|
Message 1332
|
|
< Previous | Next >
|
|
|
| Subject: | [socialcredit] JUSTIFYING ZERO A+B PROGRESS; Don Responds. | | Date: | Wednesday, May 18, 2005 02:07:57 (+1200) | | From: | donzbeth <donzbeth @.......nz>
|
T.W. It May Concern: (Don Responds)
Jim was initially challenging me for questioning the status quo, but this
seems to be from Bill. Either way I'm happy to debate the issues raised, so
long as there is a chance to make progress; and it can be done showing
reasonable respect for adversaries. This should not include inferring that a
variation of governments means one favours dictatorships like Zimbabwe or
Stalin's Russia. Point made ?
Nor should we have to tolerate being called lazy or unintelligent. That
should not be asking too much.
T facilitate consideration of various points, I'm responding to them as they
arise; numbers 1 to 7 :
1: Bill challenges Don's assertion that the purpose of electing governments
is to run and control the whole country, contending that in the view of
"many of us in America" , this is wrong. U.S. stands out currently as an
example of a state on the way to corporate fascism, if you look at the
record of the CIA, and the illegal invasions of other countries at the
behest of lobby groups of Oil, banking and the military industrial complex.
Is Bill serious ?
2: Bill argues that limiting the banks "was never proposed by C.H.
Douglas", and supports it with a few words from a letter written 72 years
ago. Do you seriously contend that a snippet from a letter like that should
determine the attitude of S.C. supporters for all time, without the need to
provide any supporting reasons ?
Before fishing for reasons, they must rebut the reasons why I believe
Douglas would support controlling them. A: He said in his published works
that one of the initial steps was "to take control of the money power". B:
By usurping the state's privilege of creating the means of payment out of
nothing , the banking sector has acquired so much wealth and power that it
now dictates policy to many elected governments. Do you really support that,
Bill?
3: In view of the need for legal processes for any administration, Don
questioned why Bill should oppose involvement with any party politics. Bill
replied, "Take that up with C.H. Douglas", as if half a century after his
death that is possible. Would it not have been more frank to admit you
don't know of good reasons with which to respond ?
4: Don analogised that giving banks (foxes) the right to create and
administer credit (chickens) was the sort of activity he could not support,
to which Bill replied: "The concept of checks and balances being essential
to political democracy eludes you". You must be joking if you are asking an
audience to accept that
the checks and balances of banks and corporates gives a good form of
democracy, when you are speaking from America. Sure , it does help them to
get the TNC choice elected not once but twice as President, and without
U.N. support, justified by misrepresentation it turns the Middle East into
a killing field we see on TV every night. Could anyone support that sort
of currently demonstrated "Checks and Balances ?"
The sort of check on governments I endorse is "people power" as provided for
130 years by the Swiss "Peoples initiative", which is probably never heard
of in USA .
5: Don asserted that S.C. "has to be put in terms sufficiently simple to be
understood by your audience". Despite the obvious logic of that statement,
and Bill admitting presumably on the basis of his experience the "The
Douglas argument has never been presented in sufficiently simple terms to
be understood by you." Part of my CV is on the Internet, and if it does
show any weaknesses, lack of intellectual horse power is not one of them.
Nor could you justify the nasty innuendo that I am too lazy to read
Douglas, when I am not only familiar with most of his books, but I also
worked through the Secretariat endorsed "Elements of Social Credit", which I
still have and recommend to bright students who look to me as a mentor.
Apparently where Bill and I part company is that I have absorbed and adopted
the principles behind the Douglas proposals and do my utmost to adapt those
to our progressing civilization, while Bill seems to think that any words
used by Douglas at any time in his life are stone tablets; and can be used
as a substitute for "understanding".
6: Don maintains that the essence of the A + B Theorem , when viewed
against consolidated Balance Sheets is so self evident that it can be
explained to a 10 year old child. Bill attempts to refute that by saying
that his own 10 year old cannot see it. Need I say that I did not and would
not say that Bill would
be able to explain it. However, with that amendment, what I claimed still
stands. However, Bill then goes on to say to Don: You think that anyone who
does not see it (as...) is lying, and some part of a grand Satanic
conspiracy." Does Bill not think that lowering the debate to this level is
doing the cause of progress for S.C. more harm than good ?
7: Don says: "The prerogative of government will be to decide how best to
deal with (money) it for the benefit of the citizenry and country". Bill
responds with, "Why not give it (presumably all) to the individual citizens
directly as proposed by Douglas?"
Realising then that such is too silly for serious discussion , you back off
and admit that if the state needs funds for community activities, then it
should tax it back. With state obligations like education , health
services, presumably including their wages, and Superannuation, National
Dividends and so on, there are obviously masses of large and complex
decisions to be made on an ongoing basis.
I put it to you , Bill, my proposal in this area also was sensible and
logical as a government responsibility, but you felt for reasons few of us
would be proud of, that you just had to knock it, and so you did. Right ?
