Elites Need Pandemic and Wars for Financial Reset: C. H. Douglas “The Causes of War,” By James Reed

The article from The Focal Points titled "Pandemic and War Needed for Financial Reset?" by John Leake

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/pandemic-and-war-needed-for-financial

suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war may have been leveraged as justifications for massive financial interventions to address underlying debt crises in Western economies, particularly in the U.S. and the EU. It posits that these crises, characterised by unsustainable debt levels, insufficient economic growth, and demographic challenges required extraordinary measures like money creation and geopolitical manoeuvres to sustain faltering financial systems. The article speculates that the CARES Act in the U.S. and potential war with Russia in the EU could serve as mechanisms to delay or mitigate financial collapse, possibly by collateralising assets or resetting debt structures. It further questions whether Western policies, including provocations in Ukraine and irrational economic decisions in the EU, reflect deliberate strategies to justify such resets.

All this calls out for a Douglas social credit analysis. But first the caveat, that I am no expert on this important topic compared to other Alor.org intellectual leaders, but will do the best I can. There is plenty of more professional material at the rest of the Alor.org website for new readers who just came straight to the blog, including social credit analysis, plus the works of Major Douglas himself.

To analyse this using Major Clifford Hugh Douglas's framework from his essay "The Causes of War," we must first outline Douglas's key arguments. Douglas (1879-1952), founder of the Social Credit movement, argued that wars are often driven by economic and financial dysfunctions rooted in the global financial system. His essay, published in the 1930s, emphasises the following causes of war, which can be applied to the claims in Leake's article. Remember I am over-simplifying within my own limitations:

Defective Financial System: Douglas argued that the modern financial system, based on debt issuance by private banks, creates chronic purchasing power shortages. Businesses and governments borrow to finance production, but the money created (as debt) is insufficient to purchase all goods and services produced, leading to economic instability. This forces nations to seek external markets or resources through aggression, as domestic economies cannot absorb production without incurring more debt.

Centralisation of Economic Control: Douglas highlighted how financial power concentrates in the hands of a few banking institutions, which manipulate credit to control economies. This centralisation can push nations toward war to secure resources or markets to service debt, as elites rate financial stability over peace.

Artificial Scarcity and Economic Pressure: The financial system's reliance on debt creates artificial scarcity, as money supply lags behind productive capacity. This scarcity fuels competition for resources, markets, and economic dominance, often manifesting as geopolitical conflicts.

Manipulation of Crises for Control: Douglas suggested that financial elites may exploit or engineer crises (economic or otherwise) to justify interventions that reinforce their control, such as expanding debt or shifting economic policies. Wars, in this view, can serve as distractions or pretexts for restructuring economies to benefit creditors.

Using Douglas's framework, over simplified here, we can evaluate Leake's claims about the pandemic and Ukraine war as potential financial engineering strategies.

Leake's article aligns closely with Douglas's critique of the financial system. It describes the U.S. and EU as trapped in debt spirals, where economic growth and demographics cannot sustain rising public and private debt. For instance, the article cites Italy's pre-2020 insolvency and the U.S.'s reliance on debt to finance living standards, echoing Douglas's view that debt-based money creation fails to provide sufficient purchasing power. Douglas argued that this systemic flaw pushes nations to seek external solutions, such as territorial or economic expansion, to offset domestic shortfalls.

In Leake's narrative, the CARES Act's $2.2 trillion injection (10% of U.S. GDP) in 2020 mirrors Douglas's concern about governments resorting to debt to paper over economic dysfunction. The article suggests Covid-19 provided a pretext for this "money creation out of thin air," which Douglas would see as a symptom of a system that ranks debt over real productivity. Similarly, the speculation about war with Russia enabling the EU to collateralise Ukrainian or Russian assets reflects Douglas's idea that wars are fought to secure resources to service debt. In this case, mineral assets could theoretically back new debt issuance, delaying financial collapse.

However, Leake's claim lacks concrete evidence tying Covid-19's economic response directly to a premeditated financial reset. Douglas's framework implies systemic flaws drive such outcomes, not necessarily deliberate conspiracies. The CARES Act, while massive, was a response to immediate economic shutdowns, and its scale can be explained by political pressure to stabilise markets and households, not solely as a banker-orchestrated scheme.

Douglas's emphasis on centralised financial power finds resonance in Leake's portrayal of international banking institutions and Western governments grappling with debt crises. The article's reference to the Federal Reserve's inevitable need to raise interest rates in 2020, which would increase borrowing costs and threaten the "debt-financed party," suggests a system controlled by monetary authorities. Douglas would argue that such authorities, by manipulating credit, create conditions that precipitate crises like wars or pandemics to maintain their grip.

Leake's mention of EU and German economic mismanagement, coupled with provocative policies toward Russia, could be interpreted through Douglas's lens as financial elites orchestrating geopolitical tensions to justify economic interventions. The article's allusion to Russian mineral assets being coveted by Western powers recalls Douglas's view that wars are fought to secure resources for financial gain. The 1990s looting of Russian assets under Yeltsin, as noted by Leake, supports this, as it exemplifies how financial elites exploit crises to extract wealth, a pattern Douglas saw as endemic to the system.

Yet, Leake's argument leans heavily on speculation about elite intentions, which Douglas's framework does not require. Douglas focused on systemic pressures, not necessarily conscious plots, but these could no doubt occur. The EU's economic woes, such as Germany's deindustrialisation, can be attributed to policy errors (e.g., energy sanctions post-Ukraine invasion) rather than a deliberate plan to provoke war for financial gain.

Douglas's concept of artificial scarcity, where the financial system restricts purchasing power, applies to Leake's depiction of Western economies unable to grow sufficiently to service debt. The article's critique of debt being used to inflate assets (e.g., homes, stocks) rather than productivity mirrors Douglas's view that misallocated credit creates economic imbalances. This scarcity, per Douglas, drives nations to compete for markets or resources, potentially through war.

