Victor, I fail to see from the Douglas quote from 1948 that he was saying "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." He may have said it but he didn't say it here.
I'll insert some commentary relating to the way I interpret his comments below:
***> 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. <***
Today it--at any rate what remains of it--is largely composed of greenbackers who would have government spend all money into circulation, which of course would mean centralized, omnipotent government. John Hargrave was in this category, except he would have allowed some of the money to be paid as dividends directly to consumers in addition to the money spent directly by government, which would have meant that the dividends would have been paid by the good graces of those in control of government. Michael Rowbotham is in this category. James Robertson is in this category. Greenbackerism is not necessarily fascism but can easily lead to fascism without a great deal of carefully thought out checks and balances. Historically, there were first the Graingers, then the Greenbackers, then the Populists who favored free coinage for this reason: Siver was readily available. Anyone with silver or commodities that could be traded for silver could take his silver to the mint and have the right to have it transformed into money that would be spent into circulation by the holder of the silver, not the government. The people would thereby determine the quantity of money, not the banks or government. With free coinage the people were sovereign. The problem was that there was not an equal endowment of silver or the means to obtain silver. Dividends paid from the "general credit" directly to people as individuals would resolve that dilemma. So social credit was in natural progression from the graingers.
***> 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. <***
And that requires elevating individual consciousness, a theme that runs throughout Douglas' work. You talk to people. You make them aware of their individuality and worth and personal sovereignty and show them a way to obtain it. When you initiate the dialog with them they will not share your philosophy. It is also a dialog within our personal consciousnesses, for we do not fully grasp it either. It is one path from where we are today into a better future. We are enslaved by restrictive philosophy, not the force of arms, although the force of arms becomes the tool of that which enslaves us. And we are not even aware of it.
***> 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. <***
Which is exactly the case. The nineteenth century was the era of conflict between the banks and government, with the banks emerging as victorious with the election of 1896. That victory has become increasingly solidified over the years. 1948 is about right in dating its near complete solidification. Government--meaning the will of the people--had been permitted to determine if it was better to fill pothole A or pothole B with the limited funding made available to it. Now, the people are not permitted to decide if it is appropriate to fill potholes at all. That is decided elsewhere. It is no longer purely a matter of finances. In Douglas' metaphor, whether or not any potholes are to be filled is determined by "Order-in- Council." Sovereign nations are no longer sovereign nations. The World Bank, IMF, GATT and all that is where sovereignty lies.
***> 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. <***
Ditto the above. The United States was "permitted" to win WWII by the Fed's "accommodation" of the government's military spending. Since that objective was accomplished, the "accommodation" is denied for social programs, welfare, infrastructure improvement, etc. The nation that could pacify Europe and Japan is not permitted to mobilize sufficient resources to pacify Iraq. Not necessarily because they are "opposed" to that outcome, but because they are "indifferent" as to the outcome.
***> 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. <***
"Nationalized" banking--and here we must include "central" banks whether nationalized or not--has effectively shifted control from government to financial order-in-council. The technical solution to that would be to integrate banking with government in the manner that the judiciary is integrated with government, as a co-equal branch of government in check and balance with the others: the executive, legislative and judicial. It should be written into the Constitution.
***>
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.
<***Absolutely. The way the vote goes is determined by that monopoly if it is a matter of concern to that monopoly, through the power of propaganda and the unlimited ability to pay-off whomever they like. Including the very issues that are voted on.
_________________________________________________________________
Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage. http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
--^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
