From: "Elaine"
Subject: International Banking and Human Sabotage

International Banking and Human Sabotage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Extracted from The Holy Land of Scotland: Jesus in Scotland & The
Gospel of the Grail, Chapter 8, by Barry Dunford).

note*- that usury (money lending for profit) was forbidden in the
Celtic
Church, unlike the Church of Rome which encouraged it.

This reveals the centralised controlling monetary mechanism of
International Finance which currently dominates the Governments and the
people of this world. There is also information as to how this
anti-social and wholly unnecessary state of affairs can be changed for
the betterment of humanity.

One of the primary mechanisms which has been used (regrettably very
successfully) to control the people of this world, is the financial
credit creation monopoly which has been, and continues to be, exercised
by a handful of supra-national Banking Houses (families). These
families, with their accompanying long term policies, are dynastic in
nature, a kind of grail lineage in reverse, i.e. an anti-grail lineage.
Just as the true Grail lineage has embodied and facilitated the
Christic
vibrational streaming ("I am the true vine" - Yeshua/Jesus), so the
lineage of the anti-grail families has served to facilitate the working
of the anti-Christ forces. As ever, the test is the same, "By their
fruits ye shall know them".[1]

In the 1936 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 15, money)
appears the explosive statement that "Banks lend by creating credit.
They create the means for payment out of nothing." It may be pertinent
to note that in subsequent editions this revealing statement was
deleted. In fact, both national and international banking transactions
(the source of finance and money in the modern world) are essentially a
matter of simple book keeping. In reality, the only difference between
£1. and £1,000,000. is 6 noughts - and what do 6 noughts add up to? It
really is as simple as that. Yet through the world wide centralised
application of this monetary technique the people of this world have
been, and continue to be, systematically controlled and manipulated to
the point of mutual extermination between various groups or nations via
'wars'. This has been accompanied by the artificial creation of
poverty,
in an age of super-productive abundance, and widespread crimes against
the individual of every kind imaginable.

At the time of the founding, in 1694, of the so-called Bank "of
England", a private monopoly, one of the Directors, William Paterson,
remarked: "The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it
creates out of nothing." More recently, Reginald McKenna, a former
Chairman of the Midland Bank, and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, when
addressing the shareholders of the Midland Bank, 22nd January 1930,
said: "The Bank of England is the supreme authority in determining the
quantity of money available for the use of the public." On another
occasion (25th January 1924) again, while addressing the shareholders
of
the Midland Bank, Reginald McKenna stated: "I am afraid the ordinary
citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create
money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of
the banks in increasing and decreasing deposits and bank purchases.
Every loan, overdraft, or bank purchase creates a deposit, and every
repayment of a loan, overdraft, or bank sale destroys a deposit." In
other words, Banks create the means for payment out of nothing.
Moreover, H.D. MacLeod, in his textbook The Theory and Practice of
Banking explains: "The essential and distinctive feature of a bank and
a
banker is to create and issue credit payable on demand, and this credit
is intended to be put into circulation and serve all the purposes of
money. A bank, therefore, is not an office for the borrowing and
lending
of money; it is a manufactory of credit." The foregoing is confirmed by
Branch Banking, July 1938, which states: "There are enough substantial
quotations in existence to prove to the uninitiated that Banks do
create
credit without restraint and that they create the means of repayment
within themselves."[2]

In reality, money is simply a convenient means of distribution in the
cycle of production, distribution and consumption. The primary object
of
production is consumption, not unimaginable waste and deliberately
built
in obsolescence in order to accommodate a supra-national centralised
banking policy of control and restriction of the financial credit
creation process on a global scale. Incidentally, it may be of interest
to note that usury was forbidden in the Celtic Church, unlike the
Church
of Rome.[3]

