Douglas claimed the purpose of Social Credit is to ‘release reality’ with respect to human activity, which means releasing people from artificial constraints. I suspect it was a frustration to him that people became increasingly preoccupied with the money question which was a limited policy based on a much more inspiring, subversive philosophy of real liberty and personal responsibility.
In his first foray into the public space in 1919 Douglas explained how consumers were unable to buy all that was produced because incomes distributed through employment would always be less than eventual prices. The realisation was essentially technical in detail and admittedly not easily apprehended. Nevertheless it is true and self-evidently so. Anyway, I read somewhere that Douglas thought he was rather clever in exposing this glitch in the system and he sought to make it known to people in influential positions about how to go about rectifying the problem.
To cut down a long story there is no way around it other than to distribute power to individuals in the form of credit that does not appear in prices, to give people money. He spent the rest of his life deploying reason against power and at every point was frustrated by the unwillingness of the powerful, particularly the financial establishment, to conform their practice to this reality and reason.
Douglas understood the dangers of the financial arrangements that made millions of people the instruments of a few. He laid open for the public the method by which the financial system mediates reality by its control of money and how by assuming power over real wealth, through the medium of credit, directs the activities of the community. He saw this as irresponsible government and proposed an alternative that would eventually dissolve the financial ties that kept people in a state of insecurity, perpetual toil and war.
Well, the powerful people wouldn’t come at a proposal like that. Why? Because they are powerful people. They like being powerful and they want to increase the reach of their control. So we come to our title The Name of the Game. The powerful will never go for a solution that gives people more control over their own lives. The prospect is completely inimical to the objectives of anybody or corporate entity that seeks power.
The common people need to elevate their thinking on this matter. The activities of the dominator class are an ever present danger to the liberties of ordinary people. The conduits of control have taken different shapes at different times; force in varying combinations of surveillance, military and police control, coalescing as quickly as a complacent population will allow, doctrines of divine inspiration, cults of personality and ideology advancing to the extent that a population can be tricked and the monopolisation of wealth expanding to the tune of the host population’s tolerance for being robbed. It is the latter that afflicts us now. Upon close inspection, the financial establishment has no more valid claim as director of our lives than a king who puts about that he sits down to tea and bickies on a regular basis with Zeus.
And this is the first point we must come to grips with. Power does not want you to be free. Powerful people do not respect the freedom of other people because control over other people is the prize. They do not want to see you in a position whereby you can make decisions about your own life that might run contrary to their own ideas about what they would have you think and do. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of the monopoly of credit is not to make money. It is, as much as possible, to neutralise the danger to power presented by free thinking, free acting individuals.
In nearly every sphere of human endeavour we find the efforts of financial power seeking to expand and centralise, that is, to concentrate decision making authority into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Whether it is government, business, industry, education, health and above all banking ‘the policy is monopoly’ and we shouldn’t forget it.