Posted on: September 24, 2016 by M. Oliver Heydorn

Category: Social Credit Views

Social Credit and Mass Migration

     We live now in an age of mass migrations and of rumours of mass migrations. With the term ‘mass migration’ we are referring, of course, to the movement, not merely of large numbers of people, but of whole groups of people, who constitute various racial-cultural gestalts, en masse from one nation or region to another. When it comes to explaining why this mass migration has been occurring, why it is, on the whole, a negative phenomenon, and what can be done to reduce migratory flows to saner proportions and saner forms, Social Credit theory has much to contribute to the public discourse.

The Economic Cause Behind Mass Migration

     It has been commonplace to explain the existence of mass migration in the modern era in terms of technological advancements and particularly in terms of revolutions in communication and transport facilities, as though it were all a largely natural development. This overlooks the fact that a great deal of the more recent waves of mass migration, those with which we are most familiar, has actually been an effect of an international economic policy. Technology is what makes the mass migration possible, to be sure, but it really does not explain why it is happening. To this question of why, Social Credit provides an original and cogent answer.

     The Social Credit analysis of cost reveals that the standard financial system is inherently unbalanced. It does not automatically provide the consumer with sufficient money in the form of income to offset the costs of production. This chronic lack or deficiency of consumer buying power means that the economy is also fundamentally unstable because it is, to a greater or lesser degree, structurally insolvent. In order to restore stability, the present economic model attempts to achieve an approximation of equilibrium by: a) borrowing into existence additional producer credit from the private banks in order to finance business expansion (especially for additional capital and export goods) or new government production, or else by: b) borrowing into existence additional consumer credit directly in the form of consumer loans. In both cases, the economy is committing itself to a programme of perpetual economic growth in order to keep itself afloat. Growth is mandated as the condition of the possibility of economic survival.

     Countries that have been more or less successful in filling the price-income gap thus have a powerful incentive to steadily increase the populations within their borders so that their economies can continue to expand. If the native citizenry are not having a sufficient number of children to support the required level of growth, large numbers of additional producer-consumer units, otherwise known as human beings, must be ‘imported’ from the outside in order to maintain the economic momentum. At the same time, economically stagnant countries that have been less successful in bridging the gap, or even in just producing goods and services in the first place, are also provided with an incentive to export people for whom they cannot furnish an adequate livelihood. This releases some of the economic, social, and political pressure which those unemployed or under-employed citizens place upon their respective nations, and especially on whatever social services they may possess.

The Negative Character of Mass Migration

     Respect for the organic, i.e., that which arises spontaneously from within, is a hallmark of Social Credit philosophy and policy. Social Credit’s great objection to mass migration and to the type of multicultural societies which mass migration produces is the thoroughly inorganic character of both. People do not fall prey to a spontaneous desire to permanently uproot themselves by journeying thousands of miles away from home, often inter-continentally, because they have an overwhelming wish to enrich someone else’s culture or for the love of travel. They do it because the reigning financial system (amongst other possible factors) makes it difficult, if not extremely difficult, for many people to achieve a decent standard of living in their own countries of origin. The more well-to-do nations are all too eager to welcome these immigrants, who may be likened to ‘refugees’ fleeing financial oppression, as potential economic adjuncts. Provided that the money is forthcoming, these people will produce and above all consume, thus helping to satisfy the need for continual economic growth.

     This forced movement of people creates a number of problems, however. In the first place, it leads to the dilemma of integration. Throughout the world, and especially the Western world, different sorts of people are being forced to live in the same geographical space because of circumstances which have been imposed on all of them by external forces. At the same time, societies must, by necessity, enjoy a certain degree of social cohesion in order to function. [1] But how do you successfully bind disparate people together who have no real common interests beyond the economic, which, under the existing system, is to say ‘money’? The two great models that have been developed to address the challenge of integration are the melting pot, typified by the United States, and the multicultural mosaic model, which some might say is typified by Canada. The first policy attempts to dissolve individual cultural differences in the name of a common identity, while the second dissolves the common identity in the name of preserving individual cultural differences. Both policies are bound to fail; the first by denying or at least downplaying the incommunicability of organically derived cultures and the second by failing to meet the functional necessity of a society for a substantive common identity and bond. Both policies are policies of forced integration and forcing disparate groups of people to live together is utopian, i.e., out of step with reality:

Without carrying the German conception of Blut und Boden to the absurd lengths characteristic of its protagonists, only the type of mind which has absorbed the abstractions of Bloomsbury would dispute the large element of truth which it embodies. A nation is amongst other factors a culture, and while a culture probably contains many components which do not derive from the soil, it is certain that no culture which is not rooted in the soil and racially related to it has the character of permanence. [2]

It is of the essence of Social Credit ideas that there is an organic connection between peoples, races, and individuals, and the soils of particular portions of the earth’s surface which are individualistic.[3]

     The second major problem with mass migration is the problem posed to the survival of the host culture. Just as there is a right not to be displaced, there is also a right not to be invaded. Any and all people who share a historically-derived cultural unity have a natural right to protect, preserve, and promote their own common identity, way of life, and heritage, as well as to be free to determine their own common destiny (by establishing a government that genuinely represents their own interests), provided that in doing so they always act in keeping with the moral law. Speaking within a British context, Douglas thought that a sensible level of immigration would involve small numbers of culturally compatible individuals (as opposed to large groups). The price of violating this policy-proposal would be the loss of continuity with the past and the eventual destruction of British culture:

It is not difficult to apprehend that naturalisation laws have a vital bearing on this matter, and that naturalisation laws are affected not merely quantitatively but essentially by the relation of the culture of the immigrant to that of the country of his choice. Apart from a few points of the seabord, for instance, the culture of the North American Continent in the seventeenth century was that of the North American Indian.

Immigration has wiped out that culture, not wholly or even principally through frontier massacre, but by the sheer incompatibility of the indigenous culture with that of the immigrant. The immigrant himself was in the main a variant of the general European culture although of differing national stocks, and a culture with recognisable European features was characteristic of the United States until the last quarter of the nineteenth century, as it is in Canada to-day. A consideration of the history of American expansion leads a grimly humorous aspect to the solicitude for India now so prevalent in the United States.

The immigration and the culture which is being forced upon Great Britain by every device of propaganda and covert political, social, and economic pressure is not fundamentally European, is not accompanied by immigration of European stock, and is as incompatible with the native culture as was European culture with that of the North American Indian. It is just arguable, and it is very loudly argued, that a small influx of foreign strains can be absorbed without great disadvantage. But it must be small, and it is essential that it should be absorbed. Our alien population is not small (its dimensions are systematically falsified), it is increasing, and it is not being absorbed.[4]

     The prophylactic for cultural conflict is to recognize and respect the fact that individuals belong naturally to different groups, and that all of these groups have genuine interests that should be protected and promoted, but not any single one at the illegitimate expense of any other group. Social Credit is therefore incompatible with any sort of supremacism according to which one group of people has a natural right to dominate, control, or otherwise impose themselves on others. In place of one group imposing itself, there should be mutual respect amongst all. As part of this mutual respect, however, the right of each nation to restrict migratory flows in its own best interests must be granted. 

     There is a final point that must be made in addressing this matter: one must never lose sight of the fact that the sort of demographic and cultural changes that the Western world is currently experiencing, changes that are likely to intensify in the future, are not merely economic phenomena. They also serve the political objectives of those who would wish to centralize power, economic, political, and cultural, in the hands of an international plutocratic oligarchic. Multicultural nations lose their raison d’être for being nations in the first place. Make no mistake about it, mass migration and its cultural fallout is NWO policy:

In this, the gravest crisis of the world’s history, it is essential to realise that the stakes which are being played for are so high that the players on one side, at least, care no more for the immolation of the peoples of a continent than for the death of a sparrow. [5]

     Let us not, under the influence of cultural Marxism and its untenable (but apparently beguiling) concept of ‘equality’ support a policy that only promises to contribute further to the undoing of all of us.

The Social Credit Solution to Mass Migration

     The Social Credit solution to the phenomenon of mass migration is as straightforward as its diagnosis. Restore, through a suitable reform of the monetary system, a distributive, self-liquidating balance to the circular flow:, and there will no longer be any need for compensatory public, business, and consumer debts. Eliminate the need for ever-increasing indebtedness and you eliminate the artificial pressure currently exerted in favour of constant economic growth. Eliminate continuous growth as a requirement for economic survival and neither those countries who have managed to meet the demand for growth by importing more people, nor those countries who have given up on meeting any such demand and have consequently exported some of their own citizens, would have any need of being either net importers nor net exporters of human beings. The inherent insolvency of the existing financial order, which has hitherto served as the dynamo or engine driving migratory flows, will have been appropriately neutralized and the phenomenon of mass migration will recede into the past.