The vast majority of people have been deluded into thinking that
without
'money' nothing is achievable. In real terms this is not the case, as
whatever is physically possible can and should be financially possible.
Around 1920, the Scots engineer and economist, C.H. Douglas
(1879-1952),[4] a leading engineer of his day, made the penetrating
observation: "Lay your money down and I will spin the Dome of St.
Paul's
Cathedral on its cross." This was no idle statement as C.H. Douglas had
been called in to check on the wind stress factors relating to the Dome
of St. Paul's Cathedral. Further, he knew that whatever was physically
possible should also be financially possible. If all the paper money
and
gold in the world was to suddenly evaporate overnight, does this mean
that the raw materials with which to build houses, factories, roads and
railways, for example, would no longer be available? Moreover, C.H.
Douglas clarified a realistic and viable course for a sane humanity to
follow when he stated: "It is suggested that the primary requisite is
to
obtain in the re-adjustment of the economic and political structure
such
control of initiative that by its exercise every individual can avail
himself of the benefits of science and mechanism; that by their aid he
is placed in such a position of advantage, that in common with his
fellows he can choose, within increasing freedom and complete
independence, whether he will or will not assist in any project which
may be placed before him." (Economic Democracy - 1920).

Writing in the 1930's, C.H. Douglas observed: "It cannot have escaped
the observation of anyone interested in the welfare and orderly
progress
of society that, more especially in the years which have intervened
since the close of the European War and the present time, the centre of
gravity of world affairs has shifted from Parliaments and Embassies to
Bank Parlours and Board Rooms. It is probable that this shifting is
more
apparent than real; that, in fact, Parliaments and Embassies have not
for a long time been more than the salesmen of policies which were
manufactured elsewhere. But the public is becoming increasingly
dissatisfied with the goods; it has changed the window-dressers with
disappointing results, and in consequence it is, perhaps for the first
time, beginning to take an interest in matters of economics and finance
which previously it had been content to leave to experts. One of the
first results of this awakening interest has been a demonstration of
the
distance which separates exact knowledge from popular understanding of
the methods by which the ordinary necessities of life and the amenities
of civilised existence are placed at the disposal of individuals in the
modern world..Particularly in regard to finance, which may be termed
the
nerve system of distribution, most people hold, with some persistence,
ideas which are both incorrect and misleading, and are supported in
their disinclination to change these views by sectional interests of
great potency and ability in the attainment of their own objectives,
which superficially seem well served by the prevailing ignorance. No
just appreciation of this situation is possible which does not take
into
consideration the peculiar and perhaps unique, position occupied by
finance in the organisation of modern society in every country.
Finance,
i.e. money, is the starting-point of every action which requires either
the co-operation of the community or the use of its assets. If it be
realised that control of its mechanism gives, to a major extent,
control
of both personal and organised activity, it is easy to see that
education, publicity, and organised Intelligence (in the sense in which
the word 'Intelligence' is used in military circles) can be controlled,
first to minimise the likelihood of criticism arising, and should it
arise, depriving it of all the normal facilities for effective action.
Finance can and does control policy, and as has been well said by an
American writer, Charles Ferguson, 'control of credit and control of
the
news are concentric'."

Douglas concluded: "Perhaps the first point on which to be clear is
that
this immense, nay, almost omnipotent, power which is wielded by the
financial organisation, and which therefore must in the nature of
things
be responsible for the situation in the world to-day, has not until
recently been recognised in its true nature. In fact, every artifice,
either of the press or of politics, has been used to identify the
conduct of nations with their titular governments, while at the same
time vilifying them for the progressively disastrous results. It is, in
my opinion, not too much to say that these governments are now
superseded by financial institutions, and that these financial
institutions, so far as can be humanly judged, are in an impregnable
position..It seems difficult to doubt that the efforts of those in
control of financial policy are primarily, if not entirely, concerned
with making the world safe for bankers, rather than making the world
safe..Political democracy without economic democracy is dynamite. The
need is to abolish poverty, not to represent it." (The Monopoly of
Credit)

