In The Social Crediter October 16, 1948 C.H. Douglas wrote the following. It
also contains the answer to my comment re the "critical analysis" in a
previous posting. I happen to believe and agree with Douglas that there is
no point discussing Social Credit or techniques particularly relating to the
financial proposals of Social Credit with anyone who does not share the same
philosophy. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the article on the
website www.ecn.net.au ought to be aware that Socialism with its philosophy
of collectivism is incompatible with Social Credit. A criticism from that
source is as valid as that of an arsonist assisting the fire brigade and
therefore not worthy of a reply. Keith Wilde is correct in his assessment of
the situation and if there is to be a valid criticism it should be from a
completely independent source. This, of course, will prove to be a practical
obstacle.
Readers should note particularly his reference to "Law and military power",
which was not as evident in 1948 as it is in 2003.
Vic Bridger
Douglas wrote - Oct. 16, 1948
"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 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 "nationalized" banking.
.
"The problem presented by the centralised ("majority") political vote is the
same in its fundamentals as that of which it is only another manifestation -
the monopoly of credit".
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
