Global Politics, International High Finance, Propaganda

Sunday, 14 November 2010

Governments Should Print Their Own Money - "Social Credit"

Governments Should Print Their Own Money - "Social Credit"

In May 2012 a young Candian girl called Victoria Grant gave public lectures explaining how Canadian Banking is a fraud.

She said important and true things like:- 'The banks and the government have colluded to financially enslave the people of Canada.'  And went on to say that the government should print its own money instead of borrowing from the commercial Banks - which is something that I also recommend.

Until the 1970s, the Canadian government borrowed directly from the bank that it owned - The Bank of Canada - the bank that still issues Canada’s currency.) Then it stopped borrowing from the-bank-that-it-owned and started borrowing from banks that it didn't own. Ms Grant proposes that Canada returns to the old system and I agree, for reasons given in a previous article in this blog!

Here is article about her on CBC news
Here is another article about her on the Huffington Post

It is no accident that Victoria is Canadian because Canada has a long and successful history of borrowing from the bank that it owned (and also of "Social Credit") that most people are unaware of.

[[ What follows is a CAVEAT about my use of Wikipedia" -


What follows here is mostly - but not totally - taken from Wikipedia. Please, please improve upon it in any way that you can. Wikipedia may be an OK place to start researching, especially once you know how biased it is, but it is no place at which to stop your research.

END OF CAVEAT about my use of Wikipedia]]


Social Credit is :- the democratic control of credit by nationalization of the credit system. Or, put more simply, the Government creating money out of nothing for itself - and NOT borrowing it from private banks who create it out of nothing but then demand it back, plus interest.


From 1934-1974 Canada used to create its own money - out of nothing - via the Bank Of Canada.

{{ The picture to the left was taken from :- and is explained - in detail - in the video below.

Broadly speaking it shows how Canada's National Debt skyrocketed after the Canadian government stopped using its own bank in 1974}}

From 1974 onwards the Canadian government slowly stopped using the Bank Of Canada, a bank that it had nationalised in 1938, and started borrowing from private banks instead.

By 2005 Canada's national bank was responsible for only 2% of the money in circulation, and
* a debt of just $18 billion in 1974 had ballooned to
* a debt of over $500 billion - 95% of which was compound interest.

THE BANK OF CANADA, created in 1934, nationalised in 1938

What follows below was said by William Lyon Mackenzie King at the beginning of his 1935 election campaign as leader of the Liberal Party - He eventually became Prime Minister of Canada, with over 21 years in the office and was the longest serving Prime Minister in British Commonwealth history.

"Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. Once a nation parts with control of its credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury once in control will wreck any nation. "
The Liberal Party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. The Liberal Party declares itself in favour of the immediate establishment of a duly constituted national bank for the control of the issue of money in terms of public needs. The flow of money must be in relation with the domestic, social, and industrial needs of the Canadian people.
[End of Quotes from Mackenzie King ]

Mackenzie King supported Gerald McGeer:-


Gerald Grattan McGeer (1888 – 1947) was a lawyer, populist politician, and monetary reform advocate in the Canadian province of British Columbia. He served as
* the 22nd Mayor of Vancouver,
* a Member of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia,
* a Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party of Canada, and
* a Senator in the Canadian Senate.

McGeer's monetary reform ideas were his greatest passion and his was one of the most forceful voices in Canada advocating
* nationalization of the credit system. and
* government intervention in the monetary system.

McGeer's vision of monetary reform preceded the establishment of
* the Bank of Canada and
* the "Social Credit" movement of :-
       * William Aberhart, who formed a social credit government in Alberta  and
       * W. A. C. Bennett, an admirer of McGeer, who later formed a social credit government in British Columbia. 

The Bank of Canada was created in 1934 (ie at the height of the Great Depression) after an enquiry called "The MacMillan Banking Commision" which Gerald McGeer addressed as a barrister representing the "Trades and Labour Council."

McGeer wrote about the MacMillan Banking Commission in a booklet called "The Conquest Of Poverty."

Canadians like McGeer and Mackenzie King wanted the bank to work for the social good so they nationalised it in 1938

The MacMillan Banking Commission

The "Royal Commission on Banking and Currency" (also known as the Macmillan Commission) was a 1933 Canadian royal commission tasked with reviewing the Canadian government's involvement in monetary policy. Chaired by Scottish barrister Hugh Pattison Macmillan, it also included

* Bank of England director Sir Charles Addis,
* (former) Canadian Finance Minister William Thomas White,
* Banque Canadienne de Montreal general manager Beaudry Leman, and
* Premier of Alberta John Edward Brownlee.

