I was referring to the organisation here, which definitely had "British
Israel" background and fitted my description. They embarassed us. Perhaps I was
extrapolating wrongly.
But our Party's reaction is factual and history. Regards.
John R.
>From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca> >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com >To: socialcredit@elistas.com >Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Guernsey -- Wally (referencing in Social Credit documents) >Date:
Mon, 02 May 2005 01:25:23 -0600 > >John, I want say for the record that that your
characterization of the League of Rights, for whatever reasons, as "fascist" is
erroneous and/or outrageous. I personally knew Eric Butler and have attended many
addresses and seminars which he presented going back to the 1960s--and I have
read most of what he has written. On no occasion have I ever seen the slightest
indication of any support of fascism. Indeed, he has been consistently opposed to
all forms of totalitarianism, whether fascist, socialist/communist/Bolshevik or
otherwise. My observation has been that this is the
formal position of the League and has been for as long as it has existed. This
is consistent with Douglas from his earliest writings. > >This is the sort of
smear by policitians who will violate almost any ethics in the interests of
capturing and maintaining political office. It is the sort of tactic which has
brought matters to an unfortunate passe where the very word "politician" is
almost a curse on the lips of a large and growing body of citizens. I might add
that Eric Butler rendered military service in the war against fascism. The League
of Rights, and other non-party activists, have done much to preserve and
disseminate Douglas's original works, which task if left to political party
elements claiming to be "Social Credit" would have resulted in these works being
abandoned long ago to the dustbin of history. Here in Alberta under the "Social
Credit" Government the original
Douglas texts fell into disuse and disapproval; some, I understand on good
authority, were even incinerated. > >The League of Rights, unlike political
parties of all stripes whose primary (and corrupting) objective is the capture,
preservation and enhancement of power, is a service organization participated in
by people who seek no reward other than the satisfaction of working
conscientiously in good faith for the public good, as they see it, along the
lines advocated by Social Credit--which involves the dispersion of power among
individual citizens. Perhaps if your previous Leader had possessed sufficient
dedication to the right principles and the integrity or courage to stand for them
he would not have been "embarrassed" by the misrepresentations of militant
elements dedicated to opposing Social Credit philosophy and policy at every
opportunity. > >As for the allegation of
"anti-semitism" (sic) I am surprised that you would give credence to a form of
psycho-political warfare based upon the misleading use of language pursued by
means of the dialectical interplay of words--a typical communist tactic. If you
want to learn more about this subject, I suggest that you immerse yourself in the
reading not only of Communist texts but also of early (19th Century) Zionist
literature in order to find out something about the employment of word usuage as
this relates to meanings and strategy. There can be no synthesis witout a thesis
and antithesis. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John G Rawson > To:
socialcredit@elistas.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:18 PM > Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Guernsey -- Wally (referencing in Social Credit documents) > > >
Just in passing, the League of Rights here was or is a neo-fascist anti-semitic
group and a possible implicit link was the reason one of our previous Leaders,
Bruce Beetham, persuaded us to drop the term "Political League" and adopt
"Party". When in Parliament, it was used to embarass him. What some saw as a bad
move was based on the best of reasons. Just historical info. > > John R. > >
>From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca> >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com >To: socialcredit@elistas.com >Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Guernsey -- Wally (referencing in Social Credit documents) >Date:
Wed, 27 Apr 2005 01:51:54 -0600 > >John, > >I agree that although it may not be
the only criterion relating to the worth of an idea or statement, referencing
should be complete and precise insofar as possible. I believe that in this
respect you would be relatively pleased with the Canadian edition of British
author John W. Hughes
recent 300-page book, "Major Douglas: The Policy of a Philosophy:" (Edmonton:
Brightest Pebble Publishing, 2004) Refer: herb@brightest-pebble.com . The book is
a very attractive, professionally produced and bound paperback which retails at
about $34.95 Cdn. (I would expect that it is, or will be, available from the
Australian League of Rights for those who might prefer to order "down under.")
The printer-publisher has a long history of producing both popular and academic
works. > >As to Guernsey, I have sent a direct request to the Guernsey Government
office enquiries@tax.gov.gg, worded as below (No reply, for what it may be worth,
has been received in the short time since this enquiry was sent.): > >Dear
Sir/Madam, > >Inasmuch as there is a considerable discussion and debate on the
Internet regarding the so-called "Guernsey Experiment", popularized by Olive and
Jan
Gruibiak in their book entitled "The Guernsey Experiment", with which I am sure
you are familiar, I would like to enquire as to whether or not the story given in
the Grubiaks' book is essentially a correct account of the financial policy of
Guernsey dating back to the early 1800's? That is to say, did the States Council,
facing a need for considerable physical improvements to the Island and a heavy
debt with onerous interest charges making further borrowing and taxation
virtually impossible, implement a policy of States Notes creation issued without
debt or attached interest charges in order to finance great improvements to the
infrastucture of the Island? Were Notes issued judiciously in this manner and
retired, as I understand the matter, with equal care by the means of import
duties as these public assets depreciated--the end results being an abundance of
amenities, very low taxation,
no public debt and a lower price-level than that on the British mainland? > >Any
information which you could provide which might either confirm or refute the
above account would be greatly appreciated inasmuch as this aspect of Guernsey's
historical public financial policy has become widely promulgated, discussed and
debated on the Internet--and setting the record straight would, I think, provide
a valuable public service. > >Yours very sincerely > >Wallace M. Klinck > -----
Original Message ----- > From: John G Rawson > To: socialcredit@elistas.com >
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:53 PM > Subject: [socialcredit] Guernsey > > > I
have several times in different places expressed my despair at the looseness of
so many Socred writers in not "referencing" their quotes precisely. By contrast,
the communists have always done this superbly, even if
their references may often have been to lies told by other communists. S now we
are faced with a situation with reference to Guernsey where one side says it's a
myth and the other claims it is well documented but doesn't produce the
documentation. (Sorry, Don., it's not you, it's the original literature.) > > So
we are reduced to the situation where the "myth" exists as a hypothesis to be
disproved. > > I would therefore like our Moderator to produce his proof: > > 1.
That the construction of the Guernsey marketplace was not financed debt-free by
redeemable (bonds), and, > > 2. That it was financed either on loan or by finance
provided by pirates or whatever. > > I'm not interested in a reference to a
modern website. If you looked at an (in)appropriate NZ Govt. one I am sure you
would get the inference at least that banks always lend savings. > > >
John R. > >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the latest video at Xtra Broadband >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're
subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca >To unsubscribe, send a
message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit > > >
>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're
subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe,
send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information,
visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit > >
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband!
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca >To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >You're subscribed to this list with the email johngrawson@hotmail.com >To unsubscribe, send a message to >socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com >For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
