do to obtain the result we want. However it is not always possible to do what should be done

because there is something or someone who places obstructions in our path. Added to the difficulties

presented by obstructionists, is the general decline in the standards that have been set to determine

the correct action between man and his fellows, as well as between man the individual and the

group.

There is no apology for Social Credit in accepting the Christian principle that the individual is the

most important factor in organised society. The individual soul is more important than a

non-existent group soul. It is not surprising, therefore, that attention is directed towards the

individual who associates with others to form a society. The individual is real, society is an

abstraction. You can feel, see or hear an individual, but you cannot touch or hear a society.

Individuals come together in association (society) to gain some benefit. This benefit may be in the

form of protection, or obtaining an increment of association, i.e., achieving something that could not

be done singly. Or, it may be reaping the benefit of the cultural inheritance, that is, those things that

have been handed down from past generations of how to make tools and how to use

them and how to increase their usefulness.

THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE GROUP

It is this relationship between individuals and groups to which Douglas refers as being a priority.

Unless it is recognised that the individual is more important than the group, which has been formed

by individuals, no action will be successful. Irrespective of how correct or “right” a policy may be,

it is doomed to failure unless it is understood exactly what Douglas was saying when he said in

Economic Democracy:

Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is selfdevelopment,

is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic.

Note carefully that the systems he referred to covered all of those systems that have been formed by

Man, and if formed by Man, they can be altered by Man. He went further in his explanation of that

statement by saying:

Accepting this statement as a basis of constructive effort, it seems clear that all forms,

whether of government, industry or society must exist contingently to the furtherance of the

principles contained in it. If a State system can be shown to be inimical to them--it must go;

if social customs hamper their continuous expansion--they must be modified; if unbridled

industrialism checks their growth, then industrialism must be reined in. That is to say, we

must build up from the Individual, not down from the State.

The concentration on policy, or certain aspects of it, particularly relating to finance, by many who

believe they are supportive of Social Credit have probably done more harm than good. They

certainly have not succeeded in making the slightest dent in the finance system that continues to

become more centralised with increasing control over peoples’ lives. Apart from this is the reality

that no one wants to live in poverty, no one wants the drug problem, no one wants wars, no one

wants to live in economic insecurity with the threat of losing their job, no one wants political

insecurity such as in some of the underdeveloped countries, no one wants to be forever in debt let

alone having it increasing, no one wants to lose their homes, their farms etc. Then, why do they

allow it?

The failure to understand what is happening is reflected in the inability to understand what Douglas

was saying when he wrote in The Social Crediter, February 9, 1946:

If a man, presently at Crewe, says he wishes to go to London, and then insists on entering

a carriage labelled Wigan, you will probably be tempted to call him, “incompetent,”

“inefficient.” But you may be quite wrong. The man may really have intended to go to

Wigan, and have told you he was going in the other direction, to avoid argument as to the

relative attractions of Wigan and London. When, therefore, you notice that affairs in this

country are getting steadily worse; that badly as they were managed after 1918, they are

incomparably worse managed from your point of view now, it is not wise to assume that

your affairs have been handed over to a collection of nitwits, because if you have any

experience of affairs you will have learnt that Cabinet posts at £5,000 per annum (approx.

$10,000 in 1946 was roughly equivalent to $200,000 on today’s salary) do not come into

the grasps of nitwits. The qualities, which got them there may not be--lmost certainly not--

the qualities, you consider suitable to their position. But you must remember that you did not

put them where they are, although perhaps you think you did.

Taking their key words, “Full Employment,” “Austerity” (austerity was the key word

during the war, today it is “saving” because we are allegedly living beyond our means and

living on borrowings from overseas) and “Unlimited Exports,” as signposts, it is really not

difficult to see why the train is going to Wigan (a hellish coal-town) when you suppose that

everyone wants to go to London. And Wigan? Wigan is merely Big Business as

Government.

Who is responsible for putting the Multilateral Agreement on the agenda? Who is responsible for

putting the Fifth Protocol on the agenda? Who is responsible for putting the GST on the agenda?

POWER AND FREEDOM

Whose power and whose freedom?

In Triumph of the Past Michael Lane writes an excellent article titled “Power and Freedom.” He

draws together a number of significant revelations by Douglas on philosophical thoughts. On the

question of “Wigan” he says:

If we don't like where we are going, why are we going there? Britain had been moving

steadily toward more centralized power for fifty years. Both the consistency of the facts over

time in Britain and parallel facts in otherwise unlike countries (Germany, Russia, the United

States) led Douglas to infer the existence of a Promoter. That is, if for centuries we never

went to Wigan and never had the least interest in going to Wigan, then all of a sudden not

only are we going there but we have no choice in the matter, it is reasonable to infer that

someone wants to go to Wigan.

War is a puzzle just like Wigan.

As Douglas said:

I suppose that about two thousand millions of individuals are affected by the present war.

I should place the number of individuals who would be quite unable to say with approximate

accuracy what it is about at roughly nineteen hundred and ninety nine millions, so that we

are left with this simple alternative. Either the total population of the world likes war without

knowing what it is about; in which case it is obviously absurd to do anything to abolish it,

or, on the other hand, we can find the causes of war if we examine the actions of a minority

hidden amongst less than a million individuals (Programme for the Third World War, p. 32).

If people associate to obtain benefits that they could not achieve on their own, why do they allow

someone to deny them? There is nothing to be gained in treating the symptom instead of attacking

the cause. There is nothing to be gained to complain about the effects without discovering the cause.