Cheers, from Don Bethune (in Godzone)
===========++++++++++++++++============
-----Original Message-----
From: William B. Ryan [mailto:w_b_ryan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, 16 May 2005 06:08
To: socialcredit@elistas.com; ownership@cog.kent.edu; Walt.p@free.fr;
murshed@choudhury77.fsnet.uk; manning@kapiti.co.nz;
pabo@paradise.net.nz; weddel@paradise.net.nz; b.daly@xtra.co.nz
Cc: corodoor@wave.co.nz; nvp@theosophy.org.nz; theredbrick@xtra.co.nz;
naitchison@farrowjamieson.co.nz; otherside532@yahoo.co.nz;
john.rabarts@ihug.co.nz; philippa@clear.net.nz; wilson_df@xtra.co.nz;
wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz; james@jamesrobertson.com; sooriuk@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] & the "A + B Mumbo Jumbo ?" from Don Bethune
[Bethune] "It should not surprise you to learn that
many governments get properly elected, and directly
control the whole country, including a central bank."
-----------------
------------------
Well, we in America (or many of us at any rate) do not
agree that the purpose of government is to "directly
control the whole country..."
I believe that is indeed the policy of the government
of Zimbabwe, following the example of the old Soviet
Union in its early days. Zimbabwe's "treasury" notes
that funded its spending became so worthless they
couldn't be used to purchase the ink needed to print
new ones, so everything ground to a halt rather
quickly.
As to central banks, can you name a single government,
with the possible exception of Zimbabwe (where the
central bank did not object to its game with
"treasury" notes, perhaps under threat of firing
squad), that is acting as if it actually controlled
its central bank, rather than being controlled by it?
Zimbabwe's neighbor, South Africa, in all its
"revolutionary" rhetoric, has what is perhaps the most
orthodox and conservative central bank in the world.
But as Jessop Sutton informs us, South Africa has
"adopted a certain capitalistic route in the main
macro-economic policy thrust."
-
[Bethune] "Limit the banks to lending 'existing"
money.'
-----------------
------------------
Except this was never proposed by C. H. Douglas. In
fact, he specifically argued against the proposal, as
in his 1933 letter to L. Denis Byrne
http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/douglas-byrne-1933.txt
It is your right to disagree with Douglas.
-
[Bethune] "...then why condemn S.C. to the No Party
Road?"
-----------------
------------------
Take up the argument with C. H. Douglas. Douglas'
colleague, John Hargrave, would have agreed with you
on this one.
-
[Bethune] "Personally and philosophically I have never
been in support of putting foxes in charge of chicken
coops, but apparently you cannot see the similarity."
-----------------
------------------
The concept of checks and balances being essential to
political democracy eludes you.
-
[Bethune] "It has to be put in terms sufficiently
simple to be understood by your audience."
-----------------
------------------
It is quite clear to me that the Douglas argument has
never been presented in sufficiently simple terms to
have been understood by you. Even basic concepts like
the retail price rebate seem to have mystified you, as
your postings to this list demonstrate. Or is it that
you are just too lazy to read what Douglas actually
said, or do you not care? You may disagree with what
he actually said, which is your right. I do however
object strongly to the misrepresentation.
-
[Bethune] "I consider this deficiency [the A+B
argument] to be so self evident and easily
demonstrated that it can be understood by the average
10 year-old."
-----------------
------------------
Well, it so happens that my daughter, Caroline, is
ten, and in the fourth grade. I can tell you with
great confidence that it's not "self-evident" to her.
What is self-evident to most every adult who has made
the effort to think about the matter (I wouldn't
impose it on any child), though most haven't taken the
time to think about the matter, is what is reflected
in the standard model of circular flow.
This rather arrogant attitude that it is self-evident
explains why you think that anyone who does not see it
in exactly the same manner you do is lying, and part
of some grand Satanic conspiracy. It was the mindset
behind the "Holy" Inquisition, and the Taliban, "true
believers" all.
Scientific progress occurs by challenging the
self-evident, which is what Douglas did, repeatedly.
Which means of course that he wasn't always right in
the final analysis. Nor could be. But without the
imperative to challenge there is little hope for
progress.
-
[Bethune] "...the prerogative of government will be to
decide how best to deal with it for the benefit of the
citizenry and the country."
-----------------
------------------
The "prerogative" of government, is it? Why not let
it be the prerogative of the individual citizen? Why
not give it to the individual citizen directly, as
Douglas proposed? If the government has some
legitimate overriding need for the money, a grand
program, perhaps, that requires collective action
(there may indeed be some), let it tax the individual
citizen directly and openly to pay for it, giving
justification when it does so.
What's wrong with that?
-
--- donzbeth@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> Dear Jim & FYI to Cc List, (DON REPLIES)
>
> So encouraging to know that you solidly endorse my
> view of orthodox banking
> as one of the world's biggest scams. But
> disappointing that your main
> criticisms show a degree of shallow negativism that
> is close to being part
> of what my Analysis identified as "barriers to
> progress".
