“Salvation by history” — H. G. Wells, The Undying Fire
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
H. G. Wells described the devil and the adversary of all that is good as “the Unexpected,” a condition suitable for any discussion concerning economics and C. H. Douglas. Of particular interest to New Righters is Douglas’ declaration that Social Credit “covers and comprehends a great deal more than the money question.”  It is more than economics and “fundamentally involves a conception, I feel a true conception – but you must enlarge upon that yourselves – of the relationship between individuals and their association in countries and nations and their association in groups.” The unexpected is always present and in discussing the money aspect of Social Credit which Douglas regarded as “the scientific money system for the automation age of abundance and leisure” we should understand the time in which Douglas lived. Unlike our age, his held a promise of future prosperity in a homogenous society. But, as Martin Armstrong wrote, “When it comes to the economy, you cannot extract weather, famine, earthquakes, volcanoes, or the study of war, and expect to comprehend the entire landscape within which we live no less assess future risk.”
The medieval church had a saying that “dogma is life petrified.” Life today is anything but petrified and our subject economics is as stressed as the social system; not that the two can ever be truly separated. Economics is dynamic and Martin Armstrong can now write that tax is a barbaric relic of the past and “since money is no longer tangible and predominantly electronic, there is no need for taxes anymore.” The unexpected occurred and the trendy are using Bitcoin and paying the cashier with their smart phones. The mechanics are certainly available to facilitate any future introduction of Social Credit.
Douglas came to his theorem through his observation as an engineer. David Ricardo was a trader and a businessman, and his proposition of Comparative Advantage was achieved by observation. Adam Smith too, observed how things functioned before he wrote his masterpiece, The Wealth of Nations. The much maligned John Law, an experienced trader, was the first to use the term demand, and he was certainly the first to join it with the word supply. John Law used these two terms to establish the first theory of price movement — supply and demand. Every other theory, Marxism, Keynesianism, Monetarism, or whatever, has proven to be false for without experience, they tried to ascertain how things function. As a working engineer C. H. Douglas falls in between the serious economists such as Ricardo and Law and the empty-headed theorists. Douglas might indeed hold the key to setting up a financial system for the world envisioned by the North American New Right. But before venturing forth into unchartered waters we should understand the world that gave us Douglas and his idea.
Although Douglas devised his theorem while at work in an aircraft factory during the First World War, his idea reached its apex during the 1930s when the world changed forever. The much-ignored Herbert Hoover came to office a mere seven months before Oct, 29th 1929, and by 1932 William Starr Myers, Professor of Politics of Princeton University, could declare “that President Hoover was the world leader who had contributed most to this victory over chaos. The battle against the depression had been won.” Sadly, a year later, Irving Fisher was to say in a speech before the American Economic Association, December 28, 1933, “We should have been further on the road toward recovery today had there been no election last year. Recovery started under Mr. Hoover but . . . a recession occurred because of the fear over political uncertainties.” Needless to say the introduction of Social Credit would be fraught with “political uncertainties.”
In the spirit of Douglas and his idea of association between individuals, groups, countries, and nations, Hoover organized the President’s Unemployment Relief Organization which was a great success and as President Herbert Hoover said himself in pre multi-cultural America, “Modern society cannot survive with the defense of Cain, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’” Like Julius Caesar before him, he realized precisely what the problem was and acted on it. Hoover lost the election, and Caesar was stabbed in the back because his efforts to save Rome cost the money-lending senators a third of their wealth.
Douglas was born in England in 1873 when Queen Victoria was on the throne. She herself, most observers agree, was a Christian even though the 1851 religious census showed that the Church of England over which she reigned had less than half of the population of its home country as members. Such was the world of Douglas. After Victoria came Edward VII who reigned until 1910 and whose era marked a great turn in British society. Later, in 1930 the Church of England approved the use of condoms, and my readers are well aware how contraception insidiously lowers the IQ of a people. By the time Douglas died in 1953, the M.V. Empire Windrush had disgorged its cargo of Jamaicans on the shores of the Camp of the Saints, and globalization was in full swing.
Ever since the Adversary slithered up to Eve and whispered in her ear, “Yea, hath God said . . . ?” man has been twisting religion every which way to suit his own advantage. However, religion is part of the story and can’t really be excluded. From Douglas’s era and from some of his preserved lectures and writings some of the basic principles of the ancient faith and Merrie Olde Englande jump out; the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and that if a man did not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he had denied the faith and was worse than an infidel. But perhaps the greatest principle for the distribution of new wealth was that of Matthew 5:45 where Jesus told how God the Father made the sun shine on the evil and the good and how he sent the rain on the just and the unjust. After receiving his quota, it was up to each what he did with it. What Douglas abhorred was the philosophy of Frederick the Great of Prussia which prevails today, “Above all, uphold the following maxim, ‘that to despoil your neighbors is to deprive them of the means to injure you.’” Frederick, who may as well have written the “cold-blooded” Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which according to Douglas was either a plan or a prophecy and written by someone or some group promoting the ideal of the result justifying the means and that force is the first right.