There is nothing to be gained by spending time and money on matters such as monetary reform of

altering the financial system unless there is a guarantee that such a policy will reflect the philosophy

of providing economic and political security.

RECOGNIZING THE PROBLEM

Douglas wrote in The Social Crediter, February 7, 1948:

…it must be recognised that the practical problem which we have to face is not intellectual,

it is militant. Mere conversion to an understanding of the A + B Theorem, the creation of

credit by the banks, the foreign Acceptance swindle, and the whole network of International

Finance by itself, leads nowhere. Probably ninety per cent of the adult population of this

country suspect that they are being swindled. Even if they understood exactly and technically

how they are being swindled, it would make little difference. But it does make a great deal

of difference if they know who is obstructing the rectification of the swindle, and who is the

major beneficiary. The general population of the country has been completely misled as to

the identity of its enemies, and has turned on its most effective leaders, who were far from

perfect, but were incomparably better than the mixture of Trades Union careerists and alien

schemers who now afflict us. Witness the state of the country, and the worse future with

which we are threatened. For all these reasons and others, we conceive it to be our vocation

to indicate, without prejudice but without favour, those whom we conceive to be the enemies

of our culture and ideals; to unmask their aims.

Douglas never failed to continue stressing the importance of the individual against the group ideal.

Nor did he lack the courage to point the finger at those whom he considered were the instigators of

programmes or policies that were not in the best interest of the individuals in society. It was to be

expected that this would attract an attack upon him and Social Credit because those in opposition

to the philosophy and policy of Social Credit were not prepared to face the truth. Opposition could

be found in personal attacks involving his ideas, his literary style as well as his personal stature and

appearance. Most if not all attacks on his works were based on false presentations of his statements

and incorrect quoting.

In The Social Crediter, October 16, 1948 he again reiterated his conviction relating to priorities:

There is a certain body of opinion which is under the impression that we have abandoned the

financial aspect of Social Credit. In this connection, we are reminded of a pungent criticism

made some years ago, that the great disadvantage under which the Social Credit movement

then laboured, was that it was largely composed of Socialists who wanted nationalisation of

banking.

People who hold this type of opinion have not taken the trouble to grasp the fundamental

subject matter with which we have always been concerned, which is the relationship of the

individual to the group. Thirty years ago, that relationship was predominantly a financial

relationship. Quite largely through the exertions of the Socialists, strongly assisted by the

highest powers of International Finance, the Central Banks have become practically

impregnable, and the sanctions, which they exert, have shifted from the bank balance to the

Order-in-Council.

It ought to be, but unfortunately it is not, apparent to everyone who takes an intelligent

interest in these matters that the fundamental problem has been greatly complicated by the

developments of the past twenty years; and that the immediate issue is in the realm of Law

and military power, not of book-keeping. That does not mean in the least that book-keeping

is one penny the less important than it was when we directed attention to it; but it does mean

that it is the second trench to be taken, not the first. For that, we have to thank in great part,

the ‘obsession’ with nationalised banking.

Today we do not have the emphasis placed on nationalising of the banks, but rather the constant call

by some to take the monopoly of credit/money creation from the banks and hand it to the

government. This would result in a handing control from one source to another without any change

in policy and would lead to even greater disaster and control. After all, it is the government that

allows the banks the latitude they have today whilst pretending to promote greater competition. The

deregulation and all of its wondrous consequences are still to be realised as of benefit to the

individual in our society. Yet it has allowed for greater profits reduced services, increased charges,

etc.

THE ESSENCE OF CONTROL

In the 1999, May/June issue of The Australasian Social Credit Journal we drew attention to the

increasing use of “consumerism” as a means of control, because that “consumerism” is based on

increasing debt. To put it another way, the emphasis on consumerism is an increase in the

acceptance of materialism in contradiction to what may be referred to as an increase in the quality

of life. People have been blindly and willingly led into an acceptance of those things, which they

mistakenly believe, are signs of prosperity much the same way as one could expect of well-fed

slaves. The individual in society has accepted the need to work longer hours and the need for a

two-income household. We say individual because that is the reality. It is not society that has

dictated the rules. It is that someone or a collection of them who have dictated the terms and it is

the individual collectively in society who have accepted these terms.

In Programme for the Third World War, Douglas wrote:

Now, once you have surrendered to materialism, it is quite true that economics precedes

politics, and dominates. It is not in Bolshevism, Fascism, the New Deal and P.E.P or the

London School of Economics, or the Fabian Society that we shall find the origins of what

we are looking for. These are ostensibly political systems and derive from, rather than give

birth to, economics. While this is obvious and axiomatic, it is not so obvious, although

equally axiomatic that the principle works both ways. That is as much as to say, if you can

control economics, you can keep the business of getting a living the dominant factor of life,

and so keep your control of politics--just that long, and no longer.

No one would seriously argue that at the present time the “business of getting a living is the

dominant factor of life.” How did this situation arise? Who is responsible for the economic

conditions that prevail that forces farmers off farms, or create the necessity for “downsizing,” or to

put it very simply removing the means of obtaining a living by reducing employment? We are not

here arguing on the necessity for employment but rather the control that is exercised through the

reality that under our existing economic and financial system, employment is the only means

available to the masses to obtain money that is required for living.

We have politicians continually boasting how many jobs have been created, which are in the main,

only part time or casual jobs. We have politicians continually calling for the creation of new jobs.

