| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including all on this list). | | Date: | Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:27:27 (-0600) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
Am I the only one getting this same email en masse?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <donzbeth@ihug.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>; <sutton@kingsley.co.za>; <Walt.p@free.fr>;
<murshed@choudhury77.fsnet.uk>; "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>;
<jschroeder@sympatico.ca>; <hermann@picknowl.com.au>; "L Manning"
<manning@kapiti.co.nz>; "Pabo" <pabo@paradise.net.nz>;
<weddel@paradise.net.nz>; "Bill Daly" <b.daly@xtra.co.nz>
Cc: <corodoor@wave.co.nz>; <nvp@theosophy.org.nz>; <theredbrick@xtra.co.nz>;
"Neville Aitchison" <naitchison@farrowjamieson.co.nz>; "Don Bethune"
<donzbeth@ihug.co.nz>; <otherside532@yahoo.co.nz>;
<john.rabarts@ihug.co.nz>; <ekkirion@rogers.com>; <philippa@clear.net.nz>;
"David Wilson" <wilson_df@xtra.co.nz>; <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>;
<james@jamesrobertson.com>; "Henry. Raynel" <henry.raynel@actrix.gen.nz>;
<sooriuk@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:38 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including all on
this list).
>
> Dear Jessop (especially) & Other Interested Parties,
> As a lifetime supporter of the Social Credit Philosophy it deeply saddens
me
> to read of you initially seeing S.C. as answering South Africa's needs,
> and then because of the incessant arguing and semantics among the very
> people who delude themselves into thinking they are S.C. experts
> and so must be helping its progress, you become disillusioned to the point
> of forfeiting any hope of S.C.
> being of practical assistance while you are still alive...
>
> Then you will be interested to know that I have a very blunt message for
> those "barriers to progress". Yes, and it comes from the Waikato
ex-City
> Councillor who helped as NZ Dominion President,Bruce Beetham, newly
elected
> Party Leader, to salvage the virtually collapsed S.C. Party and
> administratively geared it up to increase its
> Public Support percentage in every election until we had
> two members in Parliament and 34,640 financial Members.
>
> Then later, it's the guy who led a Waikato lobby group (WEL for the
Waikato)
> into tipping out the state appointees and getting elected with the
majority
> of control of their community Board (Wel Energy Trust), and drove it as
> Chairman for 7 years until we had taken back ownership of every share in
> the WEL Company, including the
> 51% previously given to UtiliCorp in a mates' rates deal.
> Within that period, the Trust's Net Equity rose by an average of $20
Million
> every year, and from 46 Candidates in Two elections, yours truly topped
the
> Poll both times.
>
> This sort of track record demonstrates that this "kiwi" does know how to
> organise people into co-operating, and a lot about how to be successful
in
> politics. With that as a political CV I recently studied the history of
> S.C. in N.Z. to identify why over all, it is making such poor progress.
> That was circulated to people mainly here in the hope that they may learn
> something from it. However, because it focuses directly on Jessop's
> identified reason for losing faith in the people arguing technicalities
of
> S.C. INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING A SIMPLE INTERPRETATION OF IT,
> I have decided to give it an international circulation:---
> (The Message and Analysis ran as follows:)
> Greetings Group, wherever you happen to be;
>
> Both in N.Z. and internationally there are many supporters of Social
Credit
> , but most of the time it is not making the progress that its potential
> benefits would certainly justify. This review of the subject provides
what
> to most people will look like a startling explanation. But before
> challenging the analyst to a dual at dawn, be forewarned that no matter
how
> indigestable the explanation may seem, it has been effectively
> demonstrated in the this country's political arena, dominated for 50
> years by 2 major parties.
>
> A + B MUMBO JUMBO
>
> For a ground breaking exposition of the mechanism behind booms, busts,
> unemployment and trade wars, to be still awaiting implementation after 80
> years, forces one to conclude that there must be powerful vested
interests
> blocking the progress, which should naturally follow the identification of
> any problem. Could it be that the basic A + B Theorem is simple, but
the
> mumbo jumbo good intentioned enthusiasts have attached to it makes it as
> difficult as wading through treacle ?
