A federal M. P. castigates Mgr. Coyne
Mr.Coyne is governor of the Bank of Canada. As such he is the highest-paid civil servant in the federal government. He is paid $50,000 a year and is appointed for a period of seven years. Mr. Coyne was named to this post by the Liberal government back in 1955, succeeding to Mr. Graham Towers. When the Conservatives climbed into the driver's seat Mr. Coyne's status remained unchanged. He will stay in office until 1962 — unless, of course, he decides to resign.
In fact Mr. Coyne has been invited to resign before 1962 by the federal representative from the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Mr. J.-L. Pigeon. Speaking in the House of Commons on the 22nd of last March, Mr. Pigeon, a Conservative, had this to say:
Everyone knows Mr. Coyne and is aware of the political statements he made during a previous election campaign. Mr. Coyne has lost the confidence of the people.
And I urge the leader of the opposition and the members of this house to read the reports of the Bank of Canada from its inception to the present day. You will note that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, did not tell the former government what it should do. In other words, Mr. Coyne indulged in petty politics and mainly lauded government policies. Now that the government has changed Mr. Coyne wants to dictate his policies to the government.
Mr. Coyne has lost the confidence of the people. In my view, this report which he is has issued, the Bank of Canada report, is nothing but a cheap political pamphlet...
Mr. Coyne's responsibility is not to dictate to the government, no more than it was to extol the policies of the former government. If I were, Mr. Coyne, having lost the people's trust, I would resign. Mr. Coyne should resign because his report is nothing but a cheap political lampoon.
The welfare state mind
One of the most frightening aspects of today, it seems to me, is not so much the growth of the Welfare State, though that is bad enough, but the growth of the Welfare State mind in so many people, who accept controls, restrictions, permits, bans and limitations of all kind without question.
The issue at stake is power, who is to hold it? The State or the individual? The Socialist says: "the State". Social Crediters say "the people", and between the two policies there is a gulf that cannot be bridged, though very few seem able to see the sharp distinction between the two.
Thank God that Douglas was matched with this hour, for by his simple proposals he subtly transfers the power from the State to the individual and that is the shining light that gleams and beckons us on through the darkness at the present time. The more one reflects on the philosophy and the policy of Social Credit the more one sees the height, breadth and depth of it, for it covers everything.
Dorothy Graham as quoted in The New Times, 2-10-59.
Mr. Coyne is confused
The article which follows below is the major portion of an editorial which appeared in the February, 10th, 1960 issue of The Fundy Fisherman. This paper is noted for its hard-hitting editorials about the government's financial policies.
On page 20 of the copy of Mr. James Coyne's Winnipeg speech, "Living Within Our Means" is the statement — "Relative to other countries, the choices that face Canada, the second wealthiest country in the world, should not be too hard."
What is Mr. Coyne's definition of "wealthiest"?. Is Canada, for example, less wealthy than the United States, but more wealthy than Russia? What yardstick is he using to reach his definition?
And, if Canada is in fact, the second wealthiest nation in the world, why are Canada's monetary affairs in such deplorable condition so confused that Mr. Coyne now admits publicly we are in a sorry mess. If we are in fact, in the sad financial situation on earth, and we are also in fact, in the sad financial situation the governor describes, does it not follow that monetary management has been deplorably bad? Does it not follow logically that a change in management may improve the handling of our monetary system and improve our situation to a level in line with our wealth?
Are such questions inappropriate?
If the second wealthiest nation on earth cannot find the money for schools, roads, dams, and the other amenities of living — what prospect can there be that the 80-odd less wealthy nations will ever surmount their problems?
Unless, of course, the answer is that the monetary management of the second wealthiest nation on earth is hopelessly inept.
Many foreign countries by Mr. Coyne's rating much less wealthy than Canada are doing splendidly. And their monetary authorities have been looking askance at the methods adopted in Canada.
Is it at all possible that everyone is out of step but the governor of the Bank of Canada?
The more one reads, the speech of Mr. Coyne, the more apparent it becomes that he is either unable to comprehend his task, or is unable to explain himself clearly.