The Order from the Privy Council creating the commission was issued July 31, 1933, and the first meeting was held in Ottawa August 8 1933. Meetings across the country followed until the commission completed its hearings in Ottawa September 15, 1933. (ie at the height of the Great Depression)

The commission's two major recommendations were
* the establishment of a Canadian central bank (passed by a 3–2 margin with White and Leman in opposition) and
* the establishment of an inquiry "to investigate the existing organizations for the provision of rural credit with a view to the preparation of a scheme for the consideration of Parliament" (passed unanimously.) [Note:- This probably refers to the United Farmers of Alberta ]

You can verify the Proceedings of the Royal Commission on Banking and Currency, Canada, Ottawa,1933 in :-

Hugh Pattison Macmillan had chaired a previous Commission in the UK called "the Macmillan Committee" from 1929 to 1931. This "Macmillan Committee", officially known as "the Committee on Finance and Industry", was formed by the Privy Council after the 1929 stock market crash to determine the root causes of the depressed economy of the United Kingdom. It was composed mostly of economists.

Also on this commission were

* J. Maynard Keynes, (Economist)
* Ernest Bevin (labour leader and trade unionist)
* Reginald McKenna (Banker and former Chancellor of the Exchequer) .
* Professor T E Gregory - economist - Professor of Banking and Currency at the university of London

The committee published its findings and recommendations in the "Report of the Committee on Finance and Industry," or - more simply - "the Macmillan" Report, in 1931 and Macmillan was quickly rewarded by being promoted to the Privy Council.

Here is Grattan McGeer in 1939, before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, getting the Governor of the Bank Of Canada - Graham Towers - to admit that they can create money out of nothing

Gerald Grattan McGeer from Dan Steely on Vimeo.

[[ Note - if you do not see a video here, then click this link - Gerald Grattan McGeer from Dan Steely on Vimeo.


The most well known form of Social Credit is based on an economic philosophy developed by Clifford Hugh Douglas (1879–1952), a British engineer. [[ see "Appendix 02" of this article for an essay about Douglas, his book "Social Credit" and Canada]]

His books are very, very dry and turgid so you'd probably be better off by not reading them.  I mention them here just for academic completeness,

(His major books were:-
* "Economic Democracy" (1919),
* "Credit-Power and Democracy" (1920),
* "The Control and Distribution of Production" (1922),
*  "Social Credit (1924)", and
* "The Monopoly of Credit" (1931))

At the instigation of William Irvine, Douglas was brought to Canada in 1923 (ie BEFORE the Great Depression) where he was invited to explain his views to the (Canadian) House of Commons' Select Committee on Banking and Commerce.

He made a poor impression on all but the UFA (the United Farmers of Alberta)  members, who went on to distribute "Social Credit" in their province of Alberta.


The theory of social credit was brought to the attention of William Aberhart (1878 – 1943), a high-school maths teacher and school principal in Calgary whose Sunday radio broadcasts as head of the fundamentalist Prophetic Bible Institute had a large and enthusiastic following. In 1932 Aberhart began to introduce his own vague theories of social credit into these broadcasts, recommending a redistribution of purchasing power and later, as head of the Social Credit Party, promising a social dividend of $25 a month to every citizen.

Some followers of Douglas attacked Aberharts interpretation, but the resulting public debate and paper warfare stimulated public interest.

[[ What follows here is my personal DISCLAIMER  about "Social Credit"

SOCIAL CREDIT has been :-
* an economic theory,
* a social philosophy,
* an ideology, and
* a political party
in England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States since it was first advanced in 1920 by Major C. H. Douglas.

Social Credit is a political movement embracing many different ideas all of which I (Dan) dissociate myself from - except the following two:-

1/ The government should create money out of nothing, INSTEAD OF borrowing it from bankers who create it out of nothing and yet demand its return, plus interest. Its just as easy for the government to create money out of nothing as it is for the banks. (I strongly advocate this idea.)

2/ The government should put this money into circulation by issuing it to every individual citizen in a regular lump sum usually called "The Dividend" (This second political idea is less important than the first one.)

End of Disclaimer ]]

In 1934 (ie during the Great Depression) Douglas was brought to Alberta as 'reconstruction adviser' to the  the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government. This move created an outpouring of sentiment on behalf of Aberhart who then helped found the "Social Credit Party of Alberta". Social Credit candidates swept the province in the election of 1935 with over 54% of the popular vote and Aberhart became the seventh Premier of Alberta (from 1935 to 1943.)

The Social Credit Party remained in power in Alberta from 1935 til the 1971 election, though it moved away from Douglas' monetary theories after Aberhart's death in 1943.

Aberhart served as :-
* Premier of Alberta,
* Minister of Education and ,
* Attorney General  (starting in 1937)
during his tenure with the party. (see a speech by Aberhart in APPENDIX 01 of this essay.)


