Good evening, I would like to thank Arnis Luks and Ken Grundy for inviting me to give this presentation at the 2020 ALOR Conference. The theme that was set for my talk was how the people could regain control of the forces of the crown through effective and genuine political democracy. But what I want to suggest is that before anything like effective and genuine democracy is even possible, the crown must be allowed to recover its proper powers and jurisdiction. In other words, we need a real monarchy with teeth if we are ever to expect any real improvement to our social, economic, political and cultural situation. And only under a monarchy with real executive power, can real and genuine democracy and freedom be established and maintained.
This is very much in line with C.H. Douglas's analysis of the political situation both in his time (early twentieth century) and also where we find ourselves today in 2020. C.H. Douglas stated in his work “Realistic Constitutionalism” (someone I will be quoting throughout this speech) that: “constitutionalism is an extension of the very comprehensive subject we call Social Credit”.[i] Why? Why is that so? Because constitutionalism deals with what constitutes the correct structure of society. It is grounded in objective reality and in laws that transcend human thinking and which must be re-discovered, obeyed and correctly applied if we are to have a successful society. For this talk on the subject of politics and systems of governance, I will be focusing on the Anglo political tradition of Great Britain. In relation to this, I will also be talking about and explaining the Social Credit economic and monetary reform proposals by C.H. Douglas.
The historical political constitution and institutions of the United Kingdom and by extension, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and all other Commonwealth countries have been what Douglas referred to as the “Trinitarian” constitution of the three civil powers of the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with each possessing and exercising real power with the King being the primary and over-arching holder and empowered custodian of the same. It is this constitution which, according to Douglas, marked the most prosperous, stable and successful times Great Britain has ever experienced, but has been gradually eroded and destroyed by the rise of the supremacy of the House of Commons over all other institutions, especially that of the monarch. Douglas explains this again in “Realistic Constitutionalism”: “When England had a genuine Trinitarian Constitution, with three inter-related and inter-acting loci of sovereignty, the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, these ideas were instinctive and those were the days of Merrie England. Since the Whig Revolutions of 1644 and 1688, and the foundation of the Bank of England under characteristically false auspices in 1694, the Constitution has been insidiously sapped by the Dark Forces which knew its strength, and the obstacle which it offered to treachery. We now have only the mere shell of the Constitution, Single Chamber Government dominated by Cartels and Trades Unions, (Mond-Turnerism), based on unitary sovereignty, to which the next step is the secular materialistic totalitarian State, the final embodiment of power without responsibility.”[ii]
The decline and loss of the power of the monarch in Britain and the coinciding rise of the supremacy of parliament was a long, gradual process over hundreds of years. It started with King Henry VIII's summoning of parliament to loot the Catholic Church and its monasteries in England to enrich the members of parliament and the ascendant mercantile class and money-power which backed King Henry and the parliament. The growing power of the protestant parliamentarians, merchants and the money-power of London later challenged the direct rule of King Charles I. This resulted in a civil war between the royalists and parliamentarians culminating in the king being forcefully deposed and executed in 1649 and be replaced by the puritan dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell further looted and persecuted the Church and peasantry, thus further cementing the power of the merchants and the domination of money. Cromwell was later deposed and executed and the Stuart dynasty was restored under King Charles II in 1660, who attempted to restore the power of the monarch. Such a venture failed in the end when his successor James II was forcefully deposed by the parliamentarians and merchants in 1688 and replaced by the protestant William of Orange who favoured their cause. Thus, the royal power of the English monarch was destroyed and they were made, for the most part, powerless figure heads rubber stamping the supreme will of the House of Commons. Some future British monarchs such as Queen Victoria and Edward VIII (until he was also deposed) exercised only very limited and fleeting executive power over the state. The money-power and parliament in England were triumphant.
The political partisans of the turbulent time of 1600s Britain became known as cavaliers and roundheads, the former being those in support of high church Anglicanism or Catholicism and an empowered monarchy of the Stuarts and the latter being those who favoured Calvinism and Puritanism and the supremacy of parliament over England. The conservative political term “Tory” originally referred to Irish rebels and Royalists who were resisting the Puritan Cromwell regime. Similarly, the political term “Whig” originally referred to the parliamentarians and merchants. Thus the true and original conservative tradition of Anglo-nations and peoples is the trinitarian system of government of an empowered monarch and a limited bicameral parliament with an aristocratic upper house and a democratic lower house which are both limited and subject to the monarch, the high Church, and the common law.
