DO YOU HAVE ‘AN IDEA’ OR DOES ‘THE IDEA’ HAVE YOU?

Jordan B. Peterson asking the question in his interview “Religion, Myth, Science, Truth” - found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis.
“...Jung asks:  Which ideas have you and where are they suggesting that you go? 
That’s like the Greek god idea, we are playthings of the gods.  These are like metamemes,”.

This question sent me to Dr. Bryan Monahan’s “An Introduction to Social Credit”, first published 1947, second edition published 1967, and the reason being Dr. Monahan included an important passage from Cardinal Henry George Newman’s book “Development of Christian Doctrine” on this very question posed by Jordan Peterson.

Monahan’s Preface to both editions explains:
“The present increasing and dangerous plight of the whole world despite the advances continuously being made in science and the technique of power-production is forcing more and more people to an examination of the foundations of civilization and the origin of our trouble.
This little book was written originally to relate the later to the earlier phases of the doctrine first enunciated by the late Major C. H. Douglas fifty years ago, and developed by him over thirty years. The first edition has continued to serve its original purpose, but in this edition the opportunity has been taken to revise the text in the light of the rapid developments of the past twenty years in which events have brought out the significance of policies; and to incorporate some information which has become available in that period.
A glance through the index will be sufficient to reveal how much more than a matter of monetary systems is involved. Social Credit is a policy, and the only policy extant which offers citizens freedom in security, and the practical means to keep government in its proper place. It is the exact antithesis of totalitarianism.

‘Crystallised Policy’:
In the ordinary way, it is difficult to perceive history in the making. But if history is understood as crystallised policy rather than as a compilation of largely unrelated events, it can be seen in the making by those who understand the policies concerned. This has been especially the case in the twenty years since the first edition of this book.  The world of international politics is changing before our eyes, with the elimination of the British Empire and the rise of the Communist, and the United States of America becoming “the greatest Power the world has ever known”. (Remember this was written in 1967…ed)

Clifford Hugh Douglas, the author of the ideas subsequently known as Social Credit, perceived the making of history at least as early as 1917, and he recognised the predominant importance, at that time, of the economic system in the shape of things to come.
His early major books, while never losing sight of the context, and containing the germ of ideas which he elaborated in his later books, concentrated on the importance of a defective financial system.  He foresaw the Great Depression (which concentrated public attention on the economic system as nothing else would) and the Second World War.  As these events approached and passed, Douglas turned his attention more and more to the political component of political economy…
There existed, therefore, no readily available link between the earlier and the later phases of the presentation of the whole doctrine of Social Credit.
An Introduction to Social Credit was written to bridge this gap, and was published originally in serial form in The Social Crediter and The Australian Social Crediter
 
Emphasis on Philosophical and Political Aspects
Douglas’s last major book, The Brief for the Prosecution, was written and published towards the end of the war.  He continued for some time to write penetrating notes for The Social Crediter, and some longer essays, but in all these the emphasis continued to be on the philosophical and political aspects of affairs.

One of Douglas’s early predictions was that the financial system, as it was then, could not survive unmodified another war. In fact, it did not survive even that long. A breakdown was averted by the adoption of Keynesian economics - open government deficit finance. But the fundamental defect in the financing of an industrial economy remained, and its effects are now manifest in the balance of payments crises which are afflicting one country after another.

Since the end of the (WWII) war it has become ever more apparent that the defeat of the Communist Conspiracy, in whose favour a defective financial system operates, is the first and major requirement if a free society is to survive; but if and when that defeat is achieved, the defective financial system will have to be rectified, and a rectification to be finally satisfactory must proceed from fundamental  principles.  It is with these principles that Social Credit deals.

This development of the original idea is probably the ultimate criterion of its essential reality.  In his “Development of Christian Doctrine”, Cardinal J. H. Newman wrote:

“When an idea, whether real or not, is of a nature to arrest and possess the mind, it may be said to have life, that is, to live in the mind which is its recipient. Thus, mathematical ideas, real as they are, can hardly properly be called living, at least ordinarily.
But, when some great enunciation, whether true or false  about human nature, or present good, or government, or duty, or religion, is carried forward into the public throng of men and draws attention, then it is not  merely  received  passively in  this  or  that  form  into  many minds,  but  it  becomes  an  active  principle within them,  leading  them  to  an  ever-new  contemplation of  itself,  to  an  application  of  it  in  various directions,  and  a propagation  of  it  on  every  side…”

And Newman proposed seven tests of the essential unity of a doctrine, and summarised these in the statement that

“to guarantee its own substantial unity, it must be seen to be one in type, one in its system of principles, one in its unitive power towards externals, one in its logical consecutiveness, one in the witness of its early phases to its later, one in the protection which its later extend to its earlier, and one in its union of vigour with continuance, that is, in its tenacity.”

It is a temptation to apply these tests to Social Credit, but space does not allow the demonstration… it is the hope that this Introduction will overcome this difficulty to some extent which forms its second justification.
 
Newman:

“the idea which represents an object or supposed object is commensurate with the sum total of its possible aspects…; and in proportion to the variety of aspects under which it presents itself to various minds is its force and depth, and the argument for its reality.”