As premier of the first social credit government in the world Aberhart and his constituents wished to divorce themselves from the central government in Ottawa without making profound changes in Alberta. Three key measures were enacted in 1937:
(1) the Credit of Alberta Regulation Act,
(2) the Bank Employees Civil Rights Act, and
(3) the Judicature Act Amendment Act.

A stunning thing then happened.

Under its federal system, the central government in Ottawa "disallowed" these provincial statutes and this was upheld in rulings of the Canadian Supreme Court and the British Privy Council.

There is much more to the story, but in 1938 the essence of the Social Credit program was dead, killed by un-elected and aristocratic Privy Council..

It meant that Aberhart's program of social credit eventually failed even in name. [J. R. Mallory, Social Credit and the Federal Power in Canada. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1954), pp. 57-90.]

The Social Credit Bill of Rights, passed under Aberhart's successor, E. C. Manning, was appealed to the Privy Council where it too was declared unconstitutional. (The constitution says that the Privy Council can do whatever it likes, no matter how much it harms the ordinary people) These decisions have given impetus to campaigning for seats in parliament in the hope that, with a majority, the constitution could be amended.

The party gained 17 federal seats in 1935. Thereafter membership fluctuated until 1958 when no member was elected, but 30 seats were won in 1962 and 24 in 1963 when the representation was weakened by the members from Quebec who organized as a separate group.

"Alberta Treasury Branches"

Alberta did get its own government bank. "Alberta Treasury Branches" or "ATB" which was created by the first Social Credit government of Premier William Aberhart on September 29, 1938, after earlier attempts to impose government control over banks operating in Alberta were thwarted by the Privy Council. The first Alberta Treasury Branch was opened in Rocky Mountain House on September 29 1938. ATB is the most significant surviving remnant of social credit economic policies in Alberta.


William Andrew Cecil Bennett, PC, OC (1900 – 1979) was the 25th Premier of the Canadian province of British Columbia. With just over 20 years in office, Bennett was and remains the longest-serving premier in British Columbia history.

He led the "The British Columbia Social Credit Party" which won power in in British Columbia in 1952 and was the the Premier of British Columbia for 20 years, until 1972.

The Social Credit Party won seven consecutive elections during W.A.C. Bennett's involvement and leadership: 1952, 1953, 1956, 1960, 1963, 1966, and 1969. The only election Bennett lost as a member of Social Credit was in 1972, the last election in which he was a candidate.


The Social Credit Party of Canada was originally strongest in Alberta, before developing a base in Quebec when Réal Caouette agreed to merge his Ralliement créditiste movement into the federal party. in the 1940s, Social Credit supporters in Quebec often ran under the name Union des électeurs.

 A social credit organization that had been formed in 1939 by Louis Even and Gilberte Côté-Mercier as the political arm of their religious organization. In 1971, the Ralliement des créditistes and the English Canadian Social Credit Party reunited into a single national party at a leadership convention, held at the Hull Arena. Réal Caouette won the leadership on the first ballot. In the 1972 election, the Social Credit Party won 15 seats — all in Quebec — and 7.6% of the popular vote

Louis Evan's book about Social Credit, called "In This Age of Plenty" is described here


The Social Credit Party of Ontario (SCPO) (also known as the Ontario Social Credit League, Social Credit Association of Ontario and the Union of Electors) was a minor political party at the provincial level in the Canadian province of Ontario from the 1940s to the early 1970s. The party never won any seats in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It was affiliated with the Social Credit Party of Canada and espoused social credit theories of monetary reform.





The New Zealand Social Credit Party (sometimes called "Socred") was a political party which served as the country's "third party" from the 1950s through into the 1980s. The party held a number of seats in the Parliament of New Zealand, although never more than two at a time. It has since renamed itself the New Zealand Democratic Party, and was for a time part of the Alliance.

The party was based around the ideas of Social Credit, an economic theory established by C. H. Douglas.
Social Credit movements also existed in
* Australia (see: Douglas Credit Party & Australian League of Rights),
* Canada (see: Canadian Social Credit movement), and the
* United Kingdom (see: UK Social Credit Party)


Michael Savage, who became Prime Minister Of New Zealand in 1935, was born in 1872.
During WW1 Savage became involved with the WEA and was particularly influenced by the monetary reform views of Irving Fisher, professor of political economy at Yale University.

The writings of Fisher reinforced Savage's belief, derived from his earlier reading of Henry George, Edward Bellamy and Karl Marx, that gross under-consumption, economic deprivation and social misery existed in the midst of plenty because the means of distribution and exchange were unsatisfactory. The state alone should have the right to issue money and regulate its value and to control credit through a government-directed banking system.