What the trinitarian system of government means is that the principle of the supremacy of parliament is erroneous and dangerous. Consider, for example, the fact that a parliament elected on a majority vote should be allowed to enact any policy which contravenes the common law. In order to safeguard the common law, would be better for it to be entrusted to the Lords spiritual and temporal, i.e., the Christian clergy and a classically educated aristocracy, as well as the king. Douglas explains this again in “Realistic Constitutionalism”, quote: “Speaking, not of course as a lawyer, but as a student of history and organisation, it is my opinion that the restoration of the supremacy of Common Law, the removal of encroachments upon it, and the establishment of the principle that legislation by the House of Commons impinging upon it is ultra vires, is an urgent necessity. The locus of sovereignty over Common Law is not in the electorate, because Common Law did not derive from the electorate and indeed ante-dated any electorate in the modern sense. In the main, it derived from the Medieval Church, perhaps not directly, but from the climate of opinion which the Church disseminated.[iii] … the strengthening and elevation of Common Law, and its repository in the care of an effective Second, non-elective, Chamber, … clearly defined limits must be placed on the power of a House of Commons elected on a majority principle.”[iv] … It appears to me that a properly empowered and constituted House of Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, is the natural guardian of Common Law, as the Barons demonstrated at Runnymede.”[v]
At the apex of this trinitarian state is, of course, the king and royal family, the sovereign head of state and master and commander of the armed forces who reigns over and directs the houses of parliament and all other organs of the state. This kingship stands above and overrides that of the rule of politicians in parliament and maintains a check on their power and subjects them to a higher power greater than themselves. The kings attain their office via hereditary succession and are trained for political life from a very young age. Most members of the House of Lords similarly attain their positions via hereditary succession. The importance, value and effectiveness of the hereditary principle in ensuring good governance cannot be denied for the following reasons: it prevents popular demagoguery, greed and political opportunism of elected politicians from corrupting and ruining the state; it enshrines the utmost importance of the natural human family of husband, wife and children as the basis for the state and society; it develops and fosters national culture and tradition through generations of experience and learning being passed on; and it ensures political stability and longevity rather than chaos and constantly changing politics. Douglas also explained this in Realistic Constitutionalism saying: “The essential soul of a nation is in its character, its culture and tradition. The King is the natural embodiment of Honours and Sanctions—of Culture and Tradition and, as such, is naturally the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. So that our problem seems to resolve itself into a real understanding and restoration of the functions we have allowed to decay.”[vi] However this executive power held by the monarch is not absolute in the sense that he can do as he or she pleases without any restraint or accountability. The King's power is subject to the rule of common law and is checked by the laws of God and His Church (which he or she is formed by) and by the legal restraints of the trinitarian constitution and its houses of parliament. And whilst the danger of ending up with an incompetent or tyrannical king is a possibility, I say it's better to take the risk of possibly being ruled by one bad hereditary king than likely ending up being ruled by hundreds of bad elected politicians.
The Catholic Church and later the high Anglican Church in England exercised a pivotal role in forming and guiding the conscience and rule of the monarchs and defining the universal common law of the commonwealth under which the King and parliament must operate and not alter to their liking. Douglas explains this in his work “The Realistic Position of the Church of England”:
“On this particular subject of the role which the Christian Church can and ought to play in the political life of a nation grounded on Christian principles, Douglas observed the following: “[T]he Divine Right of Kings” which, with improvements, has been taken over by the Socialists, was strictly derivative and contingent on the agreement of the Church. That this had a real validity is amply proved by the success of European civilisation in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, during which period the balance of spiritual and temporal powers was a living organism.”[vii]
Since the rise of the money power in England 400 years ago with the execution of Charles I, the institution of the British monarchy and its effective power has been gradually eroded ever since with the last of the monarchy's real power being eviscerated in 1936 with the forced abdication of King Edward VIII. Douglas explained this in his article “The Victory of His Majesty King Edward VIII”: “The Institution of Monarchy, in the form in which we know it, has been blown to atoms, not by King Edward, but by those who wished to use the shell of an authority, which has obviously passed from it, as a screen behind which they could govern for their own ends, without scruple and without responsibility.” He went on to speak of the ‘break-up of the Institution of Monarchy’, describing it as ‘an anachronism in its present form’.”[viii] As another example of this closer to home, the state of Victoria, Australia, issued an amendment to its constitution in 2003 which stripped the power of her Majesty’s governor of that state to dissolve parliament at will and without the consent of the state premier or a no confidence motion. This is poignant and ironic considering the current Victorian state premier’s draconian and totalitarian lockdown policies in response to the COVID19 pandemic.