Yet, not one politician has declared the necessity to accept technological advancements or increases

in productivity and have the benefits passed to those who have been sacked, fired from their jobs

or “downsized” to use the euphemism. Emphasis is on the need to work for the “dole” which is a

means to have the community divided against itself because of the fiction that it is the ‘employed’

who are paying taxes who are keeping others on the dole. It is a very neat philosophical approach

to “kill two birds with the one stone” as the saying goes. On the one hand the unemployed have no

option but to accept the handouts and the conditions that go with them. On the other hand the

employed are continuing their efforts to maintain the business of getting a living and paying their

taxes, which is an added penalty, and which places further constraints on their ability to live.

THE INTERWEAVING OF PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY

The philosophy and policy of Social Credit are interwoven to the extent that it is often necessary to

cross the bounds of one when discussing implications related to the other. As a Policy of a

Philosophy, Social Credit postulates practical policy approaches to obtaining the goals that when

achieved will be an incarnation of the philosophy. That is to say that the questions relating to

employment, money, the provision of economic security backed up by an administration of affairs

by a political system that supports the individual before the group is a policy governed by a

particular philosophy. The philosophy stresses the importance of the individual above all questions

of groups, institutions, governments or any other type of organisation in society.

The introduction of policy items in discussions on philosophy are in themselves simply an

explanation of a situation to highlight the subtle way in which philosophies and policies other than

Social Credit, can have an effect on individuals in society.

The use, or misuse of words, has a direct bearing in this context because they are so readily accepted

by so many without questioning as to what is meant exactly. One such word is Democracy; another

word used indiscriminately is Sovereignty. In the field of economics the use of words in the

language spoken by a particular group take on a completely different meaning than that understood

normally by the population. Two examples are “cost” and “price.”

There are others.

WHERE IS ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY LOCATED?

Douglas was quite explicit and correct when making observations on the significance of Sovereignty

and its relation to the money question. If we pass the discussion on the origins of money to the point

where the owner of the asset issued currency, it is at once axiomatic that economic sovereignty

resided with the owner of the asset. Assets in this context refer to a physical asset such as an animal,

cattle, or goats. Although Douglas used the word Wealth it is obvious from the totality of his

writings that he was referring to Assets in some circumstances and to money in others. This

probably because common usage had blurred the difference between them and he was writing and

talking to an audience who accepted these words as being synonymous.

The following extract from The Brief for the Prosecution is not a treatise on money or finance but

a constructive approach to the question of Sovereignty. It is of enormous importance to the

understanding of the underlying philosophy that what Douglas is saying is not so much about the

changes in the money system but the ultimate effect and the consequences relating to the

establishment of controls over individuals and their “getting a living:”

Certain premises are an essential starting-point for any useful suggestions in respect of the

situation we have to face. The first of these is that a comprehension of a sound policy is by

no means an identity with a comprehension of the means by which it may be achieved.

The first may be emotional or intuitional; but the second must be technical. There is,

fortunately, no lack of the former, but there is immense confusion as to the latter. It is in this

difference that one of the greatest difficulties of genuine reform resides. The complaints of

the under-privileged have been wholly justified; their remedies have often been inspired by

their deadliest enemies. In small matters, most people are quite aware that it is absurd to tell

their shoemaker how to make shoes, but reasonable to complain that their shoes hurt. But,

to take an important example, once the average voter has grasped the idea that there is

something wrong with the money system, it is rarely that he does not attribute its defects to

something he has been taught to call private enterprise.... We may observe that, amongst

many reasons for this, is the fact that previous researches have established the fact that

centralised sovereignty is at the root of the world’s ills; and money is connected with

economic sovereignty. The currency was issued by the owner of the wealth. To the extent

that his ownership was absolute, economic sovereignty resided in him.

The next stage was the accompaniment of war and social insecurity. Wealth was deposited

with goldsmiths for safe-keeping, and their receipt became currency. The issue of currency

thus passed from the owner of wealth to the custodian of wealth. It is easy to prove that the

goldsmith's receipt, which was often a fraudulent receipt, is the prototype of the bank note.

Sovereignty largely passed to the goldsmith bankers, who “created the means of payment

out of nothing.” Finally currency and cheques on drawable deposits became simply bankers'

credit, which was not owned by either the owner of real wealth, per se, or the producer of

wealth. This is quite easy to prove by an inspection of any balance sheet, in which it will be

found that “real” items and monetary balances are to be found on the same side, and both are

assets. This would imply that someone, somewhere, actually owes to the possessor of

money, a “real” asset corresponding to the money, and that this individual shows this

property in his accounts as a liability. There is nothing in the facts or accounts of the

business system to confirm this conclusion, but there is much to suggest that bankers have

a concealed lien on nearly all property.

There is little difficulty in demonstrating that the money system will only work satisfactorily

when sovereignty over his share of it is restored to the individual. It is unnecessary to

develop this thesis here, since it has been fully explored in such books as The Monopoly of

Credit. The point that is germane to our present enquiry is that there is no evidence to

indicate that a nationalised banking and currency system would be anything but more

oppressive than a partly decentralised system. Each approach to centralisation, and this

approach have been rapid, has increased the tyranny of Finance, a tyranny that in itself is

technical, but becomes political by reason of the immense advantages, which accrue to its

manipulators. There is no more effective claim to totalitarian power than the claim to the

sole right to issue and withdraw (tax) money, and no mere manipulation of monetary

technique, which does not resolve and decide this question can do anything but complicate

the problem.