If Canada is, as Mr. Coyne states very definitely "the second wealthiest country in the world" why is it that:
1. The proportion of Canadian taxes going to pay interest on debt is rising at a spectacular rate?
2. The mortgaging of Canadian assets to foreign creditors is soaring ever higher?
3. The foreign trade imbalance of Canada is increasingly adverse.
4. The standard of living of Canadians is dropping and the cost of living is rising?
5. The provinces, crown corporations and municipalities are being warned not to provide the ordinary services of living because we cannot afford them?
6. National growth has slowed to a stagnation rate because the Bank of Canada says we cannot afford the investments necessary for sustained growth?
7. Unemployment is very high and increasingly a drain on the nation because the Bank of Canada claims it is necessary to hold back on investment for growth because it is beyond our capacity to afford?
The list of such questions could be lengthened. Most readers will quickly think of others.
For example, in the Maritimes, we cannot have the Chignecto Canal, the Corridor Road to improve transport to the Montreal market, or the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick Causeway. We — according to Mr. Coyne the "second wealthiest nation on earth" — find it impossible to finance such desirable projects.
We can, however, afford new buildings for the Bank of Canada! In these buildings the monetary managers can, on the one hand, contemplate with satisfaction our position as the "second wealthiest nation on earth" and, on the other, weep with Mr. Coyne over our lack of ability to pay for the ordinary requirements of life.
Why do the people of the "second wealthiest nation on earth" have to tighten their belts, suffer the restrictions of tight money and high interest rates, put up with a fantastic unemployment rate, bend beneath a gigantic adverse foreign trade burden and be ground beneath declining living standards?
Time now to take sides
"There is no doubt that if the human race are to have their dearest wish and be free from the dread of mass-destruction, they could have, as an alternative, what many of them might prefer, namely, the swiftest expansion of material well-being that has ever been within their reach or even within their dreams. By material well-being I mean not only material abundance but a degree of leisure for the masses such as has never before been possible in our mortal struggle for life. These majestic possibilities ought to gleam and be made to gleam before the eyes of the toilers in every land and ought to inspire the actions of all who bear responsibility for their guidance. We, and all nations, stand at this hour in human history before the portals of supreme catastrophe and of measureless reward. My faith is that in God's mercy we shall choose aright."
Sir Winston Churchill at the opening of the British Parliament, November 3, 1953
House of Lords resolution
"That, since under modern scientific conditions productive capacity is unlimited, and since the existence of indigence and unemployment throughout a large portion of the population demonstrates the fact that the present monetary system is obsolete, and a hindrance to the efficient production and distribution of goods, in the opinion of this House the Government should bring forward immediate proposals for the economic reforms necessary to enable the subjects of this Realm to enjoy the benefits to which their present productive capacity entitles them."
Lord Melchett, 1932
Will Khrushchev be right?
About two years ago the Communist leader Khrushchev confidently predicted that our grandchildren would live under Socialism. If the present centralization of Government and controls in the non-Communist world continues, Khrushchev may be proved right by events. One of the most disturbing features of our times is the fact that many individuals have lost the very appetite for freedom and personal responsibility. The progressive centralization of power in all spheres has robbed the individual of his most divine attribute, individual initiative.
We return to this subject at a time when the Communist leaders appear to be prepared to allow more visitors from the non-Communist world to visit Communist countries. There appears to be little doubt that the Communists have observed with keen anticipation the undermining of the sense of individual freedom in the Western world as the State becomes more powerful and exercises more and more influence over all aspects of the individual's life. People who have been taught to believe since birth that material activities and progress are synonymous terms, can be safely allowed to visit Communist countries to see enormous State-directed projects. They return to the non-Communist world telling all who will listen that, irrespective of what the West thinks of Communism as a political system, it cannot deny its "achievements".
One of the most penetrating observations we have seen on Mikoyan's visit to America, was that there was really nothing very surprising about the Communist leader getting on so well with the representatives of Big Finance and Big Industry; all were used to handling enormous power and basically thought in terms of power and large-scale planning. Irrespective of what terms are used to describe it, power centralized allows a small group of men to exercise control over all other men. And all power, no matter what instrument is used to exercise it, tends to corrupt. Corruption by power may not yet be as rampant or as obvious, in the non-Communist world as it is in the Communist world, but it is growing rapidly as the concentration of power develops. There is absolutely no hope of averting the complete destruction of freedom unless the peoples of the non-Communist countries can halt the policies of centralization and progressively compel the decentralization of power. (Italics ours - Ed.) The first necessity for the defeat of the Communist challenge, is the defeat of every policy of monopoly in the non-Communist countries.
