| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: JUSTIFYING ZERO A+B PROGRESS; Don Responds. | | Date: | Tuesday, May 17, 2005 16:18:28 (-0700) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
[Bethune] "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."
-------------------
--------------------
Then by your admission I was correct that you believe
the purpose of government is "to run and control the
whole country." Sieg Heil!
-
[Bethune] "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."
-------------------
--------------------
It has nothing to do with "limiting" banks per se. It
has everything to do with the one-hundred percent
reserve against deposits concept, the subject matter
of the letter, which you advocate, and Douglas
opposed, as the letter demonstrates unequivocably.
-
[Bethune] "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?"
-------------------
--------------------
It demonstrates one instance of what Douglas actually
said as opposed to what people, like yourself, have
said he said through deliberate misrepresentation, or
just plain ignorance. I have found it is one instance
out of many where he has been misrepresented by you
and other "monetary reformers."
As to "supporting reasons," I've supplied the letter
as my Exhibit A. What actual evidence can you supply?
Put up or shut up.
I will state that Douglas never once supported, in his
thirty plus year public career, the one-hundred
percent reserves against deposits requirement that you
advocate. It is a wacky idea that couldn't work even
if you tried. In that I concur with Douglas.
As to "control," we certainly do want to regulate and
oversee banks as independent institutions, inasmuch as
they are a natural monopoly.
-
[Bethune] "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?"
-------------------
--------------------
The fact remains that Douglas opposed the formation of
Social Credit parties. He gave his reasons why. Have
you never seen them?
-
[Bethune] "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..."
-------------------
--------------------
Herein proving the point that the concept of checks
and balances eludes you. Amalgamating banking with
government eliminates the check of either on the
other, if only potentially, which was Douglas' point.
I take note that twice now in this post you have
launched into an anti-American diatribe in
diversionary tactic that I find quite repulsive.
Every civilized person should find it repulsive. Yes,
I am speaking from America, and quite proud of it.
And you are speaking from New Zealand, in English,
which might not have been the case if America had not
taken on the task--the duty--of fighting the Japanese
back, in the Pacific, island by island, a half century
ago, at great cost to herself, in blood and tears, far
beyond the point that was necessary to secure her
homeland from immediate danger. New Zealand,
abandoned, might now be part of the great Japanese
"Co-Prosperity Sphere," if she existed at all. But
that is perhaps what you would have preferred.
America took the war directly to our common enemy
then, as she is doing now in Central Asia. And she'll
do it alone if that's what it takes. She has the
resources to accomplish the job. And I don't give a
damn what you think.
-
[Bethune] "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.
-------------------
--------------------
What an utter ignoramus you are proving to be. The
Initiative is written into several state
constitutions, most notably, California's. I wonder
if it is written into New Zealand's? Two of the great
planks of the American Populist movement, which nearly
elected a president a century ago, were the Initiative
and Referendum. Their other great plank, Free Coinage
of Silver, was ultimately defeated, requiring action
at the federal level. Much of the Populist legacy
remains, however, in law and tradition, throughout the
country, more than a century after the movement's
formal demise. I reside in a state, Texas, where the
Referendum is in effect, where much of what is
routinely handled legislatively in other states is
required to be put to the vote of the people, as
constitutional amendments, at every ballot, which they
vote up or down. It is why we do not yet have the
income tax, nor casino gambling, both having on
several occassions been voted down by the people,
though advocated by their legislature.
-
[Bethune] "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."
-------------------
--------------------
I repeat: The Douglas argument has never been
presented in sufficiently simple terms to have been
understood by you.
-
[Bethune] "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.'"
-------------------
--------------------
No. I'm interested in the truth, what the man
actually said. The matter was initially assigned to
me as a research topic in graduate school--to find the
real Douglas. Agree with what he said, or
disagree--the good, the bad, the ugly--whatever it
might be. Just don't put words into his mouth
conjured from seances or whatever.
-
[Bethune] "...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?"
-------------------
--------------------
No, Don, you've lowered it to that level. On more
than one occassion you've inferred that I'm part of
some conspiracy against "reform." You've just done it
again. You are the typical pea-brained mentality that
thinks it knows it all when it knows nothing. Why not
a little humility, Don?
-
[Bethune] "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?"
-------------------
--------------------
Nope. Whether it is "sensible and logical" is a
separate issue. It may or it may not be, depending on
your perspective, or "philosophy," as Douglas put it.
The point is that your "proposal in this area" does
not reflect the thinking of C. H. Douglas. Your claim
that it does is fraud, pure and simple.
-
--- donzbeth@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
|
Re: JUSTIFYING ZE
Reply to this message