It may be objected that the preceding outline ignores the metallic currency of the Royal

Mints. So far from this being the case, the royal prerogative of striking coins is a relic and

confirmation of the original theory of money. The King was, as the “Crown” in theory still

is, the ultimate owner of everything within his sovereignty. Land and chattels were held

ultimately from the King, and the possession of his coinage was simply an acknowledgement

of a grant by him. Those well intentioned people who feel that nationalisation of banking,

with its attribute of credit-money creation is desirable, would do well to realise what it is

they are proposing, which is the Divine Right of Kings, tout court, without a responsible

King.

It is not necessary to infer from the preceding analysis that the establishment of a mint for

every household is desirable. The money system is complementary to, and useless in the

absence of, a price system. A corollary of this is that the price of articles is the direct sum

paid for them, together with the proportion of involuntary payments in the form of taxation,

which accompany residence within the sovereignty.

That is to say, every rise in price, whether direct, or in accompanying taxation, is a transfer

of economic sovereignty from the individual to a centralised Sovereign. And the imposition

of any condition of law on the free purchase of any article is a similar transfer. It will be

noticed that managed currency systems ostensibly intended to keep price levels constant are

incompatible with economic decentralisation. Managed currencies are controlled currencies

and require a controller. The essential requirement of a free economy is radically different.

In such an economy the proper function of money is to reflect facts, not policy.

MONEY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF POLICY

This is a clear indication by Douglas that the money system is being used as a tool of Policy and as

such is in direct contrast with Social Credit policy. It is therefore as clear as night follows day that

this policy which must be governed by a philosophy which also is in direct conflict of Social Credit

philosophy.

It is in this grey area between philosophy and policy that many, including those who would

genuinely support the philosophy of Social Credit, become confused. They place the emphasis on

the priority of correcting the financial system above that of recognising the objective. This objective

is contained in the philosophy in the relationship between individuals in association, and recognition

of the cultural inheritance and the increment of association as being part of the right of every

individual. These are above that of the group; the institution; the organisation; and all of those

abstractions such as the Nation, the People, or Society.

POLICY

As shown in the Specification, the policy of Social Credit is divided into two groupings and each

of these is further divided into two groupings.

ECONOMICS

Under the heading of economics is the subject of Consumer Control of Production. This does not

mean that consumers should have control over factories or industries in the sense that they should

own them and therefore have a direct input into how they should run. This is the business of the

producer. Douglas put this into perspective when he wrote in The Social Crediter, November 16,

1946:

Ignoring the use of the word as a street-corner term of abuse, ‘Fascism’ is a symbolic

name for corporate action, and its nearest ideological equivalent is Guild Socialism,

or the Corporate state. If you once admit the premise of producer control of the State,

the fundamental premise of all Socialism masquerading under its opposite, State

control of production, there is little doubt that Fascism is much superior to Russian

Socialism. As in nearly everything nowadays, however, it is the premise, not the

logic, which is vicious.

Consumer control of production is the only possible basis of freedom; and no method

of obtaining consumer control has ever been tried with success which did not ban

state control of money and credit and include decentralised individual credit power.

Douglas had previously commented on the question of money in The Social Crediter, February 17,

1945, when he wrote:

What we appear to have forgotten is that the money system exercised the most perfect

control by the individual over institutions which has ever been devised. It was a voting

system besides which political franchises are the crude devices of barbarous savagery. By

allowing the essential nature of the money system to be perverted and distorted by coupons

and licences to buy and so forth, we are throwing away the perfect mechanism of our

salvation. All these facts are clearly known to our plotters and planners; that is why they are

in so great a hurry to supplant, rather than to perfect the money system, by administrative

control.

In a later edition of The Social Crediter, April 22, 1950, in what may be considered as a prophecy

because of current developments with the effects of Globalisation he wrote:

There are three economic systems. The first is genuine Capitalism; the second genuine

Socialism; the third Monopoly.

In the first, the producer meets the wishes of the consumer or goes out of business; in the

second, the producer takes his orders from an omnipotent bureaucracy, and the consumer

takes what is allowed to him; in the third, the producer serves the policy of a small

omnipotent clique.

All three are still in operation; but the third is for the moment eliminating the other two.

There is no necessity at this stage to outline the details of the increase in the control of Big Business

in the form of multinational and transnational corporations. There have been numerous books

written on the subjects of Globalisation, Multilateral Agreements, mounting debt on a personal level,

and in the poorer countries of the world.

Each and every one of these books are only confirmation of what Douglas had warned about in the

ever-increasing control of finance and communications that is evident today. Solutions to the

problem facing people, as consumers have not been forthcoming because any proposals that have

been suggested are based on incorrect premises as Douglas pointed out. It is the falsity of these

premises, which are dangerous and not the logic that follows.

One of the premises that Social Crediters continually expose is the cry for “Full Employment”. This

is a subject in itself, and it only requires a simple statement based on reality to reveal the viciousness

to which Douglas refers.

“Employment” is a means to an end and to substitute a means for an end is a pernicious attempt to

distort the truth and reality. However it does provide its propagators, against a background of

ignorance by the general population on the question, to promote schemes for job creation, job

training schemes, work for the dole etc. All of these promotions are designed ultimately to continue

the exertion of control over the individual. Employment is a means and money is a means, neither

are ends in themselves.

Another false premise that is advocated continuously is the need for continuing growth in exports.

The purely economic aspect of Social Credit is really quite elementary, and rests on the

fundamental proposition that industrial output is proportional to applied energy and the

availability of raw materials. (The Social Crediter, 1/11/69)

It can be seen from this statement that money does not constitute a component of basic economics

and yet it is expounded as a fundamental necessity to obtain the benefits of economic activity. The

fundamental function of money is its use as a claim on production and potential production. Money,

used as a means of control through the requirement for employment as a means for its attainment

is in the realm of politics, and politics is concerned with channelling those claims.