>
> Over riding the usual handicaps to progress like fear of the unknown,
there
> must be a "no progress" complex providing much more substantial
barriers,
> and until and unless these negative influences are identified and properly
> managed, progress will continue to be virtually zilch.
>
> The first and most obvious involves a sector which was able, with a
mixture
> of complicity and ignorance or gullibility in the "controllable"
political
> sector, to convert their money lending networks into a flock of golden
egg
> laying geese , which could in the backrooms of power, dictate policies
for
> elected governments to follow.
>
> At the same time, the credit creating ability they usurped from sovereign
> governments allows them absolute discretion in the allocation of what is
> really national credit. They alone can determine which businesses they
> want to thrive; to even grow into TNC's , while others denied survival
> credit go to the wall during the periodic downturns.
>
> Because of their ability , including even acquiring real wealth,
commercial
> assets, and Government Stock, by creating the national money supply with
> their computers, they
> have a unique ability to influence the governments who are supposed to be
> running the country. Without in any way straining their bottom lines they
> can be generous to their supporters; and to communities, donating whole
> stadia just in return for naming rights, and sponsoring "chairs" and
> professorial salaries at universities, so that they can assist faculties
> involved with economics to only have "suitable" books on their reading
> lists. (Yeah, suitable IS a flexible word !)
>
> The Canadian Monetary Commission Report even included a frank admission
by
> the chairman of the Bankers Association that they acquired Government
Stock
> , which they could use to meet their Reserve Assets requirements, simply
by
> honouring
> their own cheques. Publications considered suitable are those which
still
> ramble on about the virtually defunct fractional reserve system,
ostensibly
> controlling the ability of banks to create any credit, and blatantly
> discussing the "recycling" of deposits , as if
> it is possible to have the same deposit in several different places at
the
> same time , rather than admit the fact of almost unlimited credit creation
> by the whole banking system.
>
> And of course the bank supporters are willing to take a sympathetic view
of
> local currency conferences and projects , knowing that usually they
promote
> the idea of money being just a ticket system, so it neither teaches the
> facts nor represents any sort of threat to their dominance. Green Dollar
> schemes only flourish in financially depressed conditions, and just
> disappear when a community's resources are being fully employed. More
> importantly, the figures created out of thin air in bank computers do
> not represent tickets (like Green Dollars), but having the ability to
become
> part of the Money Supply (M1), they can be exchanged for ANYTHING that
> money can buy (Yes, ANYTHING !)
>
> Those computer figures are an enforceable claim on the real wealth
produced
> by , not the banks, but the rest of the community. Yet the banks treat
> that new credit money as their own private property, which, when loaned to
a
> business or home buyer immediately becomes part of their "Assets
Schedule"
> , and if it is not returned with interest as required, then the bank can
> sell your other assets, used as collateral , which inevitably wipes out
the
> equity you have tried so hard to build up.
>
> The number of otherwise intelligent people who cannot see the trickery in
> the deposit re-cycling scam, and who think that it is reasonable for the
> privately owned banking sector to be able to create, almost without limit,
> defacto money which can be used to acquire the community's real wealth as
> their own property, illustrates the efficacy of the unwritten "deal"
> between big business, the banks, and the string pullers inside the
orthodox
> political parties; so well defined by Thomas Robertson in "Human Ecology".
>
> The wall of confusion and respectability surrounding their activities so
> well protects them from monetary reform initiatives, that in 80 years from
> when C.H. Douglas described the first step as "taking control of the money
> power" , progress has actually moved backwards. In his time, the banks
> only owned about 50% of the M1 Money Supply, but it is now up to 97%, and
> still growing. Educating the public and voters on the real facts of
> banking and destroying the myths, must be a condition precedent towards
> securing progress in political and monetary reforms.
>
> NEXT HANDICAP: T H E major contributor towards the 80 years of almost
> negative progress , to the delight and amusement of the banking club and
> their supporters, is the very people who hold themselves out as experts
in
> Social Credit, and most
> probably dream they are contributing towards the early arrival of a
> non-party, Social Credit administration.