So thus, the British monarchy has been reduced to a purely ceremonial figurehead with all the trappings and aesthetics of royalty, but is a monarchy in name only with power chiefly being exercised by the prime minister and members of parliament and all in the name of “the people” via “democracy” as described by the official historical narrative and propaganda of the elites. But this is not true, the power of the kings in England were stripped by the forces of the merchant class, the private banking sector and the financial oligarchs of London for the enrichment and empowerment of the same. Douglas explains this again in “Realistic Constitutionalism”: “Close attention to the evidence has convinced me of degeneracy from a marvellous Constitution in the last three hundred years, accompanied by the atrophy of a sense of continuity—the idea that history is a disconnected episode, instead of being, as it is, crystallised policy. The main agency through which that degeneracy has operated has been the Bank of England and its credit system, the Ways and Means Account, the National Debt, and the usurpation of the taxation power. All these matters have gone to magnify the powers of bribery and corruption, and these in turn have logically been directed against the strength of the pre-Cromwellian Constitution.”[ix]
Gone was Merrie England, where its peasantry once enjoyed one third of the year as public holidays, to a state where the peasants were being socially and economically disadvantaged and crushed by the rise of the bourgeois mercantile class and financial oligarchs of London. The peasantry was uprooted from the land and reduced to wage slaves and the working men became either property-less or debt loaded wards of high finance. Catholics and high Anglicans were persecuted and the classical arts and traditional folk culture were suppressed and sacked. And the ascendancy and monopoly of the money-power has now, in modern times, grown to such an extent that the natural human family itself has been broken up and suppressed, at least among the lower income classes, by cripplingly high costs of living and housing due to bank debt and the forcing of both mothers and fathers to work outside the home in the name of so-called “women's liberation”. The promotion and legalisation of no-fault divorce, abortion, euthanasia, contraception, feminism and same-sex marriage by the same financial oligarchs for their own benefit has also contributed to the destruction of the family and Western society as a whole. Life has become cheap, sterile, fickle, materialistic, noisy, stressful and busier than ever and has become a dog-eat-dog competition for money, jobs, and even family establishment and financial security that older generations took for granted in their youth. Cultural identities, communities and family structures have been so systematically broken down that people have been reduced to powerless and weak atomised individuals. Every government must, by default, have a Logos underpinning its very reason for existence and the Logos and religion of the government of the financial oligarchy and its politicians is that of the love, pursuit and worship of money above all else for the sake of that same oligarchy. The human citizens under their rule are reduced to mere economic units all destined for the purpose of production and consumption. The golden calf has once again been erected in the place of God. But let’s not forget what our Lord Himself says via Saint Paul in 1 Timothy 6:10: “For the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith, and have entangled themselves in many sorrows.”[x]
Douglas explains the nature of the plutocratic oligarchy we are governed by now in his work, “Security Institutional and Personal”: “... we are governed in the aristocratic tradition by a hypocritical and selfish oligarchy with one idea, and one fundamental idea only; the ascendancy of money, and the essential monopoly of it.”[xi] In this way, the mother country and the commonwealth nations are now governed by oligarchies of faceless men and women who manipulate and direct political, economic and social life through the media and elected politicians via the so-called “democratic” process.
These politicians, in most cases, are opportunists by nature who acquire their office through shrewd and smooth talking charisma, as well as through financial backing by corporations, financial institutions, lobby groups and public policy think tanks. An example of this in Australia, one amongst many, is the Grattan Institute, an organisation that promotes the interests of big business and high finance in politics and receives funding from state and federal governments, universities, corporations and banks. Big business and financial interests often deliberately provide funding to both opposing mainstream political parties in parliament in order to create a controlled opposition and a façade of political accountability and popular determination. But no matter which party is elected, the money-power is always in charge of policy behind the scenes for its own benefit. Opposing political leaders and parties will frequently tout “growth and jobs” or “jobs and growth” at every election, claiming to correct errors or improve governance over that of the previous elected government. The future policy visions and planning of elected politicians are often short-sighted and focused on just getting re-elected at the next election a few years later. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can run for office and get elected as long as he can talk a good line and have financial backing from the money-power to fund his or her election campaign. The House of Commons or representatives must work in committee with hundreds of members involved. New policy or legislation must be endlessly debated, fought over and voted upon just to get enacted. Such a political process is incapacitated or delayed by division, incompetence and in-action. Just judging from my own experience in running a body corporate committee for a small unit complex, committees are prone to disorder, in-fighting, corruption and dysfunction.