For consumer control of production it is necessary for consumers to be able to exert an effective

demand in the market place. It is not an effective demand to have people limited in their choices

based upon what is placed before them. Such a demand is based upon limitations of purchasing

power. Individuals should be able to choose or refuse to purchase undesirable goods based upon the

effectiveness of their available purchasing power.

Restrictions on the availability of purchasing power not only reduce effective demand but also are

a means of control over the individual.

Douglas emphasised that the basis of freedom is economic and also that political democracy without

economic democracy is dynamite. The destruction of economic democracy, and the permanent

enthronement of a system of rewards and punishments masquerading as Full Employment, is

precisely the objective of political ballot-box democracy.

INTEGRAL ACCOUNTING

Essential to any understanding of proposals for the necessary changes to the financial accounting

system is acknowledgement of a basic fundamental. The standard of living for the individual is

governed by the ratio of consumer-production to capital production.

Douglas had analysed the economic system and drew attention to what was considered to be a major

flaw. It was this flaw that provided the basis for his A + B Theorem.

Now in this regard it must be stressed that a Theorem is a proposition or statement of fact, which

is a truth to be established by reason of accepted truths. It is not a theory as claimed by many

misinformed and the truth by which the Theorem can be proved as a true statement is evidenced by

subsequent events. It can be proved by other accepted facts but the conclusion of the Theorem itself

vindicates the body of the statement.

It is not necessary to go into detail and explanation of the A + B Theorem here as there is ample

literature on the matter. The only essential comment that is necessary is to draw attention to the

concluding sentence:

Since A will not purchase A plus B, a proportion of the product [our emphasis] at least

equivalent to B must be distributed by a form of purchasing power which is not comprised

in the description under A. [our emphasis]

Douglas emphasised on many occasions that the flaw that existed was that the generation of prices

was greater than the generation of purchasing power distributed as wages, salaries and dividends in

any given period.

Not only opponents of his proposals but also many who believed they were supportive mistakenly

believed that he was saying that there was always a shortage of purchasing power. This is not

correct. The shortage of purchasing was overcome by money distributed at a later stage in the

product, viz., Capital production.

Douglas had offered two ways of overcoming the problem: by means of providing a National

Dividend and the introduction of a simultaneous Compensated Price system.

An article in The Social Crediter, 28 November, 1970 explains this very clearly:

In its expanded (in the mathematical sense) form the A + B theorem states: in order to ensure

the distribution of a given quantity of consumers’ goods, it is necessary under present

conditions to accelerate the production of capital goods. The recognition of this by J.M.

Keynes and its dressing-up in elaborate economic jargon brought about the virtual slaughter

of the Social Credit idea, for he showed how to maintain the centralisation of credit control,

whereas the Social Credit idea was the distribution of credit, thereby achieving economic

democracy, a far more important concept to the individual than political democracy, which

in its ballot-box form is a well-nigh perfect smoke-screen for autocracy.

Its essence lay in the need…for accelerating capital production--production which

distributed incomes, but which did not come on to the consumer market (production for

export comes into this category).

Every expansion of industrial capacity increases the “B” element in prices--i.e., the element

representing payments made to individuals at some indefinite period in the past, and for the

most part spent at that time, but accounted forward into the price of an article when it

reaches the consumer market. This is the fundamental cause of “cost-inflation”.... This

natural increase in prices leads to demands for higher wages, which in the

aggregate…necessarily leads to “wage-cost” inflation.

Inflation, thus, is a built-in feature of the economy. Its rate of increase can be slowed by a

genuine increase in productivity; but this is inhibited by high taxation imposed, it is said to

“curb” inflation.

There are other ways to curb inflation. One is to allow cheap imports from low wage countries and

thus force local industries out of business and thus increase unemployment and once again maintain

control with a two-edged sword.

That source of purchasing power made available from a source other than wages, salaries and

dividends described as A (the original payment in the commencement of the aggregation of what

will eventually become the Price), is the distribution through capital production (buildings,

machinery etc.). It is important to note that in the main this new purchasing power is through bank

lending. This lending may be, and in most cases, is for capital production, and therefore an increase

in debt, which can only be repaid after the final product is sold. When it is for the purpose of new

capital buildings, which do not come on to the consumer market, it is an inflation of the currency.

Where Plant and Machinery are concerned, although they are purchased, not on the consumer

market, and used in further production it is an extension of the problem, exacerbated by the inclusion

of Depreciation (the writing off of the cost into future prices). Secondly, direct lending to consumers

in the form of bankcard. There is sufficient evidence to verify Douglas’s conclusions that a form of

purchasing power at least equivalent to B (payments made to other organisations for raw materials,

bank charges, and other external costs) must be distributed to meet total prices.

This fact was obviously lost on economists as revealed in the caustic comment by a Professor Hart

in his Money, Debt, and Economic Activity, first published in 1953 by Prentice-Hall, Inc. In a

section devoted to what he refers to as “Monetary Panacea” he criticises Social Credit proposals.

After completely misquoting the A + B Theorem and adding his comment as to what Douglas

suggested, which was completely untrue, he said:

The A plus B Theorem is a silly way to compare costs and markets [which it does not, and

was never intended to do--Ed.]…. The Theorem proves too much. On the average, for the

firms in an industrial economy the A’s are only a fraction of total costs [which is perfectly

true--Ed.] Only a fraction of a year’s output, therefore, could be sold. At this rate, the

economic machine must have become completely jammed long ago, with all output

stopped--but how did we fail to notice it?