The two opposing forces in Douglas’ world were the Protocols and Christianity, although both had the same premise. Both recognized the “primacy and formative nature of ideas.” Douglas saw the Protocols as the Bible of the Anti-Christ, “and that its policy, Communism and Socialism, which can easily be linked with Frederick of Prussia as their first prominent and identifiable exponent, are essentially the policy of a religion of which the energizing factor is physical force and the fear of it.” Douglas thought way back then that Britain was heading that way, and today James Davidson can write that America is sliding into a full East German-style lockdown.
Douglas envisioned the world of “The Anti-Christ” as one possessing the essential characteristics of fear and violence of the Protocols. In comparison, Douglas regarded the world of Christ as that of courage, allied to love, i.e., perfect love casteth out fear. The knight of chivalry, Douglas wrote, watched his armor alone in the chapel throughout the night and then went out to do battle alone for love, against fear and oppression. The mass, wrote Douglas is unsaveable and as insane as the mob, and here we get to the driving force behind his Social Credit idea, “the object of anti-Christ is to keep mankind in ever larger mobs, thus defeating the object of Christ, to prevent the emergence of self-governing, self-conscious individuals, exercising free will, and choosing good because it is good.”
In Douglas’s world of Christ and anti-Christ he put great store in his church and that “the policy embodied in Social Credit proposals was in consonance with, and was intended as far as possible to derive from, the philosophy of the Christian Church.” Douglas however, was not blind to reality and could write what most people feel about the Church of England, namely “they love its exquisite liturgy, the mirror of a nobler day, and they would agree that it holds many good and able men; but it simply does not register. It is so tolerant that it is difficult to name anything to which it objects.” As a member of the Church of England he was also cognizant that “government systems do not change human nature.” He was well aware that the moral basis of society was changing and that what we vaguely call Christianity “is merely Liberal Judaism.” The pillars of the ancient British Race, king, church, and commons have all gone, and only their ghosts remain. He did believe that the Magna Carta remained as a witness to the ancient idea that the Christian Church was the living incarnation of righteousness and that his Social Credit idea would be a more righteous means of distribution.
Decay is an ongoing process, and Douglas saw further signs of it in the utterances of the Jew, Lord Samuel who said that “It is indefensible that a man should sit in the House of Lords because his father sat there before him.” Douglas saw that this would lead to the family being declared a myth, and we would all be citizens of the world. Heredity was to be retained for the Jew only, the same Jew that was employing the same tactic against the race “as that employed against the Christian Church – to deny the validity of its origins. Just a little at a time of course, but the direction is unmistakable.” Twenty-five years later Wilmot Robertson would write The Dispossessed Majority.
Douglas believed that the modern transcendentalist Christianity of a world to come was considered safe and that earlier persecutions had only arisen when Christians tried to apply Christian economics. Even more radical was Douglas’s belief that the only justification for government was to allow you to do things more easily and comfortably; that to imagine that we are born into the world to be governed by something not inherent in the cosmos, i.e., money, “is one of the most astonishing pieces of hypnotism that has ever afflicted the world.”
C. H. Douglas applied his Christian principles to what he saw as a still basically Christian and homogenous world. The Unexpected had occurred, and unlike medieval times not everyone belonged to the church any more. The driving force behind Douglas is as dead as the Rome of Julius Caesar. Douglas lived in a world of rising prosperity and would neither have expected the true engines of growth to be sent away nor the country flooded with cheap alien labor. Once again, the unexpected had occurred, and the challenge for today’s Social Creditors is not only the policy for wealth distribution but of regaining both the means and the ability to create wealth.
 H. G. Wells, The Undying Fire (New York: Macmillan, 1919), p. 2.
 C. H. Douglas, The Approach to Reality, p. 6.
 C. H. Douglas, The Approach to Reality, p. 6.
 C. H. Douglas, Social Credit, back cover.
 Martin Armstrong, Cycles of War, 1914, p. 8.
 David Knowles OBE, The English Mystics (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1927), p. 15.
 Martin Armstrong, Theory and Observation and Plagiarism, December 21, 2013.
 Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover (New York: Macmillan, 1952), p. 164.
 C. H. Douglas, The Approach to Reality (Warwickshire, England: KRP Publications, 1936), p. 6.
 Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover, p. 151.
 Armstrong Martin Sovereign Debt Crisis (DVD) 2 1:45 50.
 1st Timothy 5:8.
 C. H. Douglas, The Realistic Position of the Church of England, 1948, p. 9.
 Ibid., p. 11.
 James Dale Davidson, Strategic Investments (Baltimore), January 2014.
 Douglas, The Realistic Position of the Church of England, p. 11.
 Ibid., p. 3.
 Ibid., p. 4.
 Ibid., p. 8.
 Ibid., p. 6.
 Ibid., p. 12.
 Ibid., p. 12.
 Ibid., p. 13.