21 November 2014 Thought
for the Week:
For what it may be worth, I have just sent the following message to President Putin of Russia:
Dear President Putin,
While listening to the radio recently I heard a report of an address you had delivered in which you are cited as saying that Love is the true essence of life. I congratulate you for this profound observation. My response, which I have circulated, was as follows:
I just heard via radio transmission that Russian President Vladimir Putin has given an address saying that Love is what life is really all about. Russian Television recently presented a delightful and unexpected feature claiming the obvious (or what should be the obvious) - that the Americans are making themselves sick and killing themselves by working far too much. We haven’t heard anything like this from Western politicians who seem instead to base their faith in a jaded “realpolitik” sanctioned ultimately by bombs and, of course, entailing work without end. How can we have become so utterly stupefied - or corrupt and downright murderous?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has just stated that a massive number of Canadian “jobs” depend on trade with China. Jobs, jobs, jobs!!! Work! Work! Work! - for the Night is Coming! Our Salvation depends upon the great God, Work (all too often “filthy" works) and Grace has no place in the general scheme of things. Every engineer worthy of the name is trying to liberate mankind from the necessity of work while every self-serving, pseudo-moralizing and arrogant politician is trying to sabotage their noble, heroic and rational efforts by endlessly fabricating excuses to put people back to work again - even if this requires, as it does, under the existing fatally defective financial system, Perpetual War. Out with these neanderthal cretins and servants of Mammon! Down with J. M. Keynes (Fabian Socialism) and up with C. H. Douglas (Social Credit)!
Wikipedia - Social Credit
Sincerely, Wallace Klinck Canada
Yes! Our struggle aligns and reflects perfectly with Ephesians 6:12
And so wrote a social crediter to a SC discussion group:
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
Geoffrey Dobbs put it thus: What we are engaged in is a spiritual warfare, that is, a conflict of purpose, or as we have learnt to call it, of policy. In a sense, all wars are about policy, but they are conflicts of the same policy – each trying to damage the other, to attack and enlarge the weak points in the other and to impose its will by fear upon the other…
Such war is an expression of Monopolism - perhaps its ultimate expression – whether in the form of Monopolo-theism (belief in a unitary Dictator-God, as in Judaism and Islam) or in the form of Monopolo-humanism (Man is the Ultimate power, which is wielded by the Top Men).
Read further here…
SOCIAL CREDIT AND WAR
by M. Oliver Heydorn
As today is Remembrance Day, I thought it fitting to consider just one of the implications of Social Credit theory with respect to warfare:
Soldiers at Townsville's cenotaph on Remembrance Day.
(ABC News: Allyson Horn)
“... the financial system ... is, beyond question, the chief cause of international friction. Since, as we have seen, no nation can buy its own production, a struggle for markets in which to dispose of the surplus is inevitable. The translation of this commercial struggle into a military context is merely a question of time and opportunity.”
Social Crediters have repeatedly noted that there is a chronic economic cause, entirely artificial in nature and hence unnecessary, which inexorably drives nations to take up arms against each other. Because of the underlying deficiency in consumer purchasing power which afflicts all industrial societies operating under standard banking and accounting conventions, countries are frequently pressured to alleviate the lack of liquidity in the domestic economy by seeking to export more than they import. A so-called ‘favourable balance of trade’ (which is decidedly unfavourable in real terms because it involves a net loss of real wealth) helps an economy to bridge the gap between consumer prices and consumer incomes by getting rid of some of its surplus production while simultaneously increasing the rate of flow of consumer purchasing power (via the jobs that are created and the profits that are gained by exporting companies).
The problem is that it is mathematically impossible for all of the nations in the world to export more than they import; it is a zero sum game. For every exporting champion, there must be a loser with a trade deficit. Countries that import more than they export are faced with a gap problem that has become even worse due to its trading activities. Since each country is labouring under the same internal purchasing power deficiency, the fight for a favourable balance of trade is a fight for survival. It leads, quite naturally, to economic conflict, nay economic warfare, in the form of trade wars and ‘free’ trade alliances, and, far too often, it can force or at least induce military conflict. A country that fails to compete successfully via ‘innovation’, harder work, or out-pricing its rivals in the global struggle over an artificially scarce flow of purchasing power may seek to ensure its victory in the economic war by defeating its opponents on the battlefield. The real reason for the war will, of course, be more or less hidden from the public and a pretext found, but the war may allow for the aggressor to destroy part of the productive capacity of its foe and/or, through the eventual signing of peace treaties, to insist on more favourable trade conditions for itself (as part of due reparations).