Labour came to power in New Zealand at the 1935 election  -  ie at the height of the Great Depression - with 55 of the 80 seats in Parliament. The incoming government immediately paid a Christmas bonus to the unemployed and charitable aid recipients and approved seven days' annual holiday for relief workers.

In 1936 there was a landslide of legislation, much of which, by increasing community purchasing power, stimulated the economy, thereby creating jobs and, in turn, further demand. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand was nationalised and made the central bank.  The government then instructed the Reserve Bank to extend credit to the public sector especially for constructing houses.

* A programme of state house construction was started,
* commercial broadcasting was nationalised,
* guaranteed prices were paid for dairy produce, and
* the political alliance between Labour and the Ratana movement was cemented by ending some discrimination against Maori and by giving increased attention to Maori employment, education, health and land settlement

The state housing project was funded with credit issued by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, the nationalized central bank. According to New Zealand commentator Kerry Bolton, this one measure was sufficient to resolve 75% of unemployment in the midst of the Great Depression.

Bolton notes that this was achieved without causing inflation. When new money is used to create new goods and services, supply rises along with demand and prices remain stable; but the “demand” has to come first. No business owner will invest in more capacity or production without first seeing a demand. No demand, no new jobs and no economic expansion

The Social Credit Association

Before the founding of the Social Credit party in 1953, there was the Social Credit Association. The Association focused most of its efforts on the Country Party and New Zealand Labour Party, where they attempted to influence policy. Roly Marks stood as a monetary reform candidate for Wanganui in the 1943 general election, and was later made a life member of the League.

Social Credit claimed that the first Labour government, which was elected at the 1935 election, pulled New Zealand out of the Great Depression by adopting certain Social Credit policies. Several followers of Social Credit policies eventually left the Labour Party, where their proposals (for example, those of John A. Lee for housing) were strongly opposed by the "orthodox" Minister of Finance, Walter Nash and other prominent Labour Party members.

In 1940 Lee, who had by then been expelled from the Labour party, and Bill Barnard formed the Democratic Labour Party. However the new party got only 4.3% of the vote in the 1943 general election, with both Lee and Barnard losing their seats.

It was not until the 1966 elections, however, that the party won its first representation in Parliament. Vernon Cracknell, an accountant, won the Hobson electorate in Northland, a region that had been a stronghold of the Country Party. O'Brien's replacement was Bruce Beetham, who would become the most well known Social Credit leader. Beetham took over in time for the 1972 elections. Despite a relatively strong showing, Social Credit failed to win any seats, a fact that some blamed on the rise of the new Values Party. While the Values Party did not win any seats, many supporters of Social Credit believed that it drew voters away from the older party.

In the 1978 by-election in Rangitikei, caused by the death of National Party MP Roy Jack, Beetham managed to defeat National's replacement candidate and win the seat. Beetham was more successful in parliament than Cracknell had been, and gained Social Credit considerable attention. He also put forward a New Zealand Credit and Currency Bill, intended to implement many Social Credit policies. The Bill was criticised by some of the more extreme Social Credit supporters, who claimed that it was too weak, but was nevertheless strongly promoted in parliament by Beetham. The Bill quickly failed, although this was not particularly unexpected - it had been put forward primarily for the purpose of drawing attention, not because Beetham believed it would succeed.



The Commonwealth Bank of Australia was founded by the Commonwealth Bank Act in 1911.

In 1931, the bank board came into conflict with the Labor government of James Scullin. The bank's chairman Robert Gibson refused to expand credit in response to the Great Depression (as had been proposed by Treasurer Edward Theodore) unless the government cut pensions, which Scullin refused to do.

Conflict surrounding this issue led to the fall of the government, and to demands from Labor for reform of the bank and more direct government control over monetary policy. ( ie to get the bank to issue credit for social purposes)

In emergency legislation passed during World War II and at the end of the war, the Commonwealth Bank received almost all central bank powers and used these powers to begin a dramatic expansion of the economy.

However, between 1991 and 1996 the Australian government fully privatised (de-nationalised) the Commonwealth Bank

Douglas Credit Party

The Douglas Credit Party was an Australian political party based around the social credit theory of monetary reform, first set out by C. H. Douglas. It gained its strongest result in Queensland in 1935, when it gained 7.02% of first preferences. The party's strongest federal result was at the 1934 election on 4.69 percent of the national lower house vote. The party did not win seas in either election. Some regard the party as a predecessor of the modern australian League of Rights.

New South Wales:-  Premier Jack Lang

Jack Lang was elected Premiere of New South Wales in a landslide victory in 1930.
Mr Lang, while being the Labor Party Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales and a fiery left-wing populist, had campaigned vigorously against the provisions of the Melbourne Agreement.