The principal instrument being used in the non-Communist world to further centralization and monopoly, is the centralized financial system. Most policies of monopoly in the economic sphere can be traced directly and indirectly to the centralised control of the creation and issue of financial credit. The alleged efficiency of large centralised economic units is as bogus as the alleged efficiency of State projects in the Communist countries. The conclusion is inescapable that the controllers of international finance are, by their persistent support for economic centralism, deliberately pursuing a policy which must destroy genuine free competitive enterprise and private ownership.
The late C. H. Douglas observed that the real threat to Western Civilization was a combination of the scum of the underworld and the richest men in the world. All the available evidence proves that the richest men of the world have no real fear of the Communists, but welcome and encourage the activities of these gangsters in their drive for world power. Whether or not it is Mr. Khrushchev's socialism or some other-ism will not matter very much from the point of view of the individual. He will have lost control of his own life. Nothing is more important at this crucial time in history than to encourage individuals to realise that if they cannot, or will not defeat all policies of centralism, their grandchildren will most certainly be serfs.
The New Times - Editorial April 24, 1959
While riding into Montreal on a bus one day not long ago, our attention was caught by a poster appealing to citizens to donate money to a local campaign which was seeking to provide free milk for needy and undernourished children. The placard featured a youngster holding a bottle of milk and smiling gratefully. Beneath the picture were these words in bold lettering: "Your dollar will buy him 8 quarts of milk!"
The poster was sponsored by one of the country's leading banks.
Now, obviously there was a large number of children who needed milk badly and were unable to come by it. Otherwise there would be no widespread campaign with the advertising being sponsored by a great banking institution. But why do the children not have milk? Because there is a shortage of milk? Notat all. For the poster explicitly states that your dollar will buy milk.
No, there is not a shortage of milk. The dairy cows and the dairy farmers of the land are all doing their part magnificently. Canada is capable of producing — and does in fact produce — some 18,000,000,000 lbs of milk a year. We stand open to correction, but that seems to us to be very close to 6,000,000,000 quarts of milk. Which is a very respectable amount of milk for a nation of 17,000,000 people.
So naturally the question arises, how does it happen that with all this milk being produced (and the government putting away heaven only knows how much of it into surplus stocks as powdered milk) a campaign must be waged to get citizens to donate money to buy milk for children who are undernourished for lack of it? And that, here in Canada!
The answer is simple. The parents of these children haven't the money with which to buy milk for their kiddies.
There is a desperate need for milk. There is milk in abundance. The land is flowing with it. The government doesn't know what to do with the surpluses. And yet this superfluity of milk can't be used to meet this crying need for it simply because of a shortage of a man-made thing (which doesn't depend upon either the workings of Providence or the vagaries of Mother Nature) which we call money or credit.
And what is true of milk is equally true of many other of the staple products, which are needed by man to keep life in his body. Not only here in Canada, but all over the world witness the Asiatic countries — multitudes are actually starving to death or dying of malnutrition while certain countries are storing away billions of tons of powdered milk, eggs, butter, wheat, etc., to a point where it is actually costing billions every year just for the storage-problem!
God, through nature, gives us all the meat, bread, milk and other materials which we need to live comfortably. There is enough for everyone. The statistics bear this out. But men, through the existing financial system, choke off the flow of money and credit which are the only means whereby this abundance of nature can be distributed to those who need them.
"Is there a manufacturer in this country, or for that matter in any other, who is not clamouring to turn out more goods if someone will give him orders for them? Is there a farmer who is complaining that his land and his stock are unable to cope with the demands for agricultural produce which pour in upon him? If so, an explanation as to why nearly three million acres of arable land have gone back to pasture in the last twelve years would be interesting. (Major Douglas was writing about England after the First World War. — Ed.)
On the other hand, it is patent, that in spite of this enormous and potential reservoir of the goods for which mankind has a use, a large proportion of the population is unable to get at them. What is it, then, which stands in between this enormous reservoir of supply and the increasing clamour of the multitudes, able to voice, but unable to satisfy their demand? The answer is so short as to be almost banal. It is Money. And, as we shall see, the position into which money and the methods by which it is controlled and manipulated have brought the world, arises, not from any defect or vice inseparable from money (which is probably one of the most marvelous and perfect agencies for enabling co-operation that the world has ever conceived), but because of the subordination of this powerful tool to the objective of what it is not unfair to call a hidden government."