The pressure put on nations to fill their internal price-income gaps with favourable trade balances is intensified by the universally upheld policy of full employment. If we madly insist, in direct opposition to the real physical potential of the modern, industrial economy, that everyone (or almost everyone) must work in the formal economy in order to obtain purchasing power (or be supported by those who do), then we are demanding continual economic growth as an end in itself (as a means of distributing additional incomes as the population increases). The resultant production must find some outlet. If it cannot be absorbed internally, a market must be secured for it abroad. It was for this reason that John Hargrave, leader of the Green Shirts (a paramilitary Social Credit group from the 1930’s), boldly proclaimed on more than one occasion that ‘He who calls for full-employment calls for war’.
Major Douglas explored the purely economic causes behind modern warfare at some length in a BBC speech entitled “The Causes of War”:
The Causes of War (Part 1) The Causes of War (Part 2)
 C.H. Douglas, The Monopoly of Credit (Sudbury, England: Bloomfield Books, 1979), 92.
BANK OF ENGLAND:
“In view of the disastrous policy followed by the Bank of England after the last war (https://alor.org/Library/Censoredhistory.htm) and the part it is believed to have played in the re-armament of Germany, does not the right hon. gentleman (Sir John Simon) consider it time that the people knew a bit more about the proprietors of this unique concern?”
Mr. R. Stokes, British House of Commons, 16 April, 1940
Stephen Fry's “Key to the City - Exploring the Mysteries of the City of London” Comment: Methinks a better description of Stephen Fry’s ‘adventures’ would be: Being led into the ‘secret’ of the “Rituals of the City”. As for revealing any mysteries… the Australian League of Rights’ Archives ‘delve into the ‘mysteries’ (hidden history) of the ‘City’ in London”.
Fry considers “the huge amount of cash in the Bank of England vaults” mysterious. As cash (notes and coins) is but a very small percentage of the ‘finances’ in circulation in any one day within a modern nation – what I would consider ‘mysterious’, even amazing, would be if the Bank could film and display the great percentage of CREDIT that passes through the ‘blips’ of their computers every second of every business day. But how do you film, record, and display computer blips on a screen and still refer to the blips as ‘cash’ or ‘money’? People have various concepts of the ‘money,’ held in bank vaults. The fact is, neither Stephen Fry nor the people have not been let into the real mysteries of the Bank of England.
A must read: “The Enemy Within the Empire: A Short History of the Bank of England” by Eric D. Butler, 1941. DVD “Financial Credit Versus Real Credit” presented by the late Jeremy Lee
“Secret City - A film about the ‘City’ of London, the Corporation that runs it”
These fellows are getting nearer to the truth. A film about the ‘City’ in London; that is, the Corporation that runs it, and its role in the economic crisis, by Michael Chanan and Lee Salter. 28 April, 2014.
“It’s almost a year since anti-capitalist protestors, intending to set up camp in front of the London Stock Exchange in Paternoster Square under the banner of Occupy LSX, were ejected from the square and parked themselves instead in front of St Paul's Cathedral. The result was one of the starting points for this film: a highly public debate about capitalism and the Church.
Another Power acting in the Shadows: But there was also another power acting in the shadows to eventually eject the Occupiers - the City of London Corporation. An ancient body which dates back before William the Conqueror, before there was a parliament in Westminster, which zealously guards its autonomy and privileges to this day.
This is our subject: a secret state within a state, with deleterious effects on democracy, politics and economics in London, the country, and the world, for the City is joint headquarters with Wall Street of global finance capital. In short, 'Secret City' isn't just a film for Londoners - especially in these times of crisis, the role of the City concerns everyone everywhere.
'Secret City' is a minimal budget film by Michael Chanan and Lee Salter which investigates the history and contemporary role of the City of London Corporation. We tell the story through interviews with politicians, academics, writers, activists and campaigners, counterpointed with unfamiliar archive footage and a musical score by Simon Zagorski-Thomas taken from the nursery rhyme 'Oranges and Lemons'.”
WHAT DOES THE RITUAL BEHIND THE PEARL SWORD REALLY SIGNIFY?