The "Melbourne Agreement" was an agreement made at a conference in Melbourne in 1930 at which all state and federal governments agreed to

* slash government spending,
* cancel public works,
* cut public service salaries and
* decrease welfare benefits

Also at the Melbourne conference was Sir Otto Niemeyer, an envoy sent by The Bank of England to lecture Australian governments on the virtues of austerity and belt-tightening.

As Premier, Lang refused to cut government salaries and spending, a stand which was popular with his constituents. He passed laws restricting the rights of landlords to evict defaulting tenants, and insisted on paying the legal minimum wage to all workers on relief projects.

In 1931 at an economic crisis conference in Canberra, Jack Lang issued his own programme for economic recovery. This "Lang Plan" advocated

* the repudiation of interest payments to overseas creditors until domestic conditions improved,
* the abolition of the Gold Standard to be replaced by a "Goods Standard" where the amount of money in circulation was linked to the amount of goods produced, and
* the immediate injection of £18 million of new money into the economy in the form of Commonwealth Bank of Australia credit.

The Prime Minister of Australia and all the other state Premiers refused.

Lang refused to give money to the State that would be used to repay foreign debt,and withdrew all the state's funds from government bank accounts and held them at Trades Hall in cash, so the federal government could not gain access to the money.

The Governor, Sir Philip Game, a retired Royal Air Force officer, advised Lang that in his view this action was illegal, and that if Lang did not reverse it he would dismiss the government. Lang stood firm, and on 13 May 1932 the Governor dismissed the Government of New South Wales and appointed the UAP leader, Bertram Stevens, as premier.

The 1932 dismissal of Premier Jack Lang by New South Wales Governor Philip Game was the first real constitutional crisis in Australia. Lang remains the only Australian Premier to be removed from office by his Governor, using the Reserve Powers of the Privy Council.

Lang described the Commonwealth Bank's triumphs and tribulations in revealing detail in his book "The Great Bust: The Depression of the Thirties" (McNamara's Books, Katoomba, 1962)



Social Credit Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Social Credit Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a political party in the United Kingdom. It grew out of the Kibbo Kift, which was established in 1920 as a more craft-based alternative for youth to the Boy Scouts.

The organisation was led by John Hargrave, who gradually turned the movement into a paramilitary movement for social credit. With its supporters wearing a political uniform of green shirts, in 1932 it became known as the Green Shirt Movement for Social Credit and in 1935 it took its final name, the Social Credit Party. The party published the newspaper Attack and was linked to a small number of incidents in which green-painted bricks were thrown through windows, including at 11 Downing Street, the official residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The party stood a single candidate in the 1935 general election, a Mr. W. Townend, who polled 11% of the vote in Leeds South. Despite this lack of success, Hargrave was invited by William Aberhart to take an advisory post in the Government of the Province of Alberta, Canada, that had been formed by the Social Credit Party of Alberta.

The party began to decline when political uniforms were banned in 1937. Its activities were curtailed during World War II, and attempts to rebuild afterwards around a campaign against bread rationing had little success. Hargrave stood again in the 1950 general election, but after he gained only 551 votes, the party disbanded itself in 1951.

see also:- "THE KIBBO KIFT: A Tale Untold"

A second Social Credit Party was founded in 1965 by C. J. Hunt, a member of the former party, but it had little success and disbanded in 1978.



Social Credit was first advanced in 1920 by Major C. H. Douglas. He believed finance capitalism deprived individuals of sufficient purchasing power to buy otherwise available products. To overcome this Douglas proposed offering to every citizen dividend payments based on the community's real wealth.

As monetary reform and as social theory Social Credit attracted intellectual support in England and the United States especially during the 1930s.

Gorham Munson (Wesleyan class of 1917) was the most eloquent and durable Social Credit leader in the United States. In 1932, he became American correspondent for The New English Weekly, defended Social Credit in The Nation and helped form a key Social Credit organization, the New Economics Group of New York.

In 1933 he initiated a vital Social Credit journal of the arts and public affairs, New Democracy, and was its chief editor during its three-year life.

The Goldsborough bill of 1932

was described by an author as a “Social Credit bill” and “the closest near-miss monetary reform for the establishment of a real sound money system in the United States”:

An overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress (289 to 60) favored it as early as 1932, and in one form or another it has persisted since. Only the futile hope that a confident new President (Roosevelt) could restore prosperity without abandoning the credit-money system America had inherited kept Social Credit from becoming the law of the land. By 1936, when the New Deal (Roosevelt's solution) had proved incapable of dealing effectively with the Depression, the proponents of Social Credit were back again in strength. The last significant effort to gain its adoption came in 1938.” (W.E. Turner, Stable Money, p. 167.)