One of the most dangerous aspects of liberal democracy and the absolute rule of the house of commons or representatives is that the voting people are placed under the illusion that as long as they exercise their right to vote in elections, no tyranny can ever manifest and an almost absolute legitimacy is given to politicians and all they legislate, say and do in political office. This bestows upon politicians and parliaments vast power that is beyond what any absolute monarchs or dictators ever dreamt of. Under this system of elected government, the danger of totalitarianism is ever-more present when, for example, governments can mandate possibly ineffective or dangerous vaccines or impose lockdowns during supposed pandemics via fear or panic mongering despite the virus in question having a very low death rate. In turn, the people or the masses, manipulated or directed by whatever financial oligarchy, media, or capricious and emotional thoughts or reactions, can vote or be directed to vote for whichever party or policy they like, no matter how foolish or immoral it is and regardless of the consequences for themselves and the nation. And having a population that is ignorant, socially and economically illiterate, or morally degenerate makes this system of popular governance all the more dangerous. Douglas explains this also in Realistic Constitutionalism: “Vox populi is not only not vox Dei, but such empirical psychologists as Gustave le Bon have demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that in itself it is far more likely to be vox diaboli.”[xii] Such a fraudulent and corruptible political system as this fosters both a populace and class of politicians without any responsibility or accountability for their actions and the consequences thereof, such as irresponsible and dangerous mass migration, construction of faulty or inadequate infrastructure, or a reckless and inefficient use of funds or resources.
Since the full embrace of absolute rule of democratically elected committees, Western nations have been experiencing a disintegration and loss of their cultural identity and moral values. Religious faith has also diminished and respect and maintenance of legitimate authority in the family and wider society has been breaking down. This is because liberal democracy by nature promotes the philosophy of liberalism, where anything goes and nothing is permanent and all inhibitions and obstacles to freedom of vice and avarice must be torn down. Any policy or legislation, regardless of how insane or immoral it is, can be approved with a show of hands. Such moral and cultural decline has been more so the case in Western nations than even in communist and former communist countries!
If we are serious about preventing the decline and downfall of Christian Western civilisation, we have to accept the fact that universal liberal democracy as it stands is the problem and not the solution. Douglas made this point in “Realistic Constitutionalism” saying: “But conditions have developed in this century, beginning in their modern phase after the South African War and the Parliament Act, but taking more sinister form in 1931, which make it imperative that we put the frame-work of our house in order to enable us to rectify both our housekeeping and our external business. Our present situation is not adventitious—it is the outcome of a venomous hatred and envy of our indigenous qualities. If anyone is foolish enough to suppose that the prestige of this country and the Empire, and with them, the welfare of the population, can be restored by an appeal to an anonymous, irresponsible, and mis-instructed ballot-box democracy, I can assure them that, if their opinion should prevail and our destinies be submitted to decision by that process, the outcome is a mathematical certainty—our final eclipse.”[xiii]
The ancient Greek and Christian philosophers such as Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas viewed democracy (on its own) to be the worst form of government, with monarchy being the best and aristocracy being second best. St. Thomas Aquinas called for a mixed form of all three, similar to the trinitarian form spoken of by Douglas. Democracy can be genuine, effective and work for the common good of the people as long as it is well ordered and kept in its proper place. The power of democratic committees must be limited and regulated by an over-arching higher power and the voting franchise responsible for electing these committees must be public and limited to qualified persons who are knowledgeable in governance, classical arts, economics, headship of families and property ownership. The democratic assembly must be regulated and guided by that of the monarchy, an un-elected House of Lords or senators, common law and the Christian church to prevent it from corrupting and ruining the nation.