Leake's suggestion that war with Russia could be the EU's "only hope" to avoid financial collapse fits this framework. By framing Ukrainian and Russian mineral assets as potential collateral, the article implies that geopolitical conflict could alleviate economic scarcity by unlocking new resources for debt issuance. This echoes Douglas's argument that wars arise from economic pressures to access external wealth when domestic systems falter.

However, the leap from economic pressure to war as a deliberate strategy is less substantiated. Douglas saw wars as outcomes of systemic flaws, not necessarily as planned solutions. The Ukraine conflict's roots in NATO expansion and Russian security concerns predate the EU's financial woes, suggesting it's more a geopolitical than a purely economic phenomenon.

Leake's most provocative claim, that Covid-19's dangers were exaggerated to justify money creation and that the Ukraine war was escalated to serve financial ends, aligns with Douglas's idea that crises are exploited to reinforce financial control. Douglas argued that elites use crises to justify policies that entrench their power, such as expanding debt or centralising economic authority. The CARES Act and the EU's potential use of war to reset finances could be seen as such manipulations, with pandemics and conflicts serving as pretexts for extraordinary measures.

The article's references to Kamala Harris's provocative Munich speech and the Biden administration's inaction on Ukraine, suggest a deliberate escalation, which Douglas might interpret as elites engineering a crisis to distract from or address financial instability. Similarly, the EU's "irrational" policies, like dimming the sun after investing in solar panels, could be viewed as creating crises to justify further control, per Douglas's logic.

Leake's article raises valid concerns about debt-driven economies and the use of crises to justify financial interventions, which align with Douglas's critique of the financial system's role in fostering conflict. The CARES Act's scale and the EU's economic vulnerabilities reflect the systemic issues Douglas highlighted, chronic debt, artificial scarcity, and centralised control. The speculation about war as a financial reset mechanism also fits Douglas's view that wars stem from economic dysfunctions, particularly when resources are needed to sustain debt.

https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/pandemic-and-war-needed-for-financial

"I remember reading an October 2019 issue of Forbes about how Italy was already insolvent and would never get out of its debt trap.

A debt trap occurs when economic growth and population demographics—not enough young people to take care of retired people—become grossly insufficient to finance a society's growing debt (private and public).

At the time I wondered how international banking institutions would deal with Italy's pending debt crisis. Then along came COVID-19, which seemed to justify a fresh round of massive money creation.

Though not as crass as Italy, the U.S. was also, at the beginning of 2020, apparently giving up on the real economy growing sufficiently to balance increasing U.S. government debt financing of America's standard of living.

Debt is a rational instrument when it is used to increase productivity—NOT when it used to create money out of thin air and disbursed to legions of unproductive people and activities. Debt is also unproductive when it is primarily used for inflating assets such as large homes and the price-to-earnings ratio of stocks.

At the beginning of 2020, it was the clear the Federal Reserve would eventually have to raise interest rates to slow down inflation, which would raise borrowing costs to an untenable level, which would put an end to the debt-financed party that had raged since 2009.

What could possibly justify a fresh round of money-creation out of thin air?

Along came COVID-19, and on March 27, 2020, the U.S. government passed the CARES Act—an instrument for bailing out the entire economy reminiscent of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for bailing out Wall Street, only the amount of money created ($2.2 trillion) for the latter crisis was a much larger sum, equivalent to 10% of U.S. GDP.

At the time I wondered if the danger of COVID-19 to ALL of society, including young people, was being grossly exaggerated to justify this insanely extravagant money creation. About a year later I had a conversation with Ed Dowd in which he persuasively argued that this was indeed the case.

At the end of 2021, I had a conversation with New York state attorney named Beth Parlato. Beth had, during the pandemic, devoted her legal practice to suing hospitals to allow dying patients to take Ivermectin and other off-label drugs in an attempt to avoid being put to death on a ventilator.

At the end of our conversation, I asked her if she was still getting many calls from patients' families who needed her help.

"No," she replied. "The phone has fallen fairly silent. I think maybe the war is over." In that instant, I had an eery thought that another "war" would soon arrive to take the pandemic's place.

The situation in Ukraine had been heating up that fall, and it occurred to me that the Biden administration was not doing anything to avert it from turning into a full blown crisis. My perception was confirmed when the baleful Vice President Kamala Harris was sent to address the Munich Security Conference in February 2022.

Her bizarre and contradictory speech about Ukraine and NATO struck me as yet another provocation of Russia.

Yesterday I listened to an interview with a financial analyst and former hedge fund manager named Alex Krainer about the European Union's untenable financial condition.

Apparently because the people who run the E.U. and Germany have lost their minds, they have severely damaged Germany's economy by taking various measures against it (which Krainer elucidates).

The stunning irrationality of British and E.U. administrators is symbolically expressed in their recent talk about using aerosols to dim the sun after these same people spent billions in erecting gigantic, ugly, and inefficient solar panels.

All of this raises a provocative question — namely, is war with Russia now the EU's only hope for avoiding financial collapse?

Krainer mentions the parallel of Alberta, Canada's oil reserves being used as collateral for more debt issuance during the 2008 Financial Crisis.

Have the lunatics in Washington and Brussels fantasized about using Ukrainian and Russian mineral assets to collateralize yet more debt creation?

Krainer's recollection of the Russian situation in the 1990s—when Boris Yeltin's administration sold Russian mineral assets for pennies on the dollar—does indeed seem relevant.

Could it be that Vladimir Putin's biggest sin—in the eyes of the West—was putting an end to the looting party that raged under Yeltsin? It wouldn't surprise me if this is at least partly the case."