>
> Several of your response paragraphs emphasize that
> you lived in a Canadian
> Province which had a Social Credit (S.C.) Government
> for 30 years, including
> yourself on the Party Board, but it failed to
> implement S.C. policies. In
> view of my previous sentence, it is hard for me to
> resist raising the
> question: Am I supposed to be surprised at that ?
>
> Your contention that because your government , which
> I learned at Primary
> School was firmly controlled by the central
> government in Ottawa, had
> failed to implement Social Credit, then ipso facto,
> no other
> government could do it either, is obviously
> illogical. Especially when one
> of the basic Douglas recommendations is to "get
> control of the money power",
> and that for Alberta was federally locked up
> elsewhere.
>
> It should not surprise you to learn that many
> governments get properly
> elected, and directly control the whole country,
> including a central bank.
> Furthermore, unless you are considering insurrection
> of some kind, the only
> higher authority than the banks is the elected
> government, why would you
> discourage a political approach and solution ? Are
> you not aware that
> without revolt or the support of a major political
> party, there have been no
> significant social advances anywhere on the planet
> for a century ? If
> "YES" , then why condemn S.C. to the No Party Road
> ?
>
> ELSEWHERE you ask me to distinguish between
> "national credit and
> nationalized" credit, with the inference that they
> should be kept and
> dealt with separately. After admitting that the
> banks run the world's
> biggest scam, and I hope the Douglas
> recommendation to take control of the
> money power, your question seems to infer , I
> think incredibly,
> that you envisage the debt merchants' club being
> allowed to continue
> its activity of "creating the means of payment out
> of nothing as its own
> private property". Limit the banks to lending
> "existing" money.
>
> Even back in Christ's day, it was accepted that
> emission of currency was the
> crown (or emperor's) prerogative, and ironically
> that the Money Changers
> should be kept out of the Temple, and yet here you
> seem to be inferring
> that they could be trusted to issue and inevitably
> manage or is it
> manipulate the M1 Money Supply. Personally and
> philosophically I have never
> been in support of putting foxes in charge of
> chicken coops, but apparently
> you cannot see the similarity.
>
> FINAL Paragraph contains an innuendo about mumbo
> jumbo, and the suggestion
> I should stop writing. This admits the thrust of
> my analysis has gone
> over your head. Its conclusion was NOT that the
> Douglas Analysis was
> mumbo jumbo , but that the hieroglyphics attached to
> the analysis by
> enthusiasts wanting to flaunt their superior
> knowledge , were turning it
> into what amounts to a foreign language. This
> contrasts with an inevitable
> precondition on having anything widely understood:
> It has to be put in
> terms sufficiently simple to be understood by your
> audience. People like
> yourself have been doing the opposite, not
> withstanding your good
> intentions.
>
> As this point also have been missed, I have NEVER
> disagreed with the
> Douglas Analysis which as a basic principle accepts
> that there is a
> deficiency between prices generated by industry,
> and the available spending
> power distributed in the course of that production.
> I consider this
> deficiency to be so self evident and easily
> demonstrated that it can be
> understood by the average 10 year-old. (If you
> really want to find out
> about Reading Ages, ask a teacher to lend you one of
> the standardised texts
> used by them to determine correlation between
> Reading Age and
> Chronological Age, and be prepared for some
> surprises.)
>
> After unanimous agreement of the existence of a
> "gap", I support the
> principle that its extent should be determined by
> the state using what
> could be called Proper Balance Sheets based on
> national statistics
> as currently accumulated by modern administrations.
> With the data showing
> among lots of other things, the extent of the gap,
> the prerogative of
> government will be to decide how best to deal with
> it for the benefit of
> the citizenry and the country. There is obviously a
> mix of options
> available, but they can be dealt with when
> appropriate.
>
> Cheers. And let's keep pushing for S.C. progress.
> Don Bethune (from the
> Antipodes)
> ==================================
> POST SCRIPT: Since drafting the above I acknowledge
> receiving an email from
> you (Jim) apologising for being rather rough. No
> worry. When I'm in the
> kitchen I find the heat quite stimulating. DB
>
> ########################################
>
>
> [socialcredit] Replying to Vic Bridger (and
> including all on this list).
>
>
> Hi Don:
>
> (Don) "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"
>
> (reply) For the record, I do not proclaim to be an
> expert, nor do I label
> myself a "Social Crediter". However; I'd be
> interested in you supplying me
> a direct quote from Douglas where he recommended
> that the government spend
> the gap created by B into existence via debt free
> money (something you have
> suggested on many occasions). Could you please show
> me where Douglas stated
> this, and then we can put it to rest?
>
> (Don)"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."
>
> (reply) I happen to live in a province that
> elected a "Social Credit"
> government for over 30 years! They not only had
> "two" seats in parliment,
> but they had a majority in parliment for over 30
> years, and in that time the
> Party never implimented anything really close to
> real Social Credit. I
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
JUSTIFYING ZERO
Reply to this message