|Subject:||RE: [socialcredit] Fw: request---Re: offlist---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611|
|Date:||Sunday, April 2, 2006 09:59:09 (-0700)|
|From:||thomsonhiyu <thomsonhiyu @....ca>
I've received the following message this morning from Don Bethune, which
I think should be posted to this List. I think the content and tone of
Don's response, when contrasted to Wally's original letter to him, (also
appearing below), say all that need be said at this time.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: April 2, 2006 4:18 AM
Cc: Don Bethune; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
Subject: REBUTTING AMI PROPOSALS CRITICISM
Attached is my response to a derogatory line of criticism from one
Wally Klinck who tries to behave as if he is an authority on Social
Credit. While he has inveigled himself into some positions of
responsibility in that network, as you will see from the following his
H.P. rating is about 1x Rabbit Power , with a tail wind. Guess I
don't need to tell you not to take him too seriously.
On a more serious note, I have reservations I would like you to discuss
with your colleagues. It is the proposal to repay all bonds with some
sort of money as they mature. I think that you should qualify this in
some way to avoid a rather absurd situation.
Refer to the book "Canadians, It's Time You Knew", or the Australian
equivalent, "It's Time They Knew". In both, chairmen of central
banks (I think under oath) answer questions affirming that they acquire
ownership of Government Stock simply by honouring their own checks. In
other words, they create the figures of credit, and then use them to
acquire ownership of the Bonds. They have not in any way reduced the
"M1"; they have created out of nothing the right to acquire government
debt, so why should they be entitled to obtain in exchange for that
stock "real wealth", in the same way as a worker who used his earnings
to buy Stock ?
I look forward to your response in due course, and I Hope you find the
following debate of interest.
Hi to Wally: Don Bethune tries to clarify matters.
you assert that the AMI proposals "are not Social Credit". No one said
that they were S.C., did they ?
If you are inferring that S.C. proposals are the only ones which could
work, then you are dreaming, because only God could know of all the
possible alternatives, and I don't accept that you have a special
advisory connection with Him.
You assert that the AMI proposals would in many ways be the antithesis
of S.C., and when we look for reasons we see you saying, with the
inference this is your justification, "they would give the state a
monopoly over the issue of money or credit". Most financially
intelligent people who are not in the pockets of the debt merchandising
fraternity believe that the only way that humanity can "get control of
the finance monster" (to use a C.H. Douglas colloquialism) is to do just
Although with much justification Douglas has said on at least one
occasion that politicians were not a very trustworthy bunch, on my
readings of him you will read yourself blind before you will find
Douglas actually writing that humanity can expect better treatment from
the privately owned finance monster than from elected governments.
Realistically, there are only two options: Either the state is given
power over "M1" , or you support the present massive rip-off running
into Trillions of interest bearing debt, for example, being owed to them
by the U.S. Government ? Let's grow up Wally, and answer that question.
Or would you try and slide
past it with talk about Green Dollars, Fly Buy Discount Points and that
sort of kindergarten stuff ?
Did you know that 7 of the top 10 shareholders in the U.S. Federal
Reserve Banks are super rich European banking families ? Could you
honestly expect them to
give the U.S. citizenry a better deal than an elected government ? If
not, then why are you so strong in your criticism of the AMI proposals ,
with that as a leading broadside ?
You then denigrate the proposals for wanting to offer full employment.
Now I again plead for some common sense from you. To infer, as your
criticism does, that the world should promote "Unemployment" at the
present time is totally ridiculous; if it got over the credibility
hurdle (which is fortunately unlikely) and was adopted it would initiate
Just imagine the chaos that would be created if any state offered the
citizenry ample money to buy all the widgets and luxuries they wanted ?
Naturally most of them would rather just live, than continue going to
work. So the physical workforce which keeps the wheels of industry
rolling suddenly retires. And tell me, with the education system short
of teachers, and hospitals understaffed, (in U.S.) 20% of their families
in substandard housing, and so on, who is going to do the work involved
in staffing, home building, and so on, if they can live on dividends and
not work ?
Your inferences that the results of AMI proposals could bring in fascism
and Bolshevism are so obviously unfounded emotional garbage that they
admit you are incapable of engaging in a rational debate. But before
signing off, I remind you again that there is a growing body of opinion
which maintains that the best way of the citizenry regaining their lost
control over their parliamentary representatives is to duress them into
adopting the Swiss Initiative , as has been operating effectively there
for over a century.
It is relevant that advice has just come in that under the title of
"Direct Democracy" lobby groups in Europe are pushing in several
countries for the adoption of this system. We in N.Z. call it the BCIR
or Binding Citizens Initiated Referendums. The right has already been
granted to have the referendums; as also in about 23 American states;
the next step is to have results made "binding" , and pressure will be
kept up until that is achieved.
I don't want people to fall off their chairs laughing, so I'll refrain
from asking you when do you think the public will be able to get
Douglas's Finance Monster to accept a similar control mechanism ?
Don Bethune's comments end with a request to Wally:
IF you wish to reply, please do not insult my intelligence with another
collection of inaccurate assertions and rubbish like yours below.
Dear Don, Re: The AMI Proposals.
Obviously, the Zarlenga proposals are not Social Credit and appear to
fact, in many ways its antithesis. Among other things, they would seem
give the state a monopoly over this issue of money or credit, aim for
"stability" rather than a falling price-level, incorporate a public
of "full-employment" (implying that "work" should be the essential
basis of consumer access to goods and services) rather than providing
opportunity for increasing leisure--and they do not provide for
consumer control of production policy. This is all reminiscent of
and/or Bolshevism, I would think. See Bill Ryan's recent quote from
Fascist leader Oswald Moseley where the latter specifically rejects
Douglas's proposals for direct consumer credits as entirely incompatible
with (British) fascist principles.