In response to Keith of April 22 there are a couple of
points I feel need to be clarified. I will not reproduce the whole article and
that of Wally’s of April 20 to which he referred or other writings. These can be
accessed by those who may be following this discussion.
Keith: “…the very idea of reform implies
evolution…”
Vic Bridger: Keith has introduced the word ‘reform” and
uses it in a further comment to suggest what Douglas
may have been thinking. Social Credit in both its Philosophy and Policy are not
concerned with ‘reform’ either of institutions or the financial system. Wally
did not use the word ‘reform’ and I believe it sends a wrong message about Douglas and Social Credit.
Douglas wrote quite disparagingly on “monetary reformers’
with respect to the financial system and of course the ideas contained in the
Philosophy i.e. the things we believe have nothing to do with reform. We are not
about reforming individuals, the financial system or institutions. We are about
relating the importance of the individual to the group (institutions). We are
about changing the financial system to reflect facts. We are about explaining
that institutions have been formed by individuals for the benefit of those
individuals who comprise the institution which was designed to attend to the
needs of individuals.
Keith: “I suspect that is what Wally means below where he
says that ‘institutions were meant to serve the individual and not the reverse’.
(it is not the case that they were in fact designed that way, but that they
ought to have been. Otherwise, why reform?)
Vic Bridger: I am sure that Wally means exactly what he
said. It is the way they were designed other wise there would be no reason for
individuals to create them. The fact that may have been perverted (or redesigned
by those placed in control) does not negate that they were created to serve
those who created the Institution not to change the reason for their existence.
In this instance the use of the word ‘reform’ may be acceptable if it means
changing the institution’s policy to recognize the reason for its existence.
They way they were designed originally would have been correct and it is not a
matter of what “they ought to have been”. I think there is a fine distinction
here between what was, what is, and what needs to be done to bring them back to
what was (not what they ought to have been but what they should be as originally
designed).
Keith: “Douglas asked himself what
could be done in the way of institutional reform…”.
Vic Bridger: I believe it is quite a dismissive comment
on what Douglas did say and the first paragraph in Economic Democracy is quite clear on
what he thought and it did not envisage any sort of institutional reform. His
statement in that paragraph together with his other writing makes it clear that
the matter of paramount importance was the recognition that the individual was
more important than the institution. It amounted to saying that if they were
inimical to his statement about institutions existing to serve the individual
they should be removed, not reformed.
Keith: “The perplexing issue, for his disciples, is why
Douglas’ design has not been adopted”
“I do agree that the word philosophy, especially as used by
Douglas, is a significant barrier to more effective
communication…”
“I continue to disbelieve that
Douglas’ vision of what ought to be is the source of
disinterest in his policies. The continual refrain that those who don’t by his
policy don’t share his ‘philosophy’ strikes me as the same kind of
nonsense…”
Vic Bridger: I have combined the three statements as
there is a common thread and should be answered together. It is not a perplexing
issue because we know why. In the first instance the multitude like some on this
discussion group cannot or do not want accept facts. Those, plus the millions of
others who have never heard of Social Credit are in no position to do anything
even if they wanted to. If Keith and the many others who have become interested
in social Credit had spent as much time and energy as the few who have they
would recognize what we are up against. Finance and the control of the media are
as has been said are concentric. Try selling the idea of a National Balance
Sheet to the population, try selling the idea to a politician or political party
(in power), try selling the idea to any major media outlet, try selling the idea
to the Stock Exchanges, try selling the idea to the Chartered Accountants
association, and see the result.
The word philosophy is not a significant barrier
it is the non acceptance of what the philosophy contains and that is recognition
for the necessity to provide power both politically and economically to the
individual. Only when one can accept that there is such a thing as the will to
power and that will, can be expressed in the control of finance and the media
will it be possible to understand why there is no effective communication. I
personally have known people in politics and the media and broadcasting who have
attempted to provide some avenue to express the subject of Social Credit. In
each case they lost their jobs. A journalist for a newspaper, an anchor man for
a broadcasting programme, both lost their jobs as a result of providing me with
a forum. The politician lost his endorsement. There are others. No one needs to
tell me that the subject of Social Credit is not taboo.
Douglas never had a vision of what
“ought to be”. Douglas was concerned with what is, why it
was so and what were the steps necessary to rectify the situation. He honestly
believed in the early days that all he had to do was to explain to the world but
realised that it was not so much the policy that was being opposed by what the
objective (philosophy) of that policy was likely to achieve.
Keith: “Two trenches is the wrong metaphor, therefore.
There are two big tasks, but they are complementary and must be addressed
simultaneously. Instead of beating their gums deductively for all these years,
why haven’t campaigners for social credit been chipping away at the building up
at least an approximation or shadow system of the necessary national
accounts”.
Vic Bridger: Douglas used the term
trench in the vein of its usage in the First World War. I do not believe it
wrong. It was expression to explain the futility of arguing about the financial
system, the A+B theorem (which what most on this discussion group appear to be
occupied with); what is money etc., unless it was possible to do something about
it. This he considered to be the second trench and efforts should be made to
concentrate on the first without which there is little hope of achieving the
second. This is not to say that both efforts to educate and inform on the
financial system has not been running simultaneously with efforts to educate on
the political system and the necessity for people to have some means of control
to exercise their will and exert power over those who have been elected to serve
them.
Keith is well aware of the proposals for the setting up
National Accounts as I have provided him with some details in this regard.
Surely Keith does not believe that I just drew this out of a hat and put it all
together in the last month or so? This has been around since
Douglas first suggested it and it has been brought to the
attention of all those mentioned above and for years.
I have no more to say on this matter and consider that I
have been beating my gums too much in attempting to make people aware of and
understand what we are about and what we have been attempting for, in my case
over 50 years. I do not believe it serves any purpose to continue to discuss the
subject with anyone who has not either done the necessary background
investigation, not only into Social Credit, but why it has not been
achieved.
There is a saying that is always very apt when people
want someone else to do something or query why such and such has not been done
and I use it. “Bell the cat”. Those
who may wish to discover them selves why Social Credit is not accepted should
endeavour to interest someone in a position to at least have a modicum of
success. However, my experience has shown that the answer is usually, “What can
I do, I am only one person”, or “I do not know enough about the subject”. I
challenge anyone to “Bell the cat”.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
