French flagpolish flagspanish flag

What will the world of tomorrow be?

Written by Louis Even on Friday, 01 May 2020. Posted in Social Credit

Fabian Society socialists and founders of the London School of Economics, Sydney Webb and George Bernard Shaw, shared the same ideas as Karl Marx. Their disagreement with Marx was in how their theories should be achieved. Marx advocated violent revolution whereas the Fabians recommended a step by step gradual implementation of centralization and socialism.

We should remember that the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution was financed by Wall Street bankers with the goal of eventually establishing a world government, a “New World Order”. Today’s financial elites, aligned with the powers of darkness, appear to be taking advantage of the coronavirus pandemic to impose their scheme of a one world government, with a single world currency, etc. Full of pride and arrogance, they believe they are already victorious.

Divine Providence however can expose and foil their plans.

Father Peter Coffey, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of Metaphysics and Logics at Maynooth College in Ireland, wrote the following to a Canadian Jesuit priest in March 1932:

”The difficulties raised by your questions can be met only by a reform of the financing system of Capitalism, along the lines suggested by Major Douglas and the Social Credit school of credit reform. It is the accepted system of finance that is at the root of the evils of Capitalism. The accuracy of the analysis carried out by Douglas has never been refuted, and his reform proposals, with their famous price-regulation formula, are THE ONLY reform that will go to the root of the evil.

“Personally I am convinced that capitalist finance must inevitably breed wars, revolutions and artificial starvation of millions in a world of potential plenty. I have studied the whole subject for 15 years, and I believe that such a financial reform as proposed by Douglas is essential to the reinstatement of a Christian economic system of widely diffused ownership, and is therefore the only alternative to a revolutionary violent and Godless Communism.

”As to whether the constructive proposals for reform advocated by Douglas are possible in the concrete — with the mass-psychology of a doped public and all the propagandist power of the Capitalist press against them — that is in the lap of the gods! Only — as I see it — the alternative to their adoption is the chaos of Communism. All the intent of the tragic transition from Capitalism to Communism now centers exclusively in finance.”

The following article was written by Louis Even in 1960. Note that after this date, communism fell in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The best alternative to a one world government, the vision of Marx and the Fabian Society, is the financial system known as Social Credit, advanced in MICHAEL, and which Fr. Coffey described. It respects the human person and offers the best remedy to a globalist take-over.

by Louis Even

A Change is Inevitable

No one, except perhaps the privileged elite in the existing system, would agree that the present state of affairs in the world is satisfactory. Practically the entire population of almost every nation is in some form of protest.

Employees protest the conditions under which they work. Employers protest against financial restrictions, government interference and the difficulties under which they are obliged to conduct their businesses. Citizens buck vigorously against the ever-growing burden of taxation imposed upon them. The unemployed, the needy and the penniless all protest their desperate lot.

Protesting is a natural reaction against unfair conditions and is not necessarily a bad thing. It is the reaction of men who will not permit themselves to be belittled, harmed and destroyed. Protest is the first step in the process of rectifying terrible conditions and is the precursor of fundamental reforms or the overthrow of an existing system.

Today, protest is widespread and is growing. We can see with certainty that radical changes are inevitable. It is frequently said that the world is in the pangs of giving birth—but what will be born is not yet known. Will it be a revolution and a state of chaos that results in dictatorship? Or will changes be brought about leading to a satisfactory political and economic solution?

A Common Social Objective

Each and every association of men has as its goal the attainment of commonly-held objectives which can be achieved more easily and efficiently than if the same goals were sought by individuals. Without a purpose an association would not exist. Some types of associations are unions, agricultural groups, companies, cooperatives, sporting clubs, etc. These particular forms of associations each pursue the specific goals which brought their members together.

Society can be viewed as a grand association of individuals. Society also has a social objective, which is to procure or facilitate the procurement of the totality of goods and services which all citizens have decided they need and want.

The needs of a people are certainly multitudinous and varied. Among all the individuals which make up a society there are those who will want things to which others are indifferent. A social order would be imperfect which satisfied the wants of some but left the vast majority to suffer frustration in the pursuit of their most fundamental wants.

There are two things which every individual seeks from society, economic security and personal liberty.

By economic security we mean access to the things necessary to satisfy essential needs. This would include food, clothing, lodging, medical care and such education as is necessary in today’s society.

Theoretically, personal liberty is superior to economic security. But in practice, liberty cannot be achieved until the fundamental needs of the natural man are satisfied. The person without economic security is like a slave to the conditions and privations imposed upon him. He is not free, for one cannot turn his back on his basic needs!

On the other hand, once a man has a decent standard of living, if he has any sense of liberty, he can refuse conditions which would bind and enslave him even when he is offered terms which might make him wealthy. Liberty would, for the man with integrity whose basic needs are met, place more value on it than on wealth or comfort.