This is the logic of a well known academic. It is obvious that he had never read or if he had, did not

understand what douglas had to say in his book Social Credit:

The deficiency between purchasing power, and goods with money prices attached to them,

can be made up (at any rate to a large extent) by this process of creating bank money. This

enables the business cycle to be carried through and conversely, the refusal to create fresh

money by banking methods or otherwise, whatever the cause of this refusal may be, is

sufficient to paralyse both production and consumption.

The latter may be readily associated with what is commonly called a “credit squeeze.”

Of course it did not become jammed because of the new money provided by the banking system for

capital production and in later years in addition, by lending directly to consumers, via personal

loans, Visa cards, Master Cards, Bankcard, etc. But then Professor Hart was not to know that events

would prove Douglas correct as with all of his other critics.

Douglas’s observations on economics and its use for control include some of the following

comments:

The simple test to be applied to all legislation at this time, from the point of view of those

whose policy we endeavour to express, is “Does it centralise power, or does it free the

individual …?” And the explanation is in essence both simple and incontrovertible--instead

of being self-contained units we are, more and more, becoming components of a function

masquerading as ‘economics’, but accurately described as “full-employment.” Five minutes’

consideration will convince anyone not mentally infirm that a policy of full-employment

means, and can only mean, direction of labour. Combine that with egalitarianism, and you

have the slave state--you cannot have anything else. (The Social Crediter, March 13, 1948).

The essence of civilisation is free contract under duress. To suppose that you can have a

contractual system which does not provide duress after contract is to adopt the social system

of 'unauthorised strikers'…Either the contractual is inherent in the nature of things and

should be clearly recognised and upheld, or unilateral totalitarianism is better, and should

be proclaimed.. The essence of the National dividend proposals of Social Credit technique

is to provide for free negotiation without duress, not contract without penalty" (The Social

Crediter, July 24, 1948).

The technique of Social Credit Proposals for the establishment of the National Dividend and the

Compensated Price mechanism requires an alteration to the financial accounting system. The steps

that need to be taken are first to gain acceptance that there is a flaw in the accounting system. The

second is to break the monopoly of credit/money creation and the third is the implementation of the

policy to distribute the National Dividend and at the same time introduce the Compensated price to

counter any tendency to inflation. There cannot be inflation where prices are being reduced as would

occur with the application of the Compensated Price mechanism. There are other things that would

require attention but these are procedural matters.

ADMINISTRATION

In any administrative process, that is in an organisation designed to carry out a function, there must

be chain of command to ensure that the policy to be effected must be done so in the most efficient

manner. Efficient in this sense means the ability to produce an intended result.

At the same time there must be a mechanism to ensure that those who are elected to provide results,

do so. Under the heading of the Individual and the Group it was explained that Policy must come

from the bottom up, not the top down. However, this does not refer to Administration, which must

be hierarchical.

HIERARCHY

With regard to the antithesis or contrast between the implementation of Policy and Administration,

probably the best example is provided by Dr. Bryan W. Monahan in his Introduction to Social

Credit, written in 1947:

The antithetical possibilities in regard to each of these are that control may be centralised,

or de-centralised; and consequently, the combinations offer four possibilities:

1. Centralised control of policy and centralised control of administration.

2. Centralised control of policy, and decentralised control of administration.

3. Decentralised control of policy, and centralised control of administration.

4. Decentralised control of both policy and administration.

Let us examine these possibilities in relation to a cricket club. In the first example, we have

the club organised so that there is an authority at the top, which exercises control through

various administrative grades of authority. That is to say, authority is hierarchical. This is,

of course, the familiar form of administrative organisation; it is found, in fact, wherever there

is efficient administration. But in the case we are examining, a centralised hierarchy also

controls policy; it decides what objectives the club shall follow. Thus an authority, say a

board, or the President, may say that the club shall play twenty cricket matches, fifteen of

them against one team, and five in Timbuktu. The wishes of the members have no part in this

decision. It is taken “for” their good in the opinion of the authority.

It will be noted that in order that this decision should he effective, the authority controlling

policy must also control the administration. The whole organisation is completely centralised

in respect of policy and administration. But one further point must be noted: the individual

members of the club must not be able to contract out if they do not like the policy dictated

by the authority, since otherwise there would be the danger that the policy could not be

carried through, for want of personnel.

Now this is the system in operation in Russia, the system called “totalitarian.” Decisions of

policy are made either by Stalin, or that very small group known as the Politbureau; and the

whole of the administrative apparatus is centralised under the control of the same group, and

the sanctions, which enforce the decisions, are controlled from the same centre. There is no

contracting out; orders must he obeyed, and no one is free to leave the country.

It will be obvious that our second possibility, centralised control of policy, and decentralised

control of administration, is merely a theoretical possibility. Decentralised control of

administration means that anyone who likes does anything he likes, so that there is no

assurance that a given decision on policy will be carried into effect. In the cricket club, the

decision to play a match against another club requires a programme of action, which in the

very nature of things, must be arranged by a hierarchical authority--the committee,

coordinated under the authority of the President. Similarly, it is perfectly evident that the

Russian Politbureau’s decisions could not possibly be effective unless a centralised

administrative system, acting under orders, existed under the control of the Politbureau to

carry the directives into effect.