>
> Apart from automatic nationalism in response to an enemy invasion, history
> continues to demonstrate that since the left and right political parties
> climbed into bed and political power with the TNC's (TransNational
> Corporates), leaving out Switzerland,
> there has NEVER been the legislative introduction of a significant, reform
> policy driven by the public, without the strong support of at least one
> major political party. Consequently it is absurd to claim that one is
> helping promote Social Credit while denigrating those who are using the
> political road to democratic power.
>
> Even in N.Z., where a Referendum Right has been secured, we find the
> process , unless it can be reinforced by a "binding" obligation (which
they
> are trying to secure),
> can be futile. Of the 8 referendums held in the last 10 years,
governments
> of the day have either ignored or done the opposite on 7 occasions. But NZ
> does need BCIR, like most other states.
>
> Were C H Douglas God, there may be some justification for taking his few,
> and very understandable criticisms of the lack of integrity of
> politicians and their parties as a reason to have nothing to do with
them..
> However, the philosophy he promoted did not support that option; but
rather
> the opposite. The scientic philosophy recommends that after
establishing
> the facts, we should assess the potential efficacy (in achieving the
desired
> results) of all the options, and THEN CONCENTRATE OUR RESOURCES ON THE
BEST
> OPTION. ie: Political !
>
> So long as it is apparent that the only authority strong enough to
"control"
> the Money Power is a democratically elected government, then it is
> illogical and futile to claim it is achievable by any route other than
> Parliament. But that is just part of a far bigger barrier to progress
> than the "mumbo jumbo" problem.
>
> Scattered around the planet is a sprinkling of good intentioned
enthusiasts
> , who have lost contact with the Douglas philosophy. Instead , they have
> produced a hotchpotch of sometimes weird interpretations and algebraic
> analyses of what they think happens in the real world; but to put it
bluntly
> most of it belongs in Fairyland and is irrelevant.
>
> A sampling of it in recent internet discussion lists shows at least half
of
> them arguing about word meanings and/or promoting various mathematical and
> algebraic equations, which for the few who could follow them through, led
> absolutely nowhere.
> Even if they were correct, which is doubtful,they neither proved anything,
> nor could be used to serve any useful purpose.
>
> But they did have two things in common. Firstly, they challenged readers
to
> try and shoot them down, providing grist for pointless time-wasting
> debates, as if there were nothing more constructive for them to put their
> time into. Secondly, they provided exercises at the 17 year reading
level,
> which is a guaranteed "switch-off" for average adults who national
surveys
> confirm jog along at just a 10 yearold reading level.
>
> If an understanding of Social Credit (S.C.) required an active,
university
> level computational capacity, then it would never have left the starting
> blocks. But amazing as it may seem , I am not alone in knowing that the
> essence of the Douglas Analysis is so simple it can be taught to
> 10-yearolds. That is , thanks to Edcom ( S.C. Political Party Education
> Committee) in the early 1970's.
>
> That study group included varsity lecturer, Bruce Beetham (M.Phil), Party
> Leader and later MP; George Bryant (M.A.) High School principal and
writer;
> Bill Rogers (M.Sc) ,
> mathematics lecturer, and several others of us with quite different
> backgrounds. Our challenge was to thoroughly understand the A + B
> Theorem, and then if possible put it into primary school language so it
was
> politically marketable.
>
> Our primary discovery was that the complexity of modern industry,
> exacerbated by expanding automation and bifrucated, multi stage production
> processes, sometimes including componentry from overseas, made it
> impossible to establish any interpretations or definitions in sub-groups
> of B, that could enable it to be used as a formula for computing the
actual
> extent of the "gap" or deficiency of purchasing power.
>
> But there was unanimous agreement that the "Douglas Gap" did definitely
> exist, and in quite a big way, as corroborated by the rapid growth of
debt
> in ameliorating that deficiency , right throughout the country. Our
> conclusion was that with proper national accounts and statistics, a
> competent administration could readily establish what the deficiency
> amounted to; and how it could be offset, without being added into prices.