An American researcher, E.C. Knuth, in his book The Empire of "The
City"
(1946, USA) relates: "In Barriers Down published in 1942, Kent Cooper,
General Manager of the Associated Press, discloses a 20 year battle
fought since the end of World War I for the right to give the American
people the truth about the news of Europe and the world..Mr. Cooper
states that the account is that international bankers under the lead of
the House of Rothschild had acquired an interest in the three leading
European agencies (Reuter, Wolff and Havas). Reuters, whose
headquarters
were in Old Jewry, near the Bank of England, in the City, was the chief
of the three. It was the staggering presumption of this firm that the
news of the world was its own private property, to be withheld, to be
discolored to its own purposes, or to be sold to whom and where they
directed." It is, therefore, worth bearing in mind the statement that
"control of credit and control of the news are concentric." This is why
such economic and financial matters are never discussed in any areas of
the mass media and, moreover, never appear on the curriculum of any
school or university. But, of course, there is no "World Conspiracy".
Why not? Because we are told so. When the vast majority of mankind has
been 'educated' and conditioned into believing that white is black and
black is white, if someone were to come along and say that, in reality,
white is white and black is black, then that person's powers of
perception are bound to be thought questionable, to say the least. The
question is, in reality, where do we go from here?

As C.H. Douglas further observed: "The Money Power does not, and never
did wish to improve the money system - its consequences in war,
sabotage
and social friction are exactly what is desired. This, I think, exactly
defines the task which society must face and solve, or perish. First,
to
attack and defeat the Money Power; then consider the reorganisation of
the money system. All these things, and many more, have convinced me
that one of the fundamentals of genuine Christianity is that the only
true focus of power is the individual, which is simply a matter-of-fact
method of affirming the Immanence of God over the Monotheistic Jehovah.
The conscious man is not born to be ruled, neither is he born to rule
over other people. Jesus said so, and the Jews [Judeans] crucified Him.
They could do no other. I believe we shall be taking the most generally
accurate view of history for at least the past two thousand years if we
view it as a conscious attempt on the one side, and an unconscious
reaction on the other side, to and from the separation of the
individual
and his natural attributes, and to vest them in organisations
controlled
by power maniacs. If you prefer to say that it is a struggle to
separate
man from God, to replace the immanence of God (i.e., power over events)
by the omnipotent Jehovah (i.e., subservience to events), I shall not
quarrel with your choice of words, although it is the practical use you
can make of them which matters." (Programme for the Third World War -
1943).

Twenty years earlier, in a speech in Newcastle, England, in 1923,
entitled The Breakdown of the Employment System, C.H. Douglas
summarised
the essence of the prevailing economic situation saying: "I would
commend to you a most serious consideration of this issue: whether you
wish the economic system to be made the vehicle for an unseen
government
over which you have no control, which you did not elect, and which you
cannot remove so long as you accept its premises, or whether, on the
other hand, you are determined to free the forces of modern science, so
that your need for goods and services may be met with increasing
facility and decreasing effort, this, in turn, permitting humanity to
expend its energy on altogether higher planes of effort than those
involved in the mere provision of the means of subsistence."

Commenting on C.H. Douglas' economic proposals, an Australian writer
and
researcher Eric D. Butler, in his treatise entitled Releasing Reality
(1979, Australia) perceptively remarks: "The overriding policy being
used to deny man access to the potential real security and expanding
freedom which is his birthright, is that of 'Full Employment.' Although
the policy blatantly contradicts every advance in technology, it is
promoted persistently as the most important objective towards which man
can strive. The underlying philosophy is materialistic, treating the
human being as so much raw material to be fed into an expanding mass
production system, and anti-Christian because it denies that the major
factor in modern production is inheritance. When Douglas first put
forward the policy of a National Dividend for the individual as a
right,
reflecting the reality of inheritance, it was scathingly denounced as
'something for nothing'. Life itself is a gift, as are the most
important factors which sustain life - water, air and unlimited solar
energy."

In 1962, the first report was produced by the Christian Doctrine of
Wealth Committee of the Congregational Union of Scotland, presented to
the Assembly, in Dundee, Scotland. That report concluded (in part): "We
believe that the existing system of debt-finance, whereby practically
all money comes into circulation as interest-bearing debt, is
prejudicial to human well-being, a drag on the development and
distribution of wealth, finds no justification in the nature of things,
and perpetuates a wrong conception of the function of money in human
society. We believe that the virtual monopoly of credit enjoyed by the
banking system is contrary to reason and justice..The true basis of
credit is found in the assets of the nation - men, labour, skills,
natural resources and the enormous power for production now in human
hands. The creation and function of money ought to bear a strict
relation to those physical facts, and to nothing else.."[5]