Even the dividend and the compensated discount, two essential parts of Social Credit, were mentioned in this bill, which was the “Goldsborough bill”, after the Democratic Representative of Maryland, T. Allan Goldsborough, who presented it in the House for the first time on May 2, 1932.

Two persons who supported the bill especially hold our attention: Robert L. Owen, Senator of Oklahoma from 1907 to 1925 (a national bank director for 46 years), and Charles G. Binderup, Representative of Nebraska.

Owen published an article, in March of 1936, in J. J. Harpell's publication, “The Instructor”, of which Louis Even was the assistant editor. As for Binderup, he gave several speeches on radio in the U.S.A. during the Depression, explaining the damaging effects of the control of credit by private interests. The “Michael” Journal published in the past one of his speeches on Benjamin Franklin's “Colonial Scripts.” (See our September-October, 1993 issue.)

Robert Owen testified in the House, April 28, 1936:
“...the bill which he (Goldsborough) then presented, with the approval of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House — and I believe it was practically a unanimous report. It was debated for two days in the House, a very simple bill, declaring it to be the policy of the United States to restore and maintain the value of money, and directing the Secretary of the Treasury, the officers of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Reserve banks to make effective that policy. That was all, but enough, and it passed, not by a partisan vote. There were 117 Republicans who voted for that bill (which was presented by a Democrat) and it passed by 289 to 60, and of the 60 who voted against it, only 12, by the will of the people, remain in the Congress."

It was defeated by the Senate, because it was not really understood. There had not been sufficient discussion of it in public. There was not an organized public opinion in support of it.

Government Created Money In The USA

During the American Civil War President Abraham Lincoln made the decision to print interest free paper money based on nothing more than "the honour" of the American Government.

Called ‘Greenbacks’ because they were coloured green on one side only, the US Treasury issued 450 million dollars worth of these notes and they were immediately accepted as legal tender. The war was eventually won and this very popular new paper currency seemed set to continue. In the words of Lincoln himself:

"The government should create issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers ... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity.
By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power. (Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865)


Broadcast by William Aberhart - May 6, 1943 - 17 days before his death from a "sudden illness."

(Both before the election and during his years as Premier, Aberhart mobilised support for Social Credit ideas and policies through his broadcasts which informed and encouraged the many, many Social Credit study groups which met throughout the scattered population of the province.)

Transcript taken from "The Social Crediter" Saturday, June 26, 1943.

The Plan for World Control

A few nights ago I was listening to one of those "quiz" programmes which have become so popular with radio stations; and it struck me very forcibly that it was but another example of how people are being taught to-day to guess rather than to think for themselves. The kind of questions being asked were: "Who is the Minister of Agriculture?" "Is Moscow further North or further South than Quebec?" and so forth. The participant either knew the answers or he had to guess them. I cannot recall a single question that would have the effect of making people think. Has it ever occurred to you that it is becoming very much the same in regard to all phases of our national life?

For example you will recall the famous plebiscite we had recently in Canada. In it the people were asked a question, the answer to which would not commit the government to any particular course of action. The government refused to indicate what they would do if the people voted either yes or no, hence the people themselves could not possibly tell what would be the result of their decision. They had to guess.

Or take election time. As a general rule the candidates of all parties came forward with their platforms all nicely dressed up to catch votes. The people are not asked, "What do you want? Do you want security in terms of more goods and better homes? Do you want these without regimentation and bureaucracy so that you may enjoy the maximum of freedom? Do you want freedom from debt and overburdening taxation?" Oh! No, no! they are not given the opportunity of voting on anything so straightforward as that. They are asked to vote on tariffs or free-trade, on compulsory unemployment insurance under one party's bureaucracy or another party's bureaucracy, or whether they want industries nationalised, or would they prefer an international police force. In this way complicated and technical questions are put before the people, without giving them the proper information upon which to form sound opinions regarding what the results would be for them if these things were done. In other words—they have to guess.

That is the kind of thing that is going on all the time. People are being discouraged from thinking. We are being drilled into becoming a nation of guessers—and as the men who manipulate the situation from behind the scenes know all of the answers, and the necessary information is carefully withheld from the people, the manipulators are always right and the people generally guess wrong.

Nowhere is this more strikingly demonstrated than in regard to the stuff that is dished up to us as news. Tonight I propose to deal with just one example, to show you the dangerous intrigue that is being perpetrated right under our noses.

Suppose that you pick up your newspaper some evening and read bold headlines such as these: "World Totalitarian Dictatorship by Finance Proposed as New Post-War Order – Confidence Expressed British Empire and American Governments Will Be Hoaxed Into Acceptance of Plan." What would be your reaction to that news? Would it make your blood boil? Would you feel indignant that anybody should dare to put forward treason like that while your son or your brother or your husband is over there risking his life for the ideals of democracy and our traditional British freedoms?