C.H. Douglas argues that for government to be truly effective and just, there needs to be a democracy of policy and a hierarchy of administration. In other words, the people must determine what their real physical, material and cultural needs are and the policies that are needed to support those needs and a hierarchical form of government needs to be established to implement those policies, especially the polices of Douglas Social Credit. C. H. Douglas says in his work “The Nature of Democracy”: “... nothing but the rehabilitation of democracy in a genuine sense, and with an understanding of its limits will enable Social Credit to become an actual fact.”[xiv]
The great early twentieth century Anglo-French writer, historian, distributist and even politician Hilaire Belloc says that democracy only works best when it is small and limited. Otherwise, it devolves into a state of plutocracy. I quote the following from him in his splendid book Monarchy, A Study of Louis XIV: “Democracy. Alas! It is possible only in small states, and even these must enjoy exceptional defences, moral or material, if they are to survive. So defended, whether by natural obstacles, or by an agreement among their neighbours, democracies very limited in scale have endured: Andorra after at least a thousand years in her mountain valleys is still here. But, for the most part, the lesser communities are absorbed in the greater, and not till these break up can democracy (in the smaller fragments) reappear”[xv]
In his same book, Belloc says that historically, most nations have either been governed by monarchies or plutocratic republics. I quote him again: “The human story, as a whole, tells of Kingship on the one hand, on the other of Republics under accepted authority of the rich; of enduring democracy hardly anything... Of these two main forms, Monarchy and Aristocracy, Monarchy is the commoner by far. Men perpetually associate themselves under individual Rulers: they only here and there, and exceptionally, form permanent states ordered by a ruling class.
This prevalence of Monarchy through the ages is due to two forces: ﬁrst that men think of themselves, at heart, as equals in right; next, that men armed for battle or organised for civil action can best achieve their objects under a leader. Filled with an obscure resentment against the power of mere wealth, or even caste, men will applaud and follow One who shall be master of their masters. The Monarch incarnates the common man, in his multitude, as well as the whole society over which he himself presides. Also, men can only act if they are embrigaded under a hierarchy of command leading up to one Commander: nearly all great common enterprises must be ordered so, and in the supreme test of war armies are led and battles won by a single will and brain.”[xvi]
Belloc then goes on to say that an established monarchy with real executive power is the best means for curbing and defeating the plutocratic money-power: “Such is the sway of Monarchy over men’s minds. But there is one practical quality about it which, in social effect, outweighs all others and is connected with all its qualities. Monarchy is the sole effective protection, in a large state, of the common citizen against the mastery of wealth. Napoleon summarised that truth in lapidary fashion. Monarchy, he said, is the one device discovered by man for the curbing of the money-power.... Age after age has proved this truth not only by reason but by experiment. Seeing what wealth can do, nothing can check its control of society save the presence of a master too rich to be bribed and too strong to be beaten down..... By all this we see the meaning and advantage of Monarchy to the state, to organised mankind, for which it secures representation and a personal voice, protection, direction and order under authority. Monarchy is also the political guarantee of the governed and Charles Stuart spoke that truth on the scaffold when he said that he died for the People of England.”[xvii]
It is this contest between the monarchical power and the money-power, like the battle between David and Goliath that I will talk about in relation to the monetary reform program of C.H. Douglas that is Social Credit. One of the main policies of Social Credit is to establish national sovereignty over the nation's financial system and its creation and issue of money so it is not beholden to international private banks. This kind of financial sovereignty is most essential to maintaining any kind of national sovereignty, without which, the nation is held in bondage by private bank debt regardless of its official claims to sovereignty. This will allow the nation to create its own credit to fund its public services and infrastructure projects. Another central policy agenda of Social Credit is the establishment of a National Dividend paid to every individual citizen as a shareholder in the nation’s total production and profit. This dividend will provide every citizen with basic financial security and stave off poverty and ensure there is sufficient credit to buy all the goods and services being produced. This income detached from work is becoming a practical necessity now due to mass technological automation of jobs, so full employment is becoming no longer sustainable. The amount issued is calculated to the nation's total production of goods and services, which are in high surplus now due to increased production from technological automation. The private banking sector and its money lending would need to be regulated so to prevent inflation, since that is the main cause of inflationary pressures. Far from being an enemy of honest business and private enterprise within just bounds, Douglas Social Credit and the state will encourage and support private enterprise, especially small business which is the basis of the private sector economy. The National Dividend will give enterprising individuals financial stability to start their own businesses. All or most of the welfare state will be abolished and replaced by the National Dividend which will result in less bureaucracy and smaller government. The dividend is not means tested and will be received on top of the wages one receives from work or not. If too many people are idle without working then the dividend will go down due to decreased production, thus indicating the need for more labour.
