| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including all on this list). -- Wally | | Date: | Friday, May 13, 2005 16:25:47 (+0100) | | From: | Timothy Carpenter <timbeau_hk @........uk>
|
| In reply to: | Message 1283 (written by Joe Thomson) |
Joe,
Maybe the list choked on the contents? ;-)
In some respects it is in alignment with my sentiments - better to stop
repeating confusing or irrational 'explanations' and try and make it
understandable to the masses. I suppose I am guilty of perpetuating some of
what Don is commenting on, but my intention is along the same lines.
Tim
On 13/5/05 3:37 pm, "Joe Thomson" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
> The same thing that Wally noticed happened
> here, Jim. I think there must've been some technical difficulty since Tim
> Carpenter's message was also repeated three times as well. Seems to have
> cleared up now.
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wallace M. Klinck" <wmklinck@shaw.ca>
> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including all on
> this list). -- Wally
>
>
>> No, Jim, I received about ten or twelve of the same message. And, I
>> received three of this one from you.
>>
>> Wally
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
>> To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and including all on
>> this list).
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>>> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 5/12/2005
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> You're subscribed to this list with the email thomsonhiyu@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 timbeau_hk@yahoo.co.uk
> 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