More recently the following pertinent speech by the late Lord Beswick
appeared in HANSARD, 27th November 1985, vol. 468, columns 935-939,
under the title "Money Supply and the Private Banking System". It
begins: "Lord Beswick rose to call attention to the statement made by
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 23rd July 1985 that the
96.9
per cent increase in money supply over a five-year period has been
created by the private banking system and without Government
authority..The noble Lord said: 'My Lords, on 10th June this year I
asked Her Majesty's Government by what amount the money supply had
increased in the five-year period to mid-April 1985. Interestingly,
they
gave me the answer in percentages and not in pounds. Having given him
prior notice, perhaps the Minister would be good enough later to give
me
the answer in money terms. The Government reply on 10th June was that
the increase had been by 101.9 per cent, and that of that very large
amount only 5 per cent was accounted for by the state minting of more
coins and the printing of more notes. That 96.9 per cent increase
represented not only an enormous sum of money but also a crucially
important factor in our economy. I wanted to know by whom it had been
created, and on 23rd July I again asked Her Majesty's Government to
what
extent this increase had Government approval. I was told by the
Chancellor of the Duchy, speaking for the Government: 'The 96.9 per
cent
represented new bank deposits created in the normal course of banking
business and no Government authority is necessary for this.' Had he
said
that some counterfeiter of coins or forger of notes had been at work
there would of course have been an immediate and indignant outcry; yet
here we have a government statement that private institutions have
created this enormous amount of extra purchasing power and we are
expected to accept that it is normal practice and that the government
authority does not come into it. When I asked whether we ought not to
consider more deeply who was benefiting from this money-creating power,
the Minister said that the implications, though interesting, were maybe
too far reaching for Question Time; and so I raise the matter again in
debate and hope to get more enlightenment. The issues are important;
they are certainly under-discussed; perhaps not adequately understood;
and I hope that I am not being unduly unfair if I say that those who
understand the mechanisms often do very well out of them. I make no
party point; it is all much bigger and wider than that.. the Chancellor
of the Duchy gave the game away when he said that no government
authority was needed for this present system of credit creating." (My
italics - BD)

Lord Beswick went on to say: "The line of action needed to reform this
unacceptable state of affairs was indicated, I believe, by the late Sir
Arthur Bryant, Companion of Honour, upon whose clarity of language I
cannot improve. In the London Illustrated News [February 1983], he
wrote: '..The exercise of the right inherent in every sovereign state
of
creating and issuing a sufficiency of money to make financially
possible
what is physically possible and morally desirable, would enable as much
wealth to be brought into existence as, with its immense inventive and
scientific potential, it is capable of making'..Is it not quite
illogical, indeed indefensible, that the state should be so concerned
to
maintain its sovereignty in the issue of coins or notes that it allows
this new form of money, used overwhelmingly today, to be created
outside
its control? Can the Government not at least agree that the facts known
and the implications involved merit early and authoritative inquiry?
Would not a committee or commission, authorised to consider and report,
be of great national value." This same theme is also to be found in
HANDSARD, 5th March 1997, volume 578, No. 68, columns 1869-1871, in
which the Earl of Caithness is recorded as having stated: "The next
government must grasp the nettle, accept their responsibility for
controlling the money supply and change from our debt-based monetary
system. My Lords, will they? If they do not, our monetary system will
break us and the sorry legacy we are already leaving our children will
be a disaster."

So why is nothing being done at Governmental level to resolve this
wholly unnecessary state of affairs? Perhaps the reason why is to be
found in the observation of Des Griffin who, in his book Descent into
Slavery (1996) writes: "The small clique who rule the City dictate to
the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory
Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers.
These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they
are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose
strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the
scenes..History clearly reveals that the British government is the bond
slave of the 'invisible and inaudible' force centred in the City. The
City calls the tune. The 'visible and audible leaders' are mere puppets
who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no
authority. In spite of all the outward show they are mere pawns in the
game being played by the financial elite."