This same requirement rules out the fourth theoretical possibility in the same way. In this

case, indeed, the whole idea of organisation is missing.

The only practicable possibility besides the totalitarian system is, therefore, the third of the

above possibilities: decentralised control of policy, and centralised control of

administration. Thus we can arrive at a valid basic definition of democracy from first

principles.

It does not follow from this that in a democratic system administration is fully centralised.

Administration must be hierarchical and subject to direction from its apex, in respect of a

given undertaking. But a democratic organisation may have several separate administrative

hierarchies in respect of several undertakings. On the other hand, all administration is

ultimately centralised in one system in the totalitarian organisation, because it is all subject

to one overriding direction on policy.

CONTRACTING OUT MECHANISMS

We revert back to our quote by Douglas concerning “free negotiating without duress.” This

supports the Social Credit philosophy of Freedom of Association.

In simple terms, an individual should be free to choose which pair of shoes they will buy. If they do

not like a product they can refuse to purchase it. If they are members of an organisation or club they

should be free to leave if it does not meet their requirements. If they have elected an administration

they should be free to contract-out or at least have a sanction to remove the committee and replace

them with people who will produce the result they want.

In The Big Idea, Douglas defines this as a prerequisite to genuine democracy:

Genuine democracy can very nearly be defined as the right to atrophy by contracting out. It

is essentially negative, although, contrary to the curious nonsense that is prevalent about

“negativeness”, is none the less essential for that reason.

This genuine democracy requires to be carefully distinguished from the idea that a game is

necessarily a bad game simply because you can’t or won’t play it, and therefore the fact that

you can't play it is the first recommendation for a chief part in changing the rules. On the

contrary, that is an a priori disqualification. For this reason, if for no other, a period of

discipline in the prevailing social and economic disciplines in say, the early twenties, seems

highly pragmatically desirable. No play, no vote. Bad play, Grade 3 vote. But you needn't

do either.

The power of contracting-out is the first and most deadly blow to the Supreme State.

Freedom of Association means exactly what it says. Individuals may choose to enter into association

with each other or not to. If the choice is to enter into a contract with another the contract should be

acceptable to both parties, otherwise one or the other can refuse to enter into the contract. When

both, agree to enter into a contract, they have also agreed to accept the conditions or penalties that

may apply. It is a contract under duress, i.e., a penalty applies for voiding the contract. However,

it is something entered into freely. A contract, which involves a weaker party e.g. the individual

against an organisation, and who is not free to refuse to enter, and who is compelled to accept the

conditions that are imposed, is tyrannous, immoral, and a travesty of justice.

The introduction of new or extra taxation measures is an example. Compulsory National

Superannuation is another, particularly when it is repeated under different names as has happened

in Australia. When the right to contract-out is not available to individuals and there is a passive

acceptance of the idea of universality manifested in language such as, “In the National Interest,”

“For the benefit of all,” or “For the good of the Country,” it is always the weaker party, the

individual who pays the higher price in freedom.

Without a sanction available to individuals collectively in society there will continue to be further

erosion of their freedoms. Many believe that a sanction is available in the use of the ballot box,

which there is not. Many believe in taking action on a prescribed issue, but unless that action is in

association, and is cumulative in exposure and information, and unless it has a sanction to apply, it

is not efficient, that is, not able to produce an intended result.

The ballot-box mentality is a guise that is applied and used to declare that a mandate has been

received. Changes in the rules of the game each time the game is played will eventually cause

players to leave the game. With electors, who do not have a proper sanction, and who are unable to

contract-out, it is much more serious and eventually leads to catastrophic events, such as civil

disobedience, civil war or revolution.

OBJECTIVE

As stated in the Specification, the objective is Social Stability by the integration of means and ends.

By applying a correct perception of reality and not substituting means for ends and applying a

Policy to achieve a Philosophy that encompasses the importance of the individual above the group,

the Social Credit objective is clear.

It is to provide economic security together with political security so that, “They shall sit every man

under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid.” (Michah, iv., 4)

INCOMPATIBLES

The items listed as incompatible with Social Credit are in direct contrast to the concept of the

individual being more important than the group and have been dealt with. The Philosophy that

produces the Policy resulting in so many catastrophic consequences around the world in the current

century needs no further elucidation.

Ballot-box democracy embodies all of these components in one form or another.

The topic of “ballot-box democracy” is rarely discussed, probably because it has been for so long

inculcated upon the minds of people that it is a fair and honest way for people to choose those who

they wish to manage their affairs. Some observations by Douglas are worth noting.

Five minutes’ consideration of this subject, which is either pure moonshine or the most vital

subject which affects us on earth, ought to convince anyone that a ballot-box democracy can

only be advocated by two kinds of persons--the abysmally ignorant or the consciously

traitorous. (The Social Crediter, June 4, 1949).

Further,

A man who is ashamed or afraid to let it be known how he votes, is afraid to take

responsibility for the consequences of his voting, and has no right to vote.

Commenting on a statement by General Sir William Slim who remarked “More than two-thousand

youths enter the Army each year who cannot even sign their name,” Douglas said, “We aren’t told

how many who don’t enter the Army each year can’t sign their name. But they can all make a cross

on a ‘secret’ ballot paper, even if they can’t read the name of the candidate. So they just about

cancel the votes of the few thousand whose opinion on political matters is worth attention.” And

what about Nursing Homes and other similar institutions?