As for the man who runs after wealth and seeks to amass more and more of it at any cost, he is a slave to money in every sense of the word.

We might say that liberty begins following the satisfaction of our most ordinary needs, and ceases when we chase after the superfluous in a disorderly way.

Socialism or Social Credit?

Politicians, economists and sociologists maintain that economic security demands a surrender of personal liberty, at least to a degree. In this they are upholding, unconsciously perhaps, the tenets of socialism. But when this has occurred it is because governments have implemented centralization and socialist minded policies rather than address the fundamental flaws of the financial system from which flows most of the defects in our existing society.

Socialists promise economic security to all. But such security entails a state controlled economy and society with its bureaucracy, inspections and investigations, regimentation and all the rest. A socialist society would have us numbered, harnessed, nourished and sheltered like domesticated animals or prison inmates. A Social Credit monetary system wants no part of this so-called economic security!

The capitalist investor does not engage in the physical work of making his capital produce goods. The worker produces and is compensated in the form of a salary or wages; the capitalist is compensated in the form of Dividends. We want each citizen to also enjoy the security of the capitalist who enjoys his Dividends.

The Social Credit principles hold that each citizen is co-heir to a community capital which society’s workers are busy mobilizing. Each and every citizen would receive a dividend regardless of whether or not he was employed in actual production.

An Abundance of Goods for All

The purpose of an economic system is to furnish the products and services required by society in the quantity and at the time and in the place they are needed.

Today these goals are physically easy to attain. It is the outstanding characteristic of our day that we can produce with great ease all the variety and volume of goods which are needed. What is more remarkable is the ability to accomplish this with an ever-diminishing reliance on workers’ participation in production.

Man has always endeavored to satisfy his needs with a minimum expenditure of time and energy in order to maximize the resources available for other activities. Today we have achieved this goal. We are producing enough for all our needs with a smaller contribution of human toil; we can furnish goods for the needs of all without the requirement that everyone be employed in production.

No one can deny that the capacity of modern global production is sufficient to produce enough for the needs of all when it is not impeded and shackled by modern finance and when goods are distributed as they should be.

It only remains to be decided whether or not each individual, by reason of his being a member of society, and for no other reason, has a right to share in this abundant production. Let us examine if this right is well-founded.

A Great Common Heritage

Abundant modern production is due in large measure to the existence of natural resources which God has placed on the earth and which we can presume is for the use of all men. Abundant production is also due to the fruit of a common cultural heritage that includes scientific discoveries, the application of these discoveries to industry, the refinement of industrial and commercial methods and the division of labour. All these factors result in a productivity that is well-nigh unlimited.

The discoveries, techniques and modern production processes are not the work of those currently employed in production. Nor are they the product of current research and development. They are not necessarily the fruit of the last three or four generations even; rather, they are the result of centuries of studying nature and struggling to master and overcome it. They represent the history of man’s research, discoveries, inventions and innovations which led to new discoveries and inventions and perfection of methods. All of these wonderful developments were advanced by one generation after another, handed down from one to another, as if the fruit of common effort. These, in their totality, have given us the miracles of the production of our day—and these all constitute a vast common heritage flowing from the very nature of society which has facilitated the remarkable legacy passed down the generations.

This generation is heir, like those preceding, to these wonders. They are a common heritage to which no one person, or one particular group, can claim a major share. It is a heritage belonging to all.

Thus, each member of society, along with his fellows, is co-heir to this immense capital which is the predominant factor in modern production.

Certainly this vast common capital must be mobilized. But each person has a share in what is produced because of this legacy capital since each is co-heir and, in a manner, a co-capitalist along with his fellow citizens. This fact does not deny that remuneration is required to those actively participating in making this commonly-held capital fruitful in the productive process.

Imagine that only 1 percent of the population was needed to mobilize this immense common capital that results in sufficient production. Is it logical that only 1 percent of the population should share in this production? The same argument holds if, instead of 1 percent, we said that 40 percent of the population was necessary for production sufficient to meet the population’s needs. The remaining 60 percent should not be excluded as they still retain the title of co-heir to the immense capital which the 40 percent contributed. Even the 40 percent are co-heirs and co-capitalists, and as such, share in the overall fruits of this production. (Of course, the 40 percent are entitled to wages or a salary as their compensation for working.)

The fact remains that the greater portion of production is thanks to enrichment by association, that is, to the social heritage.

We must acknowledge there is an abundance to meet our needs and that economic security without restrictions, that is, without any assaults against personal liberty, is the birthright of every man, woman and child in a nation.

Today’s financial elite deny this right. Socialism ignores it. The application of the Social Credit financial proposals will ensure its realization.

About the Author

Leave a comment

You are commenting as guest.

Your Cart

Latest Issue

Choose your topic

Newsletter & Magazine



Go to top
JSN Boot template designed by