One of the main philosophical tenets of Douglas’s Social Credit is that the true purpose of the economy is to provide all necessary goods and services with the least amount of trouble to everyone. Work is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. For according to the philosophy of Douglas Social Credit, the true definition and measure of freedom in a given society and its political and economic order is its ability and willingness to provide basic and sufficient financial security and leisure outside that of servile labour to all citizens so they may pursue and cultivate their spiritual, familial, cultural and personal lives and gifts. Leisure is the basis of culture and of any civilisation worthy of the name. However, this freedom of leisure is not to be abused by citizens or used for vice or narcissism. Thus, it is the role and purpose of the empowered monarchy along with the Church and other legislatures and judicial organs of the state to enforce order and maintain the common good in the body politic. Thus Holy Scripture again instructs us regarding the divinely willed purpose of the king and state in Peter II 2:14-17 “Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good: For so is the will of God, that by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not as making liberty a cloak for malice, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”[xviii] 1 Timothy 2:2 also explains the role of kingship: “For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity."[xix]
One of the greatest advantages of real monarchy is that the monarch has real power and the means to exercise his authority and implement and enact policies and changes without being bogged down by the corruption, divisions and sluggishness that typically plagues democratically elected parliaments. Because of this, an empowered monarchy represents the best means to implement Social Credit and the national sovereign control of money. Getting Social Credit policies implemented via the democratic process has been tried and failed repeatedly because the democratic system is too corruptible and structurally ineffective for implementing such far reaching and radical reforms.
So my main point in this presentation is that if we want to have any hope of salvaging and restoring our Western civilisation, real and active executive power of the Christian hereditary monarchy as well as the Anglo-commonwealth tradition of the trinitarian system government of Christian kingship, lords and commons must be restored and strengthened and democracy must be kept in its proper and limited place.
Many of you must be thinking that what I’m proposing in this presentation is politically impossible, fantastical and unrealistic. Some of you may be thinking that getting rid of liberal democracy now will result in communist or totalitarian states instead. Well, perhaps in the immediate here and now that is true, but ultimately, we must, in principle, have this Christian philosophical ideal of real monarchy and economic equity as our final endgame political goal. Getting some mildly conservative politicians or parties elected here or there is not going to save our civilisation in the end. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t do such things to slow or delay the progress of liberalism. But only true civilisational metanoia and political structural change can effect a genuine result. We each must play our own small parts in our places and times to eventually bring about this desperately needed change in the direction of our civilisation. Revolution and counter-revolution and history work in generations and centuries. The current socio-political order cannot and will not last, as history has repeatedly shown, so we must prepare the Christian monarchical and Social Credit political and economic orders to be ready to offer an alternative when the current socio-political order eventually falls on its sword. Until then, as far as getting the reforms of Douglas Social Credit accepted and implemented, other more effective means beyond the fickle and incapacitated democratic process should be sought, such as: making contact with and influencing high-ranking government bureaucrats, finance ministers or high profile and very wealthy families or individuals who may be interested or sympathetic to its cause.
To conclude this presentation, we, as the people of the Anglo cultural and political tradition, must make it our business to, through whatever means, whether it be by hook or by crook, restore the constitution that nourished and developed our Christian European culture and created and built our civilisation of true and genuine freedom, order, justice, peace and equity for all. C.H. Douglas also made this point in Realistic Constitutionalism: “… we grew a Constitution, and our business is to free it from the weeds which are choking it, and to restore its power and effectiveness.”[xx] Thank you.
[ii] Ibid. 3.
[iii] Ibid. 3.
[iv] Ibid. 4.
[v] Ibid. 4.
[vi] Ibid. 4.
[viii] C.H. Douglas, The Victory of His Majesty King Edward VIII, Social Credit, Vol. 5, No. 19
[x] Douay Rheims Bible, Timothy I 6:10
[xiii] Ibid. 5.
[xv] Hilaire Belloc, Monarchy, A Study of Louis XIV (The Chapel River Press, Andover, Hants, United Kingdom, 1938) 6.
[xvi] Ibid. 6-7.
[xvii] Ibid. 8, 10.
[xviii] Douay Rheims Bible, Peter II 2:14-17