* International Banking and Human Sabotage *


Richard Moore

Original source URL:

International Banking and Human Sabotage

[Editor¹s Note: This article is the most lucid, common sense rendition of the 
age-old problem of usury and its negative effects that I have ever come across. 
It fits seamlessly into the ongoing discussions surrounding the relationship 
between Zionist Israel, the US/British governments and the present crisis in the
Middle East not to mention the strangle-hold over the western media by the 
Jewish Press and the methodology behind our ongoing debt and the current ³War on
Terrorism². It is a very long read but most informative and will undoubtedly add
to one¹s background knowledge of how the ³system² is set up and for whom the 
bell tolls. Basically it is the key to vault wherein lies the blueprint for the 
New World Order. Please pass it along to your friends and list members. Thanks 
to Paul LeBaron for sending this article]

International Banking and Human Sabotage
Barry Dunford

(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.

³Now it is my own beliefŠthat there is running through the nature of the 
Universe something that we call a Œcanon¹. It is the thing which is referred to 
in the Gospel of St. John as the Œlogos¹, the Œword¹ŠThe engineer and the artist
refer to it when they say that they have got something Œright¹. 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.² - C.H. Douglas.

This reveals the centralized 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 (²I am the true 
vine² - 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,
³By their fruits ye shall know them².[1]

In the 1936 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. 15, money) appears the 
explosive statement that ³Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means 
for payment out of nothing.² 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 
centralized 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 Œwars¹. 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 ³of England², a 
private monopoly, one of the Directors, William Paterson, remarked: ³The Bank 
hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.² 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: ³The Bank of England is the supreme authority in 
determining the quantity of money available for the use of the public.² On 
another occasion (25th January 1924) again, while addressing the shareholders of
the Midland Bank, Reginald McKenna stated: ³I 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.² 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: ³The 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.² The foregoing is confirmed by Branch Banking, July 1938, which states: 
³There 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[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 centralized 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 Œmoney¹
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: ³Lay your money down and I will spin 
the Dome of St. Paul¹s Cathedral on its cross.² 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. Paul¹s 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: ³It 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.² (Economic Democracy - 1920).

Writing in the 1930¹s, C.H. Douglas observed: ³It 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 center of gravity of world affairs has 
shifted from Parliaments and Embassies to Bank Parlors 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 civilized 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 organization 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 realized that control of its mechanism gives, to a major
extent, control of both personal and organized activity, it is easy to see that 
education, publicity, and organized Intelligence (in the sense in which the word
ŒIntelligence¹ is used in military circles) can be controlled, first to minimize
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, Œcontrol of 
credit and control of the news are concentric¹.²

Douglas concluded: ³Perhaps the first point on which to be clear is that this 
immense, nay, almost omnipotent, power which is wielded by the financial 
organization, and which therefore must in the nature of things be responsible 
for the situation in the world to-day, has not until recently been recognized 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.² (The Monopoly of

An American researcher, E.C. Knuth, in his book The Empire of ³The City² (1946, 
USA) relates: ³In 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.² 
It is, therefore, worth bearing in mind the statement that ³control of credit 
and control of the news are concentric.² 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 ³World Conspiracy². Why not? Because we are told so. When the vast majority 
of mankind has been Œeducated¹ 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 person¹s 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: ³The 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 reorganization 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 organizations 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.² (Program 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 summarized the essence of the 
prevailing economic situation saying: ³I 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.²

Commenting on C.H. Douglas¹ economic proposals, an Australian writer and 
researcher Eric D. Butler, in his treatise entitled Releasing Reality (1979, 
Australia) perceptively remarks: ³The overriding policy being used to deny man 
access to the potential real security and expanding freedom which is his 
birthright, is that of ŒFull Employment.¹ 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 ¹something
for nothing¹. Life itself is a gift, as are the most important factors which 
sustain life - water, air and unlimited solar energy.²

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): ³We 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, labor, 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 