In the historic development of Social Credit doctrine, different aspects, all of them implicit in Douglas’s original conception, have required the contemporary emphasis.

Newman:

“There is no one aspect deep enough to exhaust the contents of a real idea, no one term or proposition which will serve to define it; though, of course, one representation of it is more just and exact than another, and when an idea is very complex, it is allowable, for the sake of convenience, to consider its distinct aspects as if separate ideas.”

Further reading: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter1.html

In answering the question “What is Social Credit?” Monahan wrote: 

C.H. Douglas drew up a specification as one of his last public activities to counteract the tendency of the Social Credit Movement, as all movements which have a philosophical basis, to develop perspective disproportionately.
 
Social Credit assumes that Society is primarily metaphysical, and must have regard to the organic relationships of its prototype.


The Church of England
The following are individual observations on a few of the issues raised in Major Douglas’s recent essay, “The Realistic Position of the Church of England”, in The Social Crediter, October 25-November 27,  1947, and we print them to stimulate attention to the  important argument they concern.

Doctrinally the Church holds grimly on to much it would be  far wiser in all probability to relinquish.  But politically and socially it seems to have lost all grip, and goes floundering forward in space-time in the wake of the so-called Progressives, the Socialists and anti-Christian exponents of the largely discredited creed of Inevitable Progress, towards an  ever-receding material millenium. That to a large extent was the Victorian Fallacy; so that, in fact; Socialism is passé and out of date - a hang-over from the pre-atomic infancy of the so-called Scientific Age. This same blindness, presumably, is the cause of the Church’s inability to see the necessity of returning politically to First Principles, and acknowledging the profound error it has committed in allowing its flock to stray from them.

With this fact in front of him, Douglas cites Magna Charta, which might be called the  charter of the Christian Sovereignty of the Individual.
All three estates of the realm were represented at Runnymede - the King, the Church, and Democracy; for the barons, he contends, represented the general population, at any rate more closely than the present popularly elected member of  Parliament.
The King was, and is, the essentially religious symbol of the body politic, and the guarantee, the keystone so to speak, of its organic structure; in the psycho-physiological sense, its literal head.

The confirmation there given was not of the pre-eminence of any one part of the whole - certainly not a confirmation, as is sometimes, contended, of the supremacy of the Pope, but of all three equally. It was imposed on a would-be dictator king, who was compelled to sign it on behalf of all three parties; clause 69 stating that, “All the aforesaid customs and privileges, and liberties . . . in as much as it belongs to us towards our people, all our subjects, as well clergy as laity, shall observe as far as they are concerned towards their dependents.”

As Douglas says, “In order to constitute a Sovereignty there must be present form, substance and sanction”; the whole must be autonomous, and, each part, within its own province and domain, must be functionally autonomous, which implies as an elementary prerogative the appointment of its own officials.
Douglas contends that since the Reformation the Church of England has had no true sovereignty, but has been potentially and progressively a State Church.

This ideal autonomy or tripodal structure, comprising form, substance, and sanction within the functional area, goes right down through every part of the body politic.
To make the analogy easier to grasp one might substitute the lesser social faculty of Medicine, at the moment threatened with Reformation. What is at stake is, in fact, the sovereign autonomy of the profession of Medicine.
Only a born fool can suppose that a medical civil servant would be able really and effectively to administer Medicine. What he administers is “government” in a medical form. The same applies to a Religious Civil Service, which is what incipiently the Church of England has been ever since the Reformation.

In Douglas’s opinion what passes for Christianity today under the aegis of the Reformed Churches is really Liberal Judaism, and involves an entirely different kind - not degree merely - of acceptance to that actually demanded by the true followers of Jesus of Nazareth and still, at least theoretically if not more than theoretically, upheld by the “unreformed” Church of Rome.

The basis of real acceptance is embodied in the doctrine, founded not on the theory, but on the fact of the Incarnation; incarnation as a working political principle. 
He  says: “At bottom, what we have got to make up our mind upon is whether human political action is subject to the same kind or some kind of compulsion to be ‘right’ as we accept in doing a multiplication sum, and if  so, whether the Christian Church, the  Mystical Body of  Christ, is the living incarnation of that ‘right-ness’ ‘’.

So to speak truly embodies that idea or truth, and brings it down to earth, and into practical politics. That is essential Religion (or binding again, or back); the relating of ethical truth to natural fact, or vice versa.  That Church - and we must not forget that Douglas is speaking of the structural, organised religious body - that Church is right, he contends, in spite of all its defects that upholds Reason, in face of all dialectical and “rationalistic” arguments.

At first sight that seems to be a difficult statement to follow, but it will help us if we keep in mind that the very foundation of all reason, all conscious mentality, is the fact that this space-time universe of the senses is a relative universe, and contains nothing absolute in a dialectical sense – as it were, nothing absolutely worshipful as being real in itself. Of that natural fact or idea the Church is, or should be, the incarnation, exemplifying it in its own organic structure or  organisation.