Well, my friends, let me tell you frankly, you have read that news in your papers, but it was not stated nearly so boldly. Possibly because what you read was complicated or was couched in altruistic language, and since you had no definite information on which to form an opinion, you just had to guess what it meant. And you probably guessed that there was nothing very sinister about it. That is what you were intended to do.

A short time ago you may remember reading in your newspaper that plans for an International Monetary Reform were published on the same day in both London, England, and in Washington, by the British and the United States Governments. These two plans were presented in the newspaper reports as simple and innocent expedients for making it easier to re-establish international trade after the war—a most desirable and worthy objective.

Strange as it may seem, though, the so-called British and American plans were supposed to have been drawn up independently, they were basically similar, and both were made known to the public on the same day. This would tend to impress the people with the spontaneity of agreement and the unanimity of purpose in the whole matter. It was another of those strange coincidences like the similarity of the Beveridge, Marsh and N.R.P.B. plans of social security which were offered to the public within a few days of each other and were identical in their main features. Well, I tell you frankly I don't believe in coincidences of that kind. They are too weird to be genuine.

Let me draw to your attention some of the main features common to both the British and the American plans for an international money system. Both advocate setting up an international unit of money, based on gold. In one case the name "Bankor" is suggested; in the other the term "Unitas" is put forward. But what does the name matter anyway, since both plans involve control of the international money system by an international authority, which will likewise control international trade? You see it is all international— centralisation of power, etc. Both plans suggest that some such system should be set up in a hurry. Both plead its necessity on the grounds that it is essential for the purpose of averting confusion in world trade after the war. How plausible! How persuasive! "Will you come into my parlour said the spider to the fly," sort of manner.

Lord Keynes, a director of the Bank of England, is reputed to be the author of the British scheme. He is reported as having stated that such an international monetary system might be used to finance a World Police Force. All Totalitarian Powers evidently need a Gestapo. We are not told who was the author of the American plan.

On the face of it there seems to be nothing in those schemes to unduly alarm people, does there? But that is only because the people haven't the information which would enable them to understand what an international money system controlled by an international authority, backed up by an international Police Force, would mean to them.

Listen carefully, Ladies and Gentlemen! For the past three years—in fact ever since the outbreak of war— there has been a steady stream of propaganda, carefully organised and well financed, to win support for setting up a World Federation of Nations under an International authority, to which all Nations would surrender control of finance, international trade, their armed forces and their citizenship rights. How long is it going to take for the people to realise what is going on and what it will mean to them?

In the first place it would mean that the people of Canada would no longer be sovereign. They would no longer be the constitutionally supreme authority in their own country. By giving over control of finance to some alien dominated international dictatorship, they would be giving that authority complete control over every aspect of their national life. You see, control of finance would mean control of the money system— and that in turn controls every phase of production and distribution. Stripped of all its camouflage, the final result will be a slave state, worse than anything as yet proposed by our bombastic dictators. Is that what our brave soldiers are fighting and dying for? Do you, as a true Canadian, desire such conditions? Then I ask, what are you doing about it?

Now is the time to act. If we wait until the bonds are welded and this dreadful totalitarian order set up, the people of Canada will then be helpless to do anything about it if they do not like the harsh conditions that are imposed upon them. Remember that in addition to control over finance, the international authority would also have control over the Armed Forces and the citizenship rights. If any individual dared to challenge the authority of the international dictatorship he might find that they had deprived him of his citizenship rights. And if the people as a whole started to kick over the traces—well, they would be unarmed and helpless while the international over-lords would have control of all the Armed Forces and the World Police Force. So it would be just too bad for the people.

Do you consider it fantastic to imagine that anything like that could happen? How can you when the very idea I have outlined has been put forward seriously as the basis of our Post-War Order? Published Plans

In the first instance, two books on the subject were published. One of these was written by a man connected with a newspaper which, on the evidence of a British Ambassador to the United States, was controlled by the banking institution that is the Headquarters of International Finance. The other book was by the son of one of the founders of the Money Power on this continent. There is absolutely no question about it that this plot, this evil conspiracy—to set up an international totalitarian dictatorship with control over every aspect of our lives and armed with overwhelming forces to impose their will upon us, can be traced to that small group of men which comprise International Finance.

If ever that scheme should be put over, it would mean the end of democracy, the end of the British Empire, the end of freedom. On the other hand, it would be the establishment of a World Slave State more ruthless and vile than anything which the evil genius of the Nazis have (sic) as yet conceived. Yet poisonous propaganda in favour of this diabolical idea is being openly scattered far and wide in Canada—and that in wartime also. I assert that it is treachery of the worst kind that, even while all the suffering and sacrifices of this present war are going on to overthrow totalitarianism, anyone should even suggest that we do away with all that our brave lads are fighting to defend.