Major Douglas in Social Credit, Pp. 24-25
If there is a shortage of money with which to nourish our children with the superfluity of food which exists it is because finance prevents money from reaching the pocketbooks of fathers of families.
This "hidden government", this dictatorship of the powers of finance is so powerful that mere governments cannot stand up to it. Only the power of an enlightened and determined people, working through their representatives in the government, can ever hope to bring an end to its tyranny.
The Union of Electors, through its publications, this paper and the French-language Vers Demain, are striving to educate the people to true principles of government and finance, the principles of Social Credit. It is working to enlighten the people, to arouse the people, to train the people how to act in order to make their wishes known effectively to the government in order that a Social Credit Society might be brought into being. Through it financial proposals of credit without interest charges for production, and a just sharing of purchasing power to consumers through the dividend, it hopes to bring to an end such absurdities as campaigns to bring charitable donations of milk to undernourished children in a land where mik is so abundant.
THE REAL DANGER
"The West was not naturally civilized. It was supernaturally civilized. Call it 'cricket', call it 'fair play', call it 'freedom', call it 'democracy', call it what you will, but it's roots are Christian and supernatural.
"There are two ways of destroying this civilisation. One is to drop a bomb on it, and even then if there are a few human roots remaining, it could grow again. And the other way is to attack its very roots, which is precisely the attack which is being mounted today by the agnostics, the materialists, the neo-intellectuals without anyone picking up a banner and marching to Aldermaston about it.
"This is the real danger, a danger far greater than any atomic bomb — that when our stockpiling is complete and technologists are two a penny, when our feet are tired of marching to Aldermaston, that then we suddenly find that the arts have been burrowing and there is nothing to defend. We find that we have the same materialism as Soviet Russia only in a more decadent form... the same complete destruction of family life and liberty. And all because we marched against the wrong people...
"This is the danger that we face today — that a Western civilization may be swallowed up in the atheistic Communism which it sets out to destroy... We pray to God that there will be something left to defend knowing that, if ever the day comes when there is nothing left to defend, we will have reached a Sodom that might well have deserved its atomic bomb.
Rt. Rev. John MURPHY
Bishop of Shrewsbury,
Quoted from The Universe, May 1st, 1959
"... since money and credit ("the means of payment") cost the banker nothing to create, there is nothing to prevent him giving it away free to the community if circumstances require it, as they most, assuredly do today, if the debts he creates so willingly against us and all human "societies" — via hire purchase (paying through the finance company or in installments — Ed.) for instance — are ever to be liquidated.
The harm it admittedly does at present resides in the fact that the banker regards the costless money and credit he creates, as his own personal property, oblivious to the fact that he creates no tangible real wealth of any kind to back up his loans.
Also, the fact that he only lends and never gives away the "means of payment" to anybody means that the debts he creates and imposes on the community every day, to enable it to carry on its business, can never really be liquidated, they can only grow; and all the world's huge National Debts testify to the fact that they do grow.
Today's borrowings and debts can only be liquidated: (nominally) by larger borrowings and debts tomorrow — larger because of the added interest — and all succeeding tomorrows must repeat the process.
It follows from these facts that every new credit the banker creates and lends is an act of inflation, which automatically dilutes and devalues everybody's money, raises prices and increases taxation."
Excerpt from a letter by H. M.M.
appearing in The Social Crediter, 5-3-60
The power of the people
Question — Would Major Douglas outline a practical plan to bring home to people a sense of their power?
Answer — When a poacher gets a young whippet he always takes it out when there is a lot of easily caught game, which he lets it catch. This gives it confidence.
That indicates a way to give people a sense of their power. First encourage people to try small things. Don't necessarily tackle the financial system straight away; tackle the local district council because there is a hole in the road and make them put it right. When you have got a number of people to see they can get a hole in the road put right, they can set out to get a new road, and so on. The principle is to try it on the dog!
Douglas — The Approach To Reality, p. 25
"It (the money power) can only be overthrown by the awokened conscience of the nation." - William Jenning Bryan:::