Magna Charta, which, as Douglas says, “remains as a witness that that idea was inherent in English life seven hundred years ago” proclaimed that Supreme Power rested with no one part, or leg, of the body politic; but that it was to be seen, as reflection (relatively revealed), in the Law governing the relation of the parts to the whole and to each other….
Current so-called democratic ideas, with their absurd assertion of the absolute rights of majorities, and the unqualified supremacy of Parliaments; the whole ignorant, childish and essentially modern movement of  Supreme Statism, is the denial and defiance of Natural Law.

To bring the matter down from the nation to the individual, Douglas says:
“For all practical purposes a man has unqualified supremacy to jump off Beachy Head; but he cannot avoid the consequences.  A Cabinet can pass laws confiscating under the name of taxation, the work of a man’s life-time and the land his family has dignified for centuries; but it cannot avoid the consequences.  The crucial point is . . . is there a ‘moral’ law connecting political transgression with national punishment?  Contemporary governments clearly think there is not, that they are free to legislate in a moral vacuum.”

That they do so think and act, is their aberration which will have its retribution; but that they do so without rebuke from the Church of England, without the whole body of the Reformed Christian Churches rising up to point out how seriously and desperately they are in error, is the measure of the separation of those Churches from realism and the Christian concept of Natural Law.
That is effective Religion; the continuous rebinding or  “binding back” and relating of human political action to the Natural Law of Cause and Effect, which is the function of the Church.

Douglas here quotes the antithesis to the Christian concept of the Rule of Natural Law from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:

“The political has nothing in common with the moral. . . . The word ‘right’ is an abstract thought, and proved by nothing. . . . The result justifies the means.”

That is the authentic voice of the abstract State, protesting its theoretical immunity from the operation of the Natural Law, but Christianity proclaims the Natural Law, reflected and operative through the individual. It is not concerned with groups, as groups, but in them only as representative of the individuals composing them, whom it is its object to preserve in separativeness.
“The mass is unsavable,” says Douglas, “just as the mob is  insane...  The object of anti-Christ is to keep mankind in ever larger mobs … thus defeating the object of Christ.”
And he alludes to “the unsatisfactory part which the Church of  England plays in  the world drama, and the altered attitude which seems to be essential to its  survival….”

And he concludes: “A church that cannot see that Europe was free and attractive to just the extent that it was Christian and is  torn with dissension, and is losing its charm to the extent that it is Socialistic, has betrayed its vocation.”

Douglas’ ‘Underworld’ – ‘Chaos’
The attack of the collectivist Might-is-Right school on the Christian individual is occult, underground and terrorist. As long as it can avoid exposure, it operates with deadly effect; so that its first objective is control of the means of information, in order that it may form opinions favourable to its thesis, and discourage those opposed to it.
As an example of the methods of occultism, Douglas alludes to the presumption of Lord Samuel, with his particular background and racial origin, assuming with superficially philosophic blandness in the House of Lords the discreditability of the hereditary principle, when his own race, of which he makes no disclaimer, exists and is solely maintained by a passionate and obsessed devotion to the principle of heredity. The combination of that statement and the particular man who made it, constitute an “incarnate lie”, an embodied contradiction in terms, and a personal exemplification of the statement from the Protocols, that” “the word ‘right’ is an abstract thought, and proved by nothing.” Either the noble Lord is all that or he is the prince of self-deceivers. Most likely he displays both aspects concurrently. In which case he represents an acute case of schizophrenia, embodying in himself the negative proof of what he states to be unprovable: Right.  It is but a step, as Douglas comments, “to saying that it is equally indefensible for any man to sit in Parliament merely because he is an Englishman.”

That is the accepted technique of forensic aggression, or mental intimidation to assume that the foundation of your opponent’s whole case is universally discredited. Western Christendom would appear to have no answer to these “third- degree” methods on the part of the Devil’s Advocate. The reason for this is that in as far as any person or group of persons espoused Christianity, or the cult of Truth, they have abandoned argument and dialectic as entirely alien to Truth, which is, and may not usefully protest, and which is essentially whole and not partial (partisan).

Ultimately such a group or individual, is, in a quite literal sense, reduced to silence, and can only present “itself”’, the incarnate word, as the irrefutable statement of its own belief. Such was the experience of Jesus of Nazareth, and such, possibly, is the position today of Christendom, or more narrowly Great Britain and the British Empire. (Remember, this was written in 1947…ed) That, no doubt, is only partially true, because it cannot be denied that modern Christendom has seriously wavered in its faith, and fallen down on its convictions.

From this Douglas conclude[d] that Christianity must first of all regain its locus standi, (i.e., right to speak) as something “inherent in the very warp and woof of the universe”.

Where Does The Idea Take You?
It would be time well spent if you now watched and considered Jordan Peterson’s video “Religion, Myth, Science, Truth” -
found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis.

The full notes by Norman Webb of C.H. Douglas’ “The Realistic Position of the Church of England” can be found on the League’s website in “The Social Crediter” Vol.19, Nos. 21 and 22 1948.

COMMENT ON TROUNCING OF LIBERALS IN W.A.
CIA is hacking devices that are not even connected...