It is most important that we realise that the proposals for inveigling us into an international dictatorship are not put forward in an obvious, above-board manner. No, indeed! They are carefully wrapped up in an attractive, and subtle propaganda form. You are told that international control of money is a means for ensuring orderly world trade. You are not told that immediately you hand over constitutional control of finance to an international authority, it will be impossible for the people of Canada ever to change their unsatisfactory monetary system. That fact is kept hidden.

Again, you are told that international control of the Armed Forces is necessary to maintain world peace. The plausible term used to describe it is (sic) an "international police force." It sounds more innocent. You are not told that such a force would place the people of all nations completely at the mercy of the international authority which controlled that force.

And remember where you have· a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. As the British peer, Lord Acton, put it so aptly:

"All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I warn you, Ladies and Gentlemen, with every ounce of sincerity and vehemence I possess; for your own sake, for the sake of the brave lads who are fighting so heroically to overthrow tyranny, for the sake of your children, for the sake of the future of our country—yes—for the sake of everything you hold dear, oppose, expose and resist by every means in your power this audacious and evil conspiracy by the Money Powers to set up a World Slave State.

And now before I close, may I once again thank all of you who have written to me, and who have contributed to these broadcasts during the past week. You will be glad to hear that our radio fund is building up nicely, but we have not yet reached the point to undertake the more ambitious programme to which I referred last week.

I hope that, if these broadcasts are giving people the satisfaction which the increasing number of letters indicates, the time is not far distant when all who listen to them will be sharing in their cost. I feel with all the fibre of my being that this question of Post-War Reconstruction is so urgent and the situation which is developing is so critical that it will require a supreme effort by us all, working together, to meet the problems we face.

I will be on the air again one week from to-night over this same Station at the same time. Until then I bid you goodnight, Ladies and Gentlemen.



A short essay on Douglas, his book "Social Credit" and Canada

Many economists have rallied against the fractional reserve system of banking that prevails in the industrialized world (e.g., Irving Fisher, Lloyd Mints, Henry Simon, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman and most economists of the Austrian School of economics [see, for example, the Ludwig von Mises Institute]). But few, if any, other authors have explained that as productivity increases year after year, who benefits from that increased productivity is determined essentially by money and banking policy.

Specifically, Douglas explains (particularly in Part 2, Chapter 2) that, if the money supply is not increased, dollars/pounds become more valuable, such that prices drop. But, if the money supply is increased just enough, the value of each dollar/pound - hence prices - can be left unchanged. Finding it desirable to keep prices unchanged in this way, Douglas then explains that, essentially, a decision has to be made about who gets the additional dollars/pounds.

* Under our current fractional reserve system, the banks do, by creating and lending out extra credit.
* Under a "social credit" system, the extra dollars would be divided up and given to all citizens in equal portions as a "dividend".

His rationale: that increases in productivity - resulting as they do from innovation and technological advancement over time - are a "cultural heritage" that belongs not to banks but to all members of society. His message is clear: the citizenry are prevented from benefitting from their own cultural heritage, and this leaves them increasingly indebted to banks, and unable to reduce, over time, the portion of their lives that they spend working and simply trying to survive.

Under social credit, Douglas foresees a decrease in work and an increase in leisure or, at least, the opportunity to work less if one so chooses.

"Social Credit" clearly has had a major impact on the direction of politics, particularly in the Commonwealth for decades. For example, but for Douglas' works on Social Credit, Canada quite possibly would not have a Conservative Party of Canada today.

Before entering politics, "Bible Bill" Aberhart opened a bible school in Alberta. The school's first pupil was one Ernest Manning. Aberhart was drawn into politics primarily after finding, in Douglas' Social Credit, what he saw to be an answer to the "poverty amidst plenty" that he saw in 1930's Alberta. Ernest Manning was at his side, spreading the Social Credit word and helping to grow the Social Credit party in Alberta.

Alberta's several attempts to implement some form of Douglas Social Credit failed when the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly held that Alberta lacked the constitutional authority to implement such monetary and banking laws: those, it held, were laws that only the federal government had the authority to make. When Aberhart died, Ernest Manning took over as premier. Owing largely to investments in the Alberta oil industry, the province received such abundant revenues that implementing any form of Social Credit mechanism was unnecessary.

Social Credit lived on in Alberta (and later, in British Columbia) only as a name for what became a mainstream conservative party


This article will make more sense if you read another of my articles called Governments Can Just Create Money out of "Nothing"

[Back to Main Index]

No comments:

Post a Comment