Under the heading “Secret Ballot,” the following letter appeared in Truth (England), Dec. 13, 1946,

and was later reprinted in The Social Crediter, July 15, 1967:

Sir,--Your correspondent, Mr. Clifford Rivington, appears to overlook a number of factors,

many of them highly technical, which make it altogether too superficial to “agree that a

genuinely secret ballot is the bedrock of political freedom.” It may easily be exactly the

reverse. The first of these factors was the fundamental cause of the American Revolution,

and it is operating in this country today. It is the assumption that anyone can vote about

anything, or anybody, and that a genuine mandate is thereby conferred upon Parliament,

which Parliament can delegate to a Cabinet, upon which it confers the right to legislate

without limitation by Common Law, or as the American colonists called it, “natural” law.

“The Common Good”, always invoked by tyrants, is the excuse given for the transfer by a

legal process, which inverts the protection given by Common Law, of privileges acquired

by individuals to a bureaucracy subject to a junta whose primary concern is to retain power.

The secret ballot is a most ingenious method of facilitating this process by attributing power

to an electorate, which cannot exercise it, and suffers collectively, not for its unidentifiable

vote, but for the deterioration of morale, which always accompanies the divorce of power

from responsibility. Many, if not most, of our political premises demand serious

reconsideration; and the real nature of our so-called democracy stands high upon the list.

In conclusion we offer here an extract of part of a paper published in The Social Crediter, March

16, 1946, which, considering current events of June/July 1999, in Yugoslavia reveals the truth and

reality contained in Social Credit philosophy.

“A POLITICAL SYSTEM”

The paper which appears below is an excerpt from the joint work of Dr. and Mrs. C. Geoffrey

Dobbs, which was published in The Social Crediter, March 16, 1946:

Question:

To what extent, and in what connection, if any, do you consider the adult universal vote

constitutes a mechanism, with or without modification, corresponding with, and tending to,

a satisfactory political system?

The Validity of the Political Vote:

Definition: VOTE: (fr. Lat. votum, “wish, vow; to , wish for”). Formal expression, by ballot

or show of hands, etc., of one's wish, choice, opinion, esp. in regard (i) to the election of a

candidate for a post, or as a member of Parliament or other legislative or administrative

body; or (ii) to the passing of a resolution, law, measure, sanctioning or prohibiting some

specific form of action.

(Question taken with current meanings and within the framework of present day political

systems, 1946)

Surveying the evidence:

(i) Great Britain, U.S.A., U.S.S.R. (all vote over 18), all have adult universal vote; in none

of them does it constitute a satisfactory political system, serving merely to camouflage

tyranny. At its most prosperous period in the19th century Great Britain had certain

qualifications, real but not political, on the right to vote.

(ii) On the other hand the reluctance shown, e.g., by powerful forces in Belgium to have a

universal vote on the proposed abdication of King Leopold, and in Greece to a vote on the

form of government desired by people there, point to the conclusion that there is some field

in which an adult universal vote is valid and could muster the power to thwart the Dark

Forces. The elaborate measures taken in, e.g., Yugoslavia to preserve some of the trappings

of a universal vote also point in this direction; but in fact the vote there is no longer

universal, the disqualification for voting being political (i.e., ‘fascist,’ etc.) not real.

We therefore conclude that it is not so much, the vote that should be considered but the

whole vote-operation including as well as the vote the policies and people voted for, and the

way of summing up the results, and the limiting factor of propaganda and information

available to voters.

Wherever there is an adult universal vote, at present we find complete control and

corruption of the other factors composing the operation, so that the vote is useless for ends

not approved by the controllers, while giving an illusory air of free choice.

We consider the following factors important in this connection:

I. That no satisfactory political system is ‘workable’ unless those concerned with it hold

broadly the same religious or philosophical views: in practice this was so when Christianity

was the dominant religion. This is the only safeguard to the social credit (the faith of people

that in association they will get what they want) of a system without which any political

system will disintegrate.

II. So-called democracies have always emphasised exclusively the numerical aspect of the

vote. The development of the party system has caused each political vote to be set off against

another different one (thus playing off different groups of the community, against each other

and creating class warfare) and account is taken only of the difference in numbers between

supporters of the competing parties. In consequence (a) many votes are rendered ineffective,

and (b) the resulting Government may not, even represent the majority of voters.

The political vote is thus transformed into an instrument to restrict the freedom of the voter

by selecting one policy only and imposing it on everybody.

POLITICAL REALITY

It needs little explanation to add that the political system has been captured by the Political Party

system. Electors vote for a candidate they did not choose as their representative and who, when

elected, must obey the dictates of the elite at the top echelon of the party with respect to policy and

how to vote in Parliament. They are no more than a number, and those with the greatest number

form the government. The elite in control of the party, and not necessarily those within the elected

few at the top, determine policy and the means by which they can maintain control and the power

that is inherent in the government by means of the sanctions it holds in the police and military.

The ordinary voter has no voice whatever in the making of policy for his individual benefit within

society. Neither has the individual any means of contracting out or the capability of redressing the

situation to ensure that he will, in association with his fellows receive the benefits of that

association. He is subservient to the control of the group.

Thus it is necessary to correct the administration of our affairs with respect to the economic and

financial system and the political system to allow for economic and political security. Only then will

people be able to receive in free association one with the other and collectively, the benefits of their

association.

[END OF BRIDGER COMMENTARY]

Services:	Home, List Hosting Services, Industry Solutions
Your Account:	Sign Up, My Lists, My Preferences, Start a List
General:	About Us, News, Privacy Policy, No spam, Contact Us


The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net

HOME SERVICES SOLUTIONS COMPANY