The following is from an address to Eton Society, delivered by Major C. H. DOUGLAS, March 9, 1938, and reproduced in "The Social Crediter", 3-10-53:
"Great Britain, although not a titular dictatorship, is an oligarchy moving towards a dictatorship, as a result of the elevation of financial and legal conventions...
"I see no reason to assume that, making allowance for the character of the people, the outcome will be less deplorable than is the case, say, in Russia.
"No one takes seriously the verbiage prevalent about the struggle between Democratic and Totalitarian Governments — there are no Democratic Governments. But there might be.
"Democracy, while it is inconsistent with arbitrary special privilege, economic or otherwise, does not mean equalitarianism. It would be just as sensible to say, without amplification, that every one had a right to a place in the Eleven.
"Neither does Democracy mean a referendum or an election on every detail of day-to-day national management. On the contrary, a realistic conception of democracy insists that a community is sovereign, but it is not technical. It has a right to demand results, but not to dictate methods.
"So far as Great Britain is concerned, I am inclined to think that the divergence from Democracy is not difficult to indicate. Easily the most glaring feature is our money and credit system, which is indefensible. The information it affords us is illusory, and no security is possible until it is drastically modified...
· "The Parliamentary System has been perverted to purposes for which it was not intended, and all real power has been taken from it by the Cabinet.“
* * *
Following the above quotation from Douglas, a report issued by the Eastbourne Social Credit League adds:
"Great Britain has a form of government which · has been largely copied as a model of democracy. Great Britain and the British Commonwealth probably are more advanced along the path of freedom and democracy than any other country. Are they now going forward or backward?
"The Member of Parliament is elected with the aid of an organized political party, and thereafter owes allegiance to that party. The Member of Parliament is not a free man; he is a party man, who must support his political party in all important matters. If he does not, he gets into trouble. If his party is in power and he fails to support it in an important division, his action may have very serious consequences. It may result in throwing the party out of office, and perhaps himself out of Parliament.
"The Member of Parliament thereafter is compelled to vote with his party; even when he disagrees with it. He becomes a representative of the party rather than of his constituents., The effect is that he votes, not for the measure under consideration, but for his party and for his own 1,000 pounds a year.
"The policy the Member votes for is the policy of the leaders of the party, who, when in power, form the Cabinet. This Cabinet, it is true, rules subject to the criticisms of the Members, but the decisions in Parliament are the decisions of the Cabinet rather than the decisions of the representatives of the people.
"It is therefore the Cabinet that rules, and we have an oligarchy, and not a democracy. And this oligarchy rules under the pressure of its crediters, the Money Power, and under certain financial and legal conventions."
* * *
The same financial despots are in effect dictating the policy of all governments, irrespective of the party in power, in all so-called democratic countries, Canada, just as well as Great Britain. "
This oligarchy will not be destroyed by setting up a new party. Another political party will only accentuate the division among the people, when the people should unite to rise against the common enemy — the financial oligarchy, the Money Power.
It is neither practical, nor advisable to abolish the existent political parties by some form of coercion. They will cease to be what they are, when the electors, regardless of political colours and regardless of which party is in power, will unite to demand results. This is better done between than during electoral campaigns.
The change from a policy dictated by Money Power, to a policy stated by the citizens themselves, will not come until enough citizens decide to wake up, to face the facts and to take action. This may help to explain the nature, if not the size, of the great task undertaken by our Social Credit Movement.
Subscribe