This is what Bruce H. Brown explained to his readers in The New Times 6 March, 1936:
Those of you who read the article entitled 'Two Great Kings" will probably recall the brief reference to the arrest of his Majesty the King at the entrance to "The City," and also our promise to say more about it on another occasion. Within twelve months we have had the spectacle of the King of the British race being arrested twice. On the 6th May, 1935, King George the Fifth was commanded to halt and he did halt. Again, last month, King Edward the Eighth was commanded to halt at the same point, and he, too, did halt. The former was during the passage of the King from Buckingham Palace to St. Paul's Cathedral in connection with the Jubilee celebrations, and the latter was during the journey of the then Prince of Wales to Westminster to be proclaimed King.
On both occasions, when the King's coach and cavalcade reached Temple Bar, opposite the effigy of a Griffin which marks the boundary of the City of London, they encountered the Lord Mayor with his mace and sword bearers decked out in gold, ermine and crimson, representing Money Power, Legal Power and Military Power. Their progress was definitely blocked. The City Marshal pranced in front of the Lord Mayor and was there to impose on the King an act of obeisance to "the City." Sir Stephen Killik took a Pearl Sword, and, advancing to the Royal Coach, held the hilt to the King, who lightly touched it. Thereupon the city dignitaries and their carriages ceased to block the King's progress and he was graciously allowed to continue.
"Quite a simple little ceremony in accordance with custom," you may say, but listen to the significance of it as given in the "Daily Express," London, on the 7th May, 1935, as follows:
"No King of England may enter the City of London without first having that sword presented to him, hilt foremost, in token that the City Courts are agreeable to his entry." If the City Courts are not agreeable then presumably he does not enter!
The Dictatorship of Finance – The Instruments of the Financiers
This was a visible demonstration of the super-control to which even the King is subservient. It was a reminder that neither the King's Ministers nor the King himself should tamper with the instruments of the financiers of London—i.e., specie, securities, bullion, bonds, and the power to manufacture and control the people‘s money. It shows the supremacy of the dictatorship of Finance. This comes as a rude shock to the hundreds of thousands who thought that the King represented the people and was the head of the power of the Empire, acting only subject to the advice of his publicly elected ministers. Nothing was further from the truth.
• The King reigns, but he does not rule.
• Parliament assembles but it does not control.
• Governments are appointed but they do not govern.
It is finance that rules, controls and governs, and Britain has become its mere vassal.
Montagu The Norman
Finance must of course have its headquarters. From the point of view of world finance the headquarters are at Basle, Switzerland, but from the point of view of Empire finance the headquarters are in the City of London, with Montagu Norman as the conqueror, the Bank of England as the Citadel, and the Mansion House as the Palace. It naturally follows that the Lord Mayor of the City speaks and acts as would be desired by the Money Monopoly whose professional residences are within the boundary of his territory; and it is in keeping with other things that Griffins should be used to indicate that boundary.
The following description of a Griffin is more than interesting:
"In appearance it is partly lion and partly eagle, and it is generally supposed to signify strength and watchfulness; the Persians have frequently shown it in sculpture as a guardian of treasure. Griffins appear prominently on the armorial crest of the City of London." The Pearl Sword is thus no idle symbol, for as we have told you before, it is on public record that in 1931 the Governor of the Bank of England (Montagu Norman) told the Prime Minister that "If Snowden goes, the Government goes." That meant that if the King's Government did not do as the Bankers desired then the Government would be dismissed. And Montagu was in earnest when he said it, as we shall see later.
Now, as far as the British Empire is concerned, it is necessary to emphasise the grave fact that the Financial Initiative and the Financial Veto of the City of London are law, actually over-riding parliamentary institutions.
The City of London has as one of its objectives the control of Economic Initiative and Direction in every part of the Empire by the method of suppressing private initiative, whether on the part of individuals or small corporations, and it does this by the use of the Pearl Sword known as taxation. All governments have to set and enforce their financial or fiscal policies according to the dictates of "The City." If they fail to do so, they are promptly denied access to what is called "Financial Resources," without which it is not possible for their Budgets to be balanced or for the administration even to function. In England, these "resources" are known as the "Ways and Means Account," a name which for generations has disguised the fact that the resources are neither more nor less than bank-created credit, the granting of which, under present conditions, depends on the whim of "The City" - i.e., the Bankers.
Governors Over Parliaments
"The City" is represented in the Government by the Treasury, and the Treasury is represented throughout the Empire by Governors-General and Governors who have power to veto any legislation which may get through Parliaments without the approval of the money monopolists. A classical example of this was provided when Sir Philip Game dismissed the Government of New South Wales, and it has been stated that some pseudo-British person made a special visit to the Governor's quarters in Sydney to tell him what to do and how to do it. The significance of that action becomes more apparent when the circumstances of the time are analysed, for it is found that Mr. Lang and his Government were not the scoundrels we had been asked to believe. History, if written by truthful men, will have a lot to say in Mr. Lang’s favour.