In The Empire of "The City" (1946, USA) the author, E.C. Knuth, refers
to "..the international financial oligarchy of 'The City' in what is
perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of government in the
world.
This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric 'Crown' as
its
symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London,
an area of 677 acres..This tiny area of a little over one square mile
has in it the giant Bank of England, a privately owned institution;
which..is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is
in
effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the
Stock Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope." Knuth
further
notes: "The late Vincent Cartwright Vickers [Director of the Bank of
England 1910-1919] stated: '..financiers in reality took upon
themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power, of
controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous
relationships between one nation and another, involving international
friendships or mistrusts..Loans to foreign countries are organized and
arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the
nation's welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness, upon
which the City thrives and grows rich..This national and mainly
international dictatorship of money, which plays off one country
against
another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the Press,
converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance
of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to
render
Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today, we see through a glass
darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in the public
interest to divulge'.." [Econimic Tribulation, 1940]

Almost a century earlier, a former British Prime Minister, William
Gladstone (1809-1898) wrote: "From the time I took office as Chancellor
of the Exchequer (1852) I began to learn that the State held, in the
face of the Bank and the City, an essentially false position as to
finance. The Government itself was not to be a substantive power, but
was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned." (Life of
William
Ewart Gladstone, 1903, by John Morley). Perhaps what is required to
ensure a satisfactory resolution to the private and centralised
monopoly
of credit scenario is a legal court case i.e. the People versus the
Banks, that is always assuming that the Judiciary cannot be bought off,
for he who pays the piper invariably calls the tune. In reality, we are
confronted with what the late Lord Chief Justice Hewart described as
"administrative lawlessness". Lord Hewart further observes: "A mass of
evidence establishes the fact that there is in existence a persistent
and well contrived system, intended to produce, and in practice
producing, a despotic power which at one and the same time places
Government Departments above the Sovereignty of Parliament and beyond
the jurisdiction of the Courts." (The New Despotism - 1929). The
Treasury is a prime example, and the departments of the so-called
Intelligence Corps are another.

Writing during World War (part) II, C.H. Douglas clarified the essence
of the prevailing world situation. In an essay entitled Programme for
the Third World War (1943), Douglas observed: "If the responsible
individuals during the years 1915-1940 are identified and punished, we
may avoid a Third World War. If not, we shall have a Fourth and a
Fifth..It is the initiators of policy who are responsible for the
effects of policy. The indictment for world crime requires to be
directed to the identification of those individuals who licenced world
crime..This is a gangsters' war, for the benefit of gangsters and the
perpetuation of gangsterdom. You can have just as many like it as you
wish. To that end, the first essential is to demand the right to
interfere in everyones' business, preferably without understanding it.
That encourages everyone to interfere with you, and a good time is had
by all. Then use as many words which have no ascertainable meaning, as
possible. Demand higher taxes for everyone and complain about your own.
Otherwise leave Finance severely alone..A very few years of 'peace'
founded on these principles will ensure a hearty welcome to the next
war."

In another essay entitled The Big Idea (1942) C.H. Douglas perceptively
remarked: "Although the fact is a little obscured at the moment, the
human individual is the highest manifestation of divine attributes with
which we are in day-to-day contact. What differentiates him from the
lower orders, when he is different, in his initiative - the fact that
he
manoeuvres under his own steam. I am confident that there is an
organised attempt to drive him down the scale of existence, so that he
becomes primarily a number on a card index, by taking away as far as
possible any recognisable initiative, his potentially divine attribute.
The present war, and the obliteration of nationalities, the talk of
Federal Unions and United States of Europe..are all directed to that
end. That is to say, war provides the opportunity, perhaps the
necessity, for conditions of existence in which the individual is
wholly
at the mercy of institutions, and those institutions are ultimately
controlled by an international junta..The major strategy was simple, if
grandiose. You bring about a state of affairs in which International
Finance controls trade, industry, and distribution, and would have no
check on its extortions but for private enterprise. You bring about, as
in 1928, major depressions and crises, and when you have intolerable
conditions..you say nothing can be done about it because there's no
money. When these conditions inevitably bring about war, you say War is
the major evil of the world and comes from 'private enterprise'; you
spend eleven million pounds a day in pure destruction when you were
unable to spend eleven million pounds a month for constructive
purposes;
and you set every available type of propaganda to work to advocate that
the affairs of the whole world shall be finally and irrevocably handed
over to a monopoly of the powers operating through finance and
subterranean intrigue, so that effective revolt becomes for ever
impossible. It is, of course, the convenient fashion to say, 'Yes, yes,
but that is all past history - we must forget all about that, and work
for the future.' There is no such thing as past history. Only by being
quite certain what has happened, not merely what we are told happened,
can we understand what can happen. Or to put it another way, only by
knowing and understanding what and who caused the war, can we
understand
how to win the war." More than half a century later, after entering a
new millennium, are we any the wiser?