     Balancing the financial system along Social Credit lines would stabilize the economy and an inherently or endogenously stable economy, an economy that does not have to look or go outside of itself in order to secure (or salvage) its own functionality, would provide the material basis for a stable and organic culture. Indeed, a plurality of Social Credit nations would lay a sound financial foundation for mutual respect and harmony on the international stage. The Social Crediter anticipates a world in which the words of the prophet Micah might eventually be paraphrased as follows: ‘But they shall sit every people under their own vine and under their own fig tree; and none shall make them afraid.’






[1] Social cohesion is indeed a functional necessity, i.e., the greater and more organic the cultural cohesion of a society, the easier it should be to get things done in association. Such societies benefit from “... the immense stability underlying race homogeneity.” C.H. Douglas, The Brief for the Prosecution (Liverpool: K.R.P. Publications Ltd., 1945), 78. On the other hand, only a certain level of social cohesion is strictly necessary for the political and economic systems of a country to function tolerably well. The benefits which could be derived from increased levels of social cohesion cannot be legislated because one cannot legislate the organic. For this reason, while it is certainly acceptable to use the coercive force of the state in order to preserve the organic, one cannot use it to force complete cultural compliance from immigrants once they have been permitted entry. France, for example, was fully within her rights to refuse to permit Muslim immigration, whether from North Africa or elsewhere, in order to preserve her own identity. Once admitted, however, there can be no justification for forcing Muslims to comply with French cultural norms when there is no question of health, safety, or common decency. The current prohibitions on the wearing of the Hijab in public buildings, or the wearing of the Burka anywhere in public, go far beyond the structural functional necessities of a political association. They are unjustifiable impositions and are bound to result in resentment and increased dissatisfaction rather than the ostensibly desired end of increased integration. More broadly, those functional necessities which are not systemic or structural (by which I mean functional necessities that are inherent to the proper functioning of economic and political systems, etc.) ought never to be mandated by force of law. These non-structural functional necessities have more to do with the spirit or ethos which a people bring to an association. A community of kind, patient, and compassionate people, for example, would be far more successful in achieving common ends than one in which people were irritable, impatient, and indifferent, but one cannot force people to develop the sort of virtues or other qualities which would make life in association more successful by passing a law. Forced virtue or charm is no virtue or charm at all. The freedom of individuals to act in ways which conflict with the non-structural functional necessities of an association must therefore be respected, even if they choose to undercut these sorts of functional necessities by acting at cross-purposes. Only thus can the individual and organic dimensions of personality have an opportunity to blossom.

[2] C.H. Douglas, The Brief for the Prosecution (Liverpool: K.R.P. Publications Ltd., 1945), 79. Cf. C.H. Douglas, The Development of World Dominion (Sydney: Tidal Publications, 1969), 72. “A national culture is the soul of a people, and the idea that a people can lose its soul and retain its identity is of a piece with the rest of dialectical materialism.” Cf. also, C.H. Douglas, Realistic Constitutionalism (London: K.R.P. Publications Ltd.., 1947), 11: “The essential soul of a nation is in its character, its culture and tradition.”

[3] C.H. Douglas, The Big Idea (Bullsbrook, Australia: Veritas Publishing Company, 1983), 70.

[4] C.H. Douglas, The Brief for the Prosecution (Liverpool: K.R.P. Publications Ltd., 1945), 80-81. Douglas' recommended policy for the UK on this matter was to “... restrict drastically alien immigration, and to make naturalisation a rare and exceptional concession.” In close connection with this position, Douglas simultaneously remarked that: “It is desirable to emphasise the wide difference between free circulation and easy naturalisation.” C.H. Douglas, The Brief for the Prosecution (Liverpool: K.R.P. Publications Ltd., 1945), 82. C.H. Douglas, The Brief for the Prosecution (Liverpool: K.R.P. Publications Ltd., 1945), 82. 

Japan has maintained a very restrictive immigration policy, and I, as a non-Japanese, have no objection whatsoever to the fact that they value and wish to maintain their own organically derived identity. On the contrary, I am fully supportive of their policy even if it means that I could never immigrate there. The loss of the Japanese culture and people through a multicultural disintegration would be a great loss to the entire world. The same type of observation could be made mutatis mutandis with respect to every other racial and ethnic group.

[5] C.H. Douglas, The Development of World Dominion (Sydney: Tidal Publications, 1969), 130.

[6] Cf. Micah 4:4. 







Posted: September 24, 2016

By: Louis

Great article Oliver.
So good I must accept without comment.

Post a Comment

Reload Image