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 
³Money Supply and the Private Banking System². It begins: ³Lord 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: ŒMy Lords, on 10th June this year I 
asked Her Majesty¹s 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 Majesty¹s Government to what extent this 
increase had Government approval. I was told by the Chancellor of the Duchy, 
speaking for the Government: ŒThe 96.9 per cent represented new bank deposits 
created in the normal course of banking business and no Government authority is 
necessary for this.¹ 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 ³no government 
authority was needed for this present system of credit creating.² (My italics - 

Lord Beswick went on to say: ³The line of action needed to reform this 
unacceptable state of affairs was indicated, I believe, by the late Sir Arthur 
Bryant, Companion of Honor, upon whose clarity of language I cannot improve. In 
the London Illustrated News [February 1983], he wrote: Œ.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 making¹. 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, authorized to consider and report, be of great national value.² 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: 
³The 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.²

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: 
³The 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 Œfronts¹ 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 Œinvisible and inaudible¹ force centered in the City. The City calls the 
tune. The Œvisible and audible leaders¹ 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 

In The Empire of ³The City² (1946, USA) the author, E.C. Knuth, refers to ³Šthe 
international financial oligarchy of ŒThe City¹ in what is perhaps the most 
arbitrary and absolute form of government in the world. This international 
financial oligarchy uses the allegoric ŒCrown¹ 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.² 
Knuth further notes: ³The late Vincent Cartwright Vickers [Director of the Bank 
of England 1910-1919] stated: ŒŠfinanciers 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 nation¹s 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 
Œit would not be in the public interest to divulge¹.² [Economic Tribulation, 

Almost a century earlier, a former British Prime Minister, William Gladstone 
(1809-1898) wrote: ³From 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.² (Life of William Ewart Gladstone, 1903, by John Morley). Perhaps 
what is required to ensure a satisfactory resolution to the private and 
centralized 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 
³administrative lawlessness². Lord Hewart further observes: ³A 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.² (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 Program for the Third World War
(1943), Douglas observed: ³If 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 licensed world 
crime. This is a gangsters¹ 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 everyones¹ 
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 Œpeace¹ founded on these principles will ensure a hearty welcome to the
next war.²

In another essay entitled The Big Idea (1942) C.H. Douglas perceptively 
remarked: ³Although 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 maneuvers under his own steam. I
am confident that there is an organized 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 recognizable 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 there¹s no money. When 
these conditions inevitably bring about war, you say War is the major evil of 
the world and comes from Œprivate enterprise¹; 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, ŒYes, yes, but that is all past
history - we must forget all about that, and work for the future.¹ 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.² 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: ³Social Dynamics 
is the science of applying social power to social organizations 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.² Eric Butler says: ³With 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 centralized 
tyranny. Broadly speaking, what is required is a progressive retreat from 
centralization 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 decentralization 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 
decentralization of power is impossible without decentralization 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 decentralized. 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.²

Eric Butler further observes: ³An effective policy of decentralizing all power 
through decentralizing financial power will meet with the most bitter 
opposition. Such a policy would run counter to the drive towards organizing man 
into the World State. But it must be implemented if civilization 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 penalized in the same way that consumers penalize business 
organizations 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 
centralization 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 centralized 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 Civilization 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.²

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: ³So 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.²

James Gibb Stuart continues: ³Meanwhile 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 monetize its own labor 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 
realized that if one small nation-state managed to break the bankers¹ 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 materializes, 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 world¹s 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 energized into taking a leadership role?²[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

[1] Gospel of St. Matthew, ch.7, v.20.

[2] ³As 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.² Taken from a speech in Newcastle, 
England, in 1923 by C.H. Douglas, entitled The Breakdown of the Employment 

[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 centered 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.Douglas¹ 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. Coincidence - 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

Escaping the Matrix website     http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website            http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives                http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
  cyberjournal forum            http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
  Achieving real democracy      http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
  for readers of ETM            http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
  Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
  Blogger made easy             http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html