So you can see how the Pearl Sword of finance in London swings over our heads in Australia, a land that is being bled white in the interests of "The City" thousands of miles away. If you doubt this, just give yourself the pastime of adding up the value of the total exports we have sent to Great Britain in the last 100 years and the value of the total imports we have received from Great Britain in the same period. Subtract the latter from the former and you will find that we have sent away goods to the value of hundreds of millions of pounds in excess of the value of the goods we have received. But despite this, "The City" says we are still in debt to them to the tune of nearly £600,000,000. Figure that out.
"No Country and No Conscience"
Although the City of London has got us where it wants us, and even gets public obeisance from our King, it should not be assumed that it represents the interests of "British" capitalism. Whether we like to think so or not, it represents the combined policy of the world's banking oligarchy, whose members know no national boundaries where economic activity and opportunities are concerned. The Melbourne "Age" realises this, as will be seen from the following extract from its editorial of 5th February last:
"There has developed a new technique which has produced a more formidable and more objectionable scheme of private monopolisation. The international cartel has no country and no conscience, but it has tremendous power. "
That's good for the "Age," and we are glad to see it waking up. No country and no conscience! It is represented by the Pearl Sword which overawes the King and which is the symbol of a sort of cosmopolitan lodge of bankers and financiers whose only allegiance is to High Finance and the worldwide control of the creation of money. Evidence already given before the Monetary Commission proves what we have written in this respect and shows how Australia is under the same control.
It is therefore becoming increasingly urgent for us to realise the unholy relationship between the ownership of money by the private banking system and the unsound economic conditions we see round about us. The latter have been imposed on us because our responsible Governments have been ignorant on the subject of money, and have thus allowed themselves to be rendered powerless to meet the needs of those who elected them.
Finance Beheads the King (Charles I)
For 300 years this financial oligarchy has been overlaying the peoples of the world with grossness and manifesting ideas of greed and power. The process started in 1649 when an English military oligarchy, backed by the financial power of the international financiers of Lombard Street, beheaded England's king. You will be aware that they also dealt with Napoleon.
It was not a coincidence that at about the same time the "Goldsmiths" changed their title to "Bankers." It was a significant development, the re-christening of the Money Terror as the wolf it is in sheep's clothing. Since then the title “Bank” has come to be associated with palatial premises specially built to take care of people's money and savings; also as a place where money deposited by the public might be obtained in loan. Even now, comparatively few people have the faintest idea of the facts and do not realise that banks do not lend money that has been deposited with them. What they lend they create, and what is paid back to them they destroy.
This is how they control the volume of money available to the community. The Bank of England, for example, did not come into being because William of Orange (the King established by High Finance) or his Government wished to have somewhere to deposit money. Oh, no. It was because they were short of money and were induced to borrow it instead of issuing it.
In the face of this, the man who said that the banking system was born in illegitimacy, was reared in illegality, and exists today on illusionism was not far wrong. It was founded in debt, it lives and thrives on debt, and it derives its power from debt, all of which it creates by writing figures in its ledgers. In fact, it sucks the lifeblood and the security of humanity. The depositors’ part in the scheme is to provide the smokescreen of respectability to hide the swindling aspect and to conceal the fact that the system is actually a private mint.
The Codlin Moth in the Apple
What a pity it was that the King did not kick the Pearl-swordsman in the pants or put the sword into him and say something like this:
"Away with you and your cosmopolitan money-mongers who are destituting my subjects throughout the Empire. I am their King and they are inheritors of the widest and wealthiest empire the world has ever seen. It is neither necessary nor justifiable that any one of them should be deprived of that which would make them economically secure and mentally content. I am determined in their name to resume control of British money and to release them from debt and distress."
These cosmopolitan money-mongers, who have no country and no conscience, have their hive in the City of London, away from the Power of the Realm, like a codlin moth in the heart of an apple.
Australia, like other countries, is suffering from two diseases.
They are taxes and debt, and both are the product of the private Money Monopoly. Money power is based on taxes, and this power is reflected in debt. Government "loans" are talked about because that sounds better than Government "debt," and this is why we hear so much of the Loan Council and borrowing, and so little of the resulting debt and taxation. All the blether about the banks protecting "Australia's Credit" is intentionally directed towards securing the continuance of the existing swindle by which a private monopoly creates public debts and obtains payment of interest on them through excessive taxation. From this you can see that politicians who advocate public loans should be ticked off at once as thoroughly hopeless in securing relief from the burdens, which oppress the people.