A number of insightful and practical observations in the sphere of
political and economic realism have been made by Eric D. Butler, in a
series of lectures under the heading of Social Dynamics, which the
author defines thus: "Social Dynamics is the science of applying social
power to social organisations in order that individuals may obtain the
results they desire. Social power derives from the belief - faith -
that
individuals in society can in correct association get what they want."
Eric Butler says: "With an understanding of how the present
finance-economic system is being used to attempt to express a
philosophy
which runs contrary to reality, it is now possible to consider
appropriate policies and action necessary to free the individual from
the threat of centralised tyranny. Broadly speaking, what is required
is
a progressive retreat from centralisation of power. But this is not
going to happen simply because a number of individuals understand the
nature of the power problem. Those who have usurped the power which the
individual should be exercising, are not going to voluntarily
relinquish
this power. Many of them consciously seek even greater power..Any
decentralisation of power will only take place through those exercising
the power being compelled to relinquish it. This means conflict between
those who would be free and those who operate policies denying freedom.
There is no way of those standing for freedom to avoid this conflict.
Genuine decentralisation of power is impossible without
decentralisation
of financial or credit power. A start must be made with modifications
to
present credit policies. But these policies can only be modified
through
political action, through government. The first essential for correct
action is to sweep away the modern totalitarian conception of
government. This conception implies that individuals belong to
governments, whereas governments should belong to individuals..The
essence of the situation is that government must be compelled to
disgorge much of the power it has taken from the individual, and
government itself must be decentralised..Any Board of Directors which
provided their shareholders with the type of financial information
provided by governments, would find themselves in the Courts charged
with failure to discharge their proper responsibilities."

Eric Butler further observes: "An effective policy of decentralising
all
power through decentralising financial power will meet with the most
bitter opposition. Such a policy would run counter to the drive towards
organising man into the World State. But it must be implemented if
civilisation is to be saved. The problem is one of the electors
applying
sufficient social power to force a change. The major sanctions
available
to electors are their political votes. Politicians who will not work to
advance the policies put forward by their electors must be penalised in
the same way that consumers penalise business organisations who will
not, or cannot, provide what is required: they must be deprived of
votes. If electors will not make the effort to insist upon the policies
they require, they cannot logically complain if they have disastrous
policies imposed upon them. How can electors resist the policies of
centralisation being imposed upon them, and reverse these policies?
Only
by using the social power they can still exercise by correctly
associating to make their will prevail. Political democracy can only be
a reality when a Member of Parliament is primarily responsible to his
electors, not to party bosses. But electors cannot expect their elected
representative to move openly against the forces of centralised power
unless they make it clear that they will support him. It is a
fundamental truth that in a democracy, electors get the government, and
the representatives they deserve. The basic problem is not going to be
solved by creating still more parties, seeking to persuade the elector
that all he has to do is to vote for them and all will be well. What is
required is a new type of political movement, a type of voluntary civil
service staffed by trained Social Engineers seeking to advise and guide
electors on how to initiate constructive action in all political
spheres..The decisive factor in the crisis threatening Civilisation
will
be Faith. If sufficient individuals have sufficient Faith that they do
possess the capacity to change the course of events from their present
disastrous course, then the mountains obstructing man from entering
into
his rightful heritage will be removed. Politics and economics will be
reduced to their proper role in the scheme of life, while the
individual
enters into that life more abundant which he was told would come
through
the pursuit of Truth."