> It was accepted that the S.C. Party should simply state that every
> company's annual Balance Sheet shows that the distribution of spendable
> incomes is less than the prices of their products and services, but only
> cash can be used to buy their output, so part
> of the gap has to be filled with debt; which is obviously mushrooming
> everywhere.
>
> The S.C. Party followed the Edcom advice and successfully campaigned on it
> through all that decade. Independent Public Opinion Polls showed support
> for that Party rising from around 5% (with 760 financial members) up to a
> peak of 31.6% (and 34,640 financial members), being second only to the
> governing National Party, and slightly ahead of Labour, the Official
> Opposition.
>
> Against that background of not only what can be done, but what HAS been
done
> by keeping it simple and avoiding futureless arguments and mumbo jumbo, it
> pains me to see the internet, which could be the world's most
educational
> tool, being clogged up
> with controversial and irrelevant rubbish. Such can do two things, while
> ostensibly promoting an understanding of S.C. It can create more
arguments
> and confusion to protect further the "money power". For the 90% only
> reading as ten-yearolds, it will switch them off reading anything about
> S.C. because it is a "foreign language".
>
> Were I moderating a S.C. discussion group (as I did with Edcom), I would
> again insist that the right to contribute carries with it the obligation
to
> communicate in language not over the heads of the public; and not
> unrelated to the real world. And those who lapse into mumbo jumbo
> arguments in future should expect to be asked where that line of reasoning
> leads to - other than confusions - and whether they really believe they
> are helping the progress of monetary and political reforms more than the
> debt merchants ?
>
> Apologies for the bruised egos, but I have tolerated mumbo jumbo for far
too
> long.
>
> Yours in the interests of S.C. making REAL Political Progress.
> Don Bethune
> ==============#######==============
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jessop Sutton [mailto:sutton@kingsley.co.za]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 May 2005 01:09
> To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including all
> on this list).
>
>
> On Sunday 08 May 2005 6:04 am, Vic Bridger wrote:
> > For your further assistance I am prepared to send directly to you some
> > lectures that were compiled a few years ago when I conducted an advance
> > course for students who wished to fully understand the subject of Social
> > Credit. These are available only to those who have shown a genuine
desire
> > to learn about Social Credit.
> > Vic Bridger
> =============================
>
> Dear Vic,
> Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. However, I will not be pursuing
> the
> Social Credit subject, so I need really not trouble you any further.
>
> I came across the subject quite by chance at a time when I grandly
imagined
> I
> had come up with a more efficient tax-gathering system which I had
proposed
> to out Minister of Finance with whom I had been in correspondence. I was,
as
> a good citizen, looking for a way that would even the tax burden over the
> broadest base and at the same time eliminate the many ways by which the
> higher-earners can avoid tax with the ready and able assistance of the
army
> of Tax Consultants. The middle-earners end up making a disproportionate
> contribution to the State Revenue. Then when I read 'Social Credit' by
Major
> Douglas I jumped at it thinking: Wow!! This is it!
>
> However, the more I listen in to the discussions on the List, the more
> obvious
> it is that, even when my own objections have been overcome, it is not
going
> to be an instant solution to the large discrepancy in quality of life that
> exists today between those who are wage-earners and those who have no
source
> of income at all other than grants they receive from the state.
>
> If I thought I could see SC up and running somewhere in the world before I
> die, I might have a different view -- but I don't see that happening. In
the
> meantime our government, consisting mainly of the movement that brought
some
> freedom and democracy to this country, is doing quite a good job of
juggling
> the demands of our global partners on the one hand and, on the other hand,
> the need to develope localised industry to serve the marginalised majority
> of
> our citizens. Nelson Mandela and his compatriots set something good in
> motion which I -- and others lacking in a certain Afro-pessimism that
> bedevils some -- are watching play out in our country. So I will now leave
> it
> to them.
>
> However, I will still be on the list listening in to the discussions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jessop.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email donzbeth@ihug.co.nz
> 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 jschroeder@shaw.ca
> 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