Dominant Question is how to secure effective Distribution of the Abundance
Today the dominant question is how to secure the effective distribution of the great abundance of physical resources and general production of this country, all of which have been made available to the nation by knowledge and science with a decreasing need for human employment in the ordinary acceptation of the word "work." Money is the distributing instrument, and it is obvious to thinking people that the efficiency of our distributive organisation depends absolutely on the control of this instrument, combined with a knowledge of how to make it function so that the people may get the benefit of the natural resources and obtain the production referred to, instead of being locked out from them through the absence of money…
CAN YOU IMAGINE A FUTURE WITHOUT WORK?!
Machines may soon take over many of today's jobs... but that may not be a bad thing
By Jessica Barrett, Calgary Herald, 5 November, 2014. Reproduced in Edmonton Journal, https://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/future+without+work/10295906/story.html “Tinkerine Studios’ loft-like space in central Vancouver seems innocent enough.
Part hip startup, part modern hobby shop, its minimal work stations and fresh white walls contrast candy-coloured plastic trinkets lining the shelves, each one produced by Tinkerine’s marquee product: a line of 3D printers.
For those who haven’t seen the process in action, 3D printing can be a hard concept to grasp. Taking a virtual design and making it physical at the touch of a button still seems like something out of science fiction. Up close and personal, however, it’s much less mysterious. In fact, it’s kind of cute….
3D-printed works at Tinkerine, Eugene Suyu's 3D printing company.
Like the Internet in its early days, 3D printing seems niche and esoteric now, but the technology seems destined for ubiquity just as soon as the kinks get worked out and we all learn how to use it.
When that happens, a lot of people are going to be out of a job.
Imagine the implications of a world where anybody can make anything they want without leaving home. If the only thing standing between me and a new iPhone case (or a car part, or a pair of earrings, or even most of the parts necessary to build my own 3D printer) is a spool of plastic and a pattern I can purchase conveniently online, there goes the entire supply chain. I no longer need anyone to sell, store, market, manufacture, transport or – if my skills are sharp enough – design stuff.
And it’s not just purveyors of plastic that are vulnerable. While government and industry are pleading with young Canadians to consider careers in trades, 3D printers are already building houses in China – up to 10 a day. Imagine if that were the norm on construction sites in Canada. We’re still a decade or two, maybe more, away from this reality, but it is coming.
Add that to steady advancements in computing technology that put nearly half of today’s jobs at risk for automation, according to a recent Oxford University study, and you have a massive societal shift on your hands…
It could be the best thing that ever happened to us
“Too much of our lives are subordinated to work,” argues Kathi Weeks, professor of women’s studies at Duke University and author of the book “The Problem with Work”.
While the inexorable march of the machines makes many of us anxious, Weeks says we should get comfortable with the idea of a future where work isn’t the defining characteristic of our lives. In fact, we should be fighting for it…
In her writing, Weeks takes aim at the ideology of work — the capitalist narrative that waged labour is at once our most efficient and equitable means of wealth distribution, while also a vehicle through which we can reach our highest human potential. To her, it’s all bait and switch. “Most jobs don’t offer much in the way of either of those.”…
An Idea Whose Time Has Come:
Adopting a Guaranteed Annual Income
“Work doesn’t necessarily work as a system of income distribution. It’s not necessary that every single adult work for the production of social wealth. So really, what is the nature of this requirement that we all have to work in order to live? I think it’s worth asking these questions now, particularly when the system is so obviously broken in so many ways.”
More and more, people are asking those questions and choosing different paths — and they’re not waiting for government cheques to set them free…”
HUGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATIONAL DIVIDEND AND BASIC INCOME
by M. Oliver Heydorn, October 30, 2014.
It seems that more and more people in various countries are starting to take proposals for the introduction of a basic income quite seriously. According to the Bien network: "A basic income is an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement."
(Cf. https://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html#faq) The Social Credit proposal of a National Dividend can also be defined as '... an income paid by a political community to all its members on an individual basis, without means test or work requirement.'
However, the National Dividend must not be confused with a basic income because there are hugely significant differences between them.
