Social Credit Views

Thursday, 12 April 2018 21:36

Social Credit and War

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

     As today is Remembrance Day, I thought it would be appropriate for us to consider one of the implications of Social Credit theory with respect to war:

"(...) the financial system (...) is, beyond all doubt, the main cause of international friction. Since, as we have seen, no nation can buy its own production, it is inevitable that there will be a struggle for markets in which to get rid of the surplus. The translation of this commercial struggle in a military context is simply a matter of time and opportunity. "[1]

     Social Crediters have repeatedly warned that there is a chronic economic cause, entirely artificial in nature and, therefore, unnecessary, which inexorably leads nations to take up arms against each other. Due to the underlying deficiency in consumer purchasing power that afflicts all industrial societies operating under standard banking and cost-accounting conventions, countries are frequently pressured to alleviate the lack of liquidity in the domestic economy by seeking to export more than they import. A so-called "favorable trade balance" (which is undoubtedly unfavorable in real terms because it implies a net loss of real wealth) helps an economy to fill the gap between the prices of consumer goods and the consumers' income by getting rid of part of its surplus production, while, at the same time, increasing the flow of purchasing power to the consumer (through the jobs that are created and the profits that are obtained by the exporting companies). The problem is that it is mathematically impossible for all of the nations in the world to export more than they import; it is a zero-sum game. For every exporting champion, there must be a loser with a trade deficit. Countries that import more than they export are faced with a problem of a gap that has become even worse as a result of their commercial activities. Since every country is operating under the same internal deficit of purchasing power, the struggle for a favorable trade balance constitutes a struggle for survival. This leads, quite naturally, to economic conflict, or rather to economic warfare, in the form of commercial wars and "free trade” alliances, and, all too often, it can force or at least induce a military conflict. A country that does not manage to compete successfully through "innovation", hard work, and the achievement of lower prices in comparison with its rivals in the global struggle for an artificially scarce flow of purchasing power can choose to ensure its victory through war, i.e., by defeating his economic opponents on the battlefield. The real reason for the war will, of course, be more or less hidden from the public and a pretext will be found, but the war may allow the aggressor to destroy part of a rival's productive capacity and/or, through the eventual signature of peace treaties, to insist on more favorable commercial conditions for itself (as part of due reparations).

    The pressure placed on nations to compensate for their internal price-income gaps with favorable trade balances is intensified by the universally defended policy of full employment. If we madly insist, in direct opposition to the real physical potential of the modern industrial economy, that all (or almost all) must work in the formal economy in order to obtain purchasing power (or be supported by those who do), then we are demanding continued economic growth as an end in itself (as a means of distributing additional income as the population grows). The resulting production must find some outlet. If it can not be absorbed internally, a market must be secured for it abroad. It was for this reason that John Hargrave, leader of the Green Shirts (a paramilitary Social Credit group of the 1930s), courageously proclaimed on more than one occasion that "He who cries for full employment, cries for war".      

Major Douglas explored in some detail the purely economic causes behind modern war in a BBC speech entitled "The Causes of War":





[1] C. H. Douglas, The Monopoly of Credit (Sudbury, Inglaterra: Bloomfield Books, 1979), 92.



Last modified on Thursday, 12 April 2018 22:12

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.


  • Comment Link Wally Monday, 16 April 2018 05:07 posted by Wally

    Great article, Oliver—and so appropriate at this time. How tragic that innocent people are so easily seduced by appeals to loyalty and sacrifice to do the bidding of hidden influences behind the curtains who are the only ones to benefit while ordinary deceived souls must suffer en masse as mere cannon fodder. The whole thing is absolutely sickening. And those who understand human nature seem able to repeat these atrocities almost at will with unquestioning compliance of the victims who generally are historically illiterate and unsuspecting. All that is needed is the threat of an “external enemy”. Insecurity is a powerful weapon which people will do almost anything to avoid.


  • Comment Link Jim Monday, 16 April 2018 05:06 posted by Jim

    War itself should be considered an export. The whole purpose of war is to "dump" as many bombs and shells on the "importing nation" as possible without allowing the other nation to "dump" any of its exports in the form of bombs and shell in your nation.

  • Comment Link Arindam Sunday, 15 April 2018 09:07 posted by Arindam

    There is another mechanism by which the price-income gap can lead to war. Since government borrowing is one of the main methods of bridging the gap, and national security provides a convenient pretext for a massive increase in such borrowing, nations which are unsuccessful in export warfare would perhaps be tempted to create situations that justify high defence spending. Such politically tense situations could easily escalate into armed conflict.

    In relation to this, it is interesting to note that the nations that just attacked Syria, (France, UK, US) all run current account deficits, while countries which are reluctant to get directly involved (Germany, Italy, China, Japan) have current account surpluses.

Latest Articles

  • Social Credit and Democracy: The Problem - Part Three
    Thus far in this series of articles exploring the relationship between Social Credit and democracy, we have seen that conventional ‘democracy’ suffers from a large number of design faults which vitiate it and render it ineffective. That would be bad enough, but Douglas goes one step further and claims that the ineffective mechanisms of conventional ‘democracy’ provide the best possible cover for the operations of a hidden dictatorship. Not only do they provide the best possible cover, but the same mechanisms which are ineffective from the point of view of fulfilling the true purpose of political association can be rendered most effective (by being cleverly manipulated) for the purpose of fulfilling an alternative policy-objective, one that is imposed by an agency that is external to the elected ‘government’.
    Tuesday, 18 September 2018 22:58
  • Financial Credit as a Merit Good
    The debt­-finance system, by generating a chronic insufficiency of purchasing power, thereby requiring increased borrowing (in lieu of large trade surpluses) if economic activity is not to grind to a halt, causes the State ­ with its great, almost unlimited capacity to borrow, thanks to its power to tax (i.e. creditors are eager to lend to it in the knowledge that it will always have a means to pay them back), to expand its role in the economy. Thus, as society finds its purchasing power increasingly insufficient to satisfy its requirements, the State steps in, with its role becoming larger and larger as it fills the growing gap. Caught unawares by these developments, which they were utterly incapable of anticipating, economists scrambled to come up with theories explaining ­ and indeed, justifying ­ such extensive government intervention.
    Wednesday, 29 August 2018 14:16
  • Visualizing the Gap
    The central contention of the Social Credit critique of contemporary economic management (or rather mismanagement) is the existence of a gap between prices and incomes in the operation of any modern economy - i.e. an economy based on debt-finance and multi-stage, mechanized production. This underlying deficiency of purchasing power, makes it impossible to liquidate the costs of production without resorting to increased debt and/or a large trade surplus - since prices cannot fall below costs without putting the continued operation of an enterprise in peril, (unless it can rely on direct or indirect government support). Furthermore, the critique contends that this gap is bound to grow as the economy becomes more sophisticated - i.e. as production involves more and more stages, and use of machinery increases - entailing spiralling debt and increasing trade tensions if the necessary financial remedies are not applied.
    Tuesday, 28 August 2018 13:37