Sacred Connections Scotland
International Banking and Human Sabotage
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.
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.”
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.
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), 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..”
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]
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 competitiveness 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?” 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.
It should be remembered that the science of judgement is to judge by results, certainly not by abstract semantic economic and financial mumbo-jumbo. “By their fruits ye shall know them”. So far as this writer is aware, men still do not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.
 “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.  Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy, 1986, p. 108.  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. Douglas subsequently moved to Fearnan, a few miles away, where he lived until his death in 1952.  Money – a Christian View, forward by Rev. Dr. George F. MacLeod (founder of the Iona Community), 1963 Glasgow.  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.
C. H. Douglas, Scots engineer and economist, at Fearnan overlooking Loch Tay, Perthshire, Scotland
“One of the men who profoundly interested me was Major Clifford Hugh Douglas, originator of the Social Credit Scheme…. Douglas’s death at his home at Fearnan, Perthshire, on 29th September 1952, removed from our midst one of the greatest Scotsmen of the past hundred years, and, in relation to his own subject, the greatest of all time…. Douglas was disappointed that his own country of Scotland was not the first to give his system a trial. He recognised, of course, that Scotland could not do so until it reaquired independence and a Parliament of its own.” – Hugh McDiarmid (C. M. Grieve) The Company I’ve Kept, 1966
“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.
“How is it that in 1495 the labourer was able to maintain himself in a standard of living considerably higher, relatively to his generation, than that of the present time, with only 50 days’ labour a year, whereas now millions are working in an age of marvellous machinery the whole year round, in an effort to maintain themselves and their families just above the line of destitution? Why is it that 150 years ago the percentage of the population which could be economically classed as of the middle and upper classes was two or three times that which it is at the present time? Why is it that while production per man-hour has risen 40 or 50 time at least in the past hundred years, the wages of the fully employed have risen only about four times, and the average wage of the employable is considerably less than four times that of a hundred years ago, measured in real commodities? How is it that the nations are given over to the dictatorship of men of gangster mentality, whose proper place is in a Borstal institution?” (C. H. Douglas, The Tragedy of Human Effort, 1936)
Social Credit and Major C.H. Douglas (founder)