In what follows, I will only focus on what I take to be the three key differences
1. The Structural Nature of the Proposed Benefit
Whereas the basic income is typically conceived as a fixed amount that would be granted unconditionally and would be enough for a person to survive on, the National Dividend would vary depending on the performance of the economy. In other words, the dividend is indexed to productivity. No productivity, no dividend. The greater society's productivity, the greater the dividend. It is expected that, in a highly industrialized country, the dividend (in conjunction with compensated prices and massively reduced taxation) should be at least sufficient to meet each person's basic expenses and that its relative purchasing power vis-à-vis salaries and wages should also be growing as machines replace human labour in the productive process.
2. The Social Purpose of the Proposed Benefit
Whereas the basic income is normally allied to a policy of full employment (i.e., the amount given to citizens must not be so great as to serve as a disincentive to seeking work in the formal economy), the National Dividend is allied to a policy of increasing leisure. Social Credit is opposed to full employment as a fixed objective. People should only be required to labour in the formal economy insofar as their work is actually needed in the provision of those specific goods and services that they would independently select (i.e., if their choices were not conditioned by the artificial scarcity of money that is an inherent characteristic of the present financial system). Machines of various types make it possible for a technologically advanced society to produce enough to meet everyone's needs without calling on the full capacity of the labour force. Any policy that goes beyond this and requires people to devote more time to production than the physical facts of the economy warrant is a policy of servility (it is a form of enslavement) and is also grossly inefficient and hence socially and environmentally wasteful.
3. The Financing of the Proposed Benefit
Whereas the basic income is usually conceived as being funded within the financial constraints of existing economic orthodoxy, i.e., through redistributive taxation, or an increase in public indebtedness, or the redistribution of profits from publicly owned corporations, etc., the National Dividend is financed through the debt-free creation of new credit that would be issued by a National Credit Office. The creation of this additional money by an organ of the state is justified by the fact that there is a chronic and underlying gap between the prices of goods on sale to the consuming public and the money that was made available in the course of their production. Principally because of the way in which real capital (machines and equipment) are financed and the way in which their costs are then accounted for, the existing financial system generates consumer prices at a faster rate than it distributes consumer incomes.
Social Credit proposes to fill this gap via the creation of a sufficient volume of debt-free money so that the "surplus production", i.e., the production for which no consumer income is automatically being distributed, can be distributed without relying, as we currently do, on the contracting of new debts (whether on the part of governments, businesses, or consumers) for additional income (amongst other palliatives). It is simply a matter of monetizing, if you will, the additional production. If a certain volume of goods and services alongside their prices exist, but the money to purchase them does not (because of an accountancy error in the existing financial system), the credit needed to bring the monetary representation of reality into full alignment with reality should be summarily created and issued directly to consumers. The National Dividend would thereby contribute to the establishment of a real equilibrium in the economy's circular flow, i.e., an equilibrium that would be the fruit of a self-liquidating financial system, where consumer prices and consumer incomes would be held in an automatic balance. The basic income, by contrast, does nothing to achieve a self-liquidating financial system and may even, depending on how it is financed, contribute to the build up of unrepayable debt.
True Purpose of Association:
Because of the stark contrast between the two proposals, Social Crediters should be very careful not to jump on the basic income bandwagon. Instead, we must convince basic income supporters that the National Dividend will deliver what they most desire (a certain measure of universal economic security), while simultaneously contributing, on the basis of our enormous physical economic potential, to a broader and most necessary reformatting of economic life in line with the true purpose of economic association: the delivery of those goods and services that people can use with profit to themselves ... with the least amount of trouble to everyone.
Furthermore, let us not be naïve:
There are powerful vested interests who may choose to have the basic income introduced for their own reasons. Should the basic income fail (because it turns out to be too financially burdensome, or too many people stop working, etc.), it could be used to discredit real Social Credit: "They tried that and it did not work".
Even if it can be sustained long-term under existing financial methods, the basic income will likely tend to mitigate the dissatisfaction of the populace with the existing system, thus further entrenching that system and perhaps making it impossible to dislodge (while at the same time possibly increasing the hold that the financial powers exercise over society via increases in taxation and/or public debts).
A Few Crumbs Tossed to the People:
From this perspective, the basic income may be seen as a few crumbs that the credit monopolists toss to the people in order to keep both them and radical, substantial change at bay. The proposal of a basic income would then qualify, like Keynesian economics before it, as an attempt to co-opt Social Credit by re-engineering one of Douglas' key remedial mechanisms in the service of the existing 'Monopoly of Credit'.