In a treatise entitled Scotland and Its Money (1991) the author, James
Gibb Stuart, comments on a realistic, practical and alternative
Scottish
approach to the prevailing anti-social international monopoly of credit
scenario. This Scots writer says: "So why should Scotland bother? Why
should she dare? Why not just accept some form of devolved autonomy,
whilst leaving the real business of finance to the big guns in the City
of London? Surprisingly enough, despite the mighty array of banking
power that could be ranged against us, it is mainly a matter of
political and national will. A Scottish Parliament which proclaimed its
sovereign independence by the clear consent of its electorate is most
unlikely to be attacked by tanks and aircraft. The pressures would come
against our currency, our credit worthiness and our external trade. For
a while we might have to keep our heads down, though utterly convinced
of the rightness and wisdom of our position. Much of the pressure would
be psychological. Starting without debt the Scottish economy would
enjoy
taxation relief, worthwhile employment and all-round competititveness
that would eventually make our markets irresistible. Friends and allies
would spring up from every corner of the globe, as our cause caught
their imagination, and they waited to see whether we, the Scots, would
blaze a trail that others could follow."

James Gibb Stuart continues: "Meanwhile the bankers themselves would be
threatening and scaremongering. Like an insect projected by strong
light
onto a reflective wall, they would cast a mighty shadow. And perhaps
that would frighten many, but only through an illusion, for the reality
would still be of an insect. Banking power is thus for ever illusory
against a nation which takes charge of its own credit, and understands
how to monetise its own labour and resources. We would survive, and our
position could only strengthen as the benefits of a debt-free economic
system became more visible. It has long been realised that if one small
nation-state managed to break the bankers' credit monopoly, and
articulated the methods by which this had been achieved, others would
want to follow. That is why the big financial interests have been
concerned to see that no such experiment ever materialises, and to
stamp
fiercely upon its manifestations, wherever they might be found. Thus
far
they have been overwhelmingly successful. We are up against a
resourceful opponent, who has lost several skirmishes and an occasional
battle, but never the war itself. It remains a matter of knowledge and
conviction, of national and political will-power. In the sorry state of
the world's economies - a condition exacerbated in almost every
instance
by mountains of irredeemable debt - it is a reform and a deliverance
just waiting around to happen. With this prospect before them, can the
Scots be energised into taking a leadership role?"[6] As has been said
before, the wise man is one who heareth the word and doeth something
about it. Unless the word is incarnated through practical application
it
becomes meaningless.






C.H. Douglas, Scots engineer and economist, at Fearnan


overlooking Loch Tay, Perthshire, Scotland

"Now it is my own belief....that there is running through the nature of
the Universe something that we call a 'canon'. It is the thing which is
referred to in the Gospel of St. John as the 'logos', the 'word'....The
engineer and the artist refer to it when they say that they have got
something 'right'. Other people mean the same thing when they talk
about
absolute truth, or reality. Genuine success only accompanies a
consistent attempt to discover and to conform to this canon in no
matter
what sphere our activities may lie." - C.H. Douglas.

Notes:

[1] Gospel of St. Matthew, ch.7, v.20.
[2] "As the situation stands at present, the banker is in a unique
position. He is probably the only known instance of the possibility of
lending something without parting with anything, and making a profit on
the transaction, obtaining in the first instance his commodity free."
Taken from a speech in Newcastle, England, in 1923 by C.H. Douglas,
entitled The Breakdown of the Employment System.
[3] Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, The Messianic
Legacy, 1986, p.108.
[4] The discerning reader is referred to the seminal works of C.H.
Douglas which are centred around a perception of economic and political
realism. (Available from Bloomfield Books, 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury,
Suffolk, CO10 6TD). For a more recent commentary on C.H.Douglas'
economic proposals see The Political Economy of Social Credit and Guild
Socialism by Frances Hutchinson and Brian Burkitt (1997). Curiously, at
the beginning of World War (part) II, C.H.Douglas moved to Fortingall,
Scotland, where he lived in a house called Rose Villa overlooking the
Fortingall Yew tree. Councidence - or synchronicity? Douglas
subsequently moved to Fearnan, a few miles away, where he lived until
his death in 1952.
[5] Money - a Christian View, forward by Rev. Dr. George F. MacLeod
(founder of the Iona Community), 1963 Glasgow.
[6] James Gibb Stuart, Scotland and Its Money, 1991, pp.30-31. The
complete text of this informative treatise is available in booklet form
from Ossian Publishers, 268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR.

© copyright Barry Dunford

www.sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk