| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Fw: request---Re: offlist---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611 | | Date: | Tuesday, April 4, 2006 04:58:26 (-0600) | | From: | Wallace M. Klinck <wmklinck @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 3742 (written by thomsonhiyu) |
Thanks Joe,
I will insert several comments in square brackets in the text of Don
Bethune's reaction to my observations comparing certain aspects of Social
Credit and those of the AMI. See below.
Wally
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomsonhiyu" <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Fw: request---Re: offlist---Re: ELECTRONZ - 611
> 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.
>
> Joe Thomson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: donzbeth@ihug.co.nz [mailto:donzbeth@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: April 2, 2006 4:18 AM
> To: ami@taconic.net
> Cc: Don Bethune; designafuture@xtra.co.nz; thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca;
> james@jamesrobertson.com; hermann@picknowl.com.au
> Subject: REBUTTING AMI PROPOSALS CRITICISM
>
> Hello Stephen,
> 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.
> Don Bethune
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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 ?
[WALLY: Nor, of course, did I say they were. I was making a limited
comparison of Social Credit with certain stated policies of the AMI.
Unfortunately, there has been an tendency for many people to confuse Social
Credit with various incompatible monetary schemes and some of us who have
some experience in this matter feel a moral and "academic" responsibilty to
ensure within our ability that a correct understanding of the differences is
available to interested parties. What others wish to believe or promote is
their choice--but we must make certain that Social Credit is clearly defined
and differentiated where this is necessary. Surely this is a matter of
elementary honesty.]
> 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.
[WALLY: Unfortunately, the term "work", in this sense, is subjective and
means very different things to different schools of thought. That is, what
one school might consider as "workable" might be entirely different for
another school. That is why Douglas was at such pains, for very good
reasons, to emphasize that every policy has its antecedent philosophy and
that Social Credit stands for a unique policy which is not understood by
mere "monetary reformers." The policy of Social Credit is to disperse
control of credit into the hands of individuals as opposed to conferring it
upon institutions, e.g., the state. As to having a "special advisory
relationship with God," I think it behooves us all to cultivate such a
relationship and failure to do so will bring the most disastrous
consequences. In more practical terms, this means seeking correct
understandings of natural law and how properly to conduct our affairs in
respect of such law. If we are to accomplish anything worthwhile at all we
must accept the responsibility of choosing the best of alternatives known to
us and we cannot do this in a philosophical vacuum. Choosing a policy based
upon an unrealistic philosophy can only result in destructive consequences.
Social Credit regards the relentless concentration of power, per se, as a
cancerous growth which is increasingly damaging to the individual and the
body politic. Surely, history as observed is a confirmation of the validity
of this view.]
> 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
> that!!!
[WALLY: If I read your comment at face value, it apparently does indeed
mean "just that"--and appears to be a self-admitted and unmistakeable
admission of your policy. What you appear not to understand, or care, is
that Douglas was concerned to break up the monopoly of credit--not to
tranfer it to another institution (the state) which may be even more
impregnable and unassailable than the "private" one. Because of this
failure to properly differentiate fundamental policy, Douglas advanced some
severe criticism of the policy of various mere "monetary reformers" who
either failed to consider the philosophical basis and/or consequences of
their policy, misconstrued them or deliberately set out to commandeer the
public credit for the exercise of centralized power over their fellow
citizens. The latter policy obviously is in direct contradistinction to
that of Social Credit and the Christian principles around which it is
formulated.]
> 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 ?
[WALLY: This hardly seems to be an outstanding expression of clarity. I am
not aware that Social Credit has ever promoted "Green Dollars" or "Fly Buy
Discount Points" whatever you mean to say or insinuate by this statement.
Social Credit does advocate a flow of consumer credits supplementary to
those distributed by the orthodox price system. The objective is to cancel
financial production costs at a rate which makes impossible the accumulation
of unrepayable debt--by correcting a serious error in national financial
accountancy. If you eliminate unrepayable debt, you automatically deal with
real or perceived problems associated with "interest." One can rail against
"usury" until the end of time or one can centralize state power to eliminate
it and nothing good will be achieved as one form of oppression is
substituted merely for another. Nothing good and permanent can be achieved
by beating around the branches and ignoring the root of the financial
problem, i.e., fundamentally flawed financial accountancy. As for "growing
up," I remind you again that Social Credit is a policy formulated in accord
with Christian belief which states, if I recall that unless one becomes as a
little child one will in no way enter the Kingdom. I think the meaning
should be clear. You are free to "grow up" as you choose; I will make my
own choice.]
> 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 ?
[WALLY: Don, if you understood the substantive changes which Social Credit
advocates for national accountancy, which involves conferring upon each
citizen a beneficial share in the communal capital, you would have (if your
basic philosophy allowed) a better appreciation of the profound changes
which this would bring to society.]
> 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
> disaster.
> 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 ?
[WALLY: I not only denigrate any social or state policy of maintaining
"full employment;" I condemn it out of hand. We seem to have altogether too
much "common sense" as things are; what is needed is a good deal more
"uncommon" sense. Incidentally, Social Credit policy is to increase Leisure
in the context of economic security, and to charcterize this as an advocacy
of "unemployment" (with its implication of economic privation) is a complete
distortion of Social Credit policy. Surely you are aware of the elementary
fact that both fascism and communism/Bolshevism maintained a rigorous policy
of "full employment", "work" being the cornerstone coersive policies of both
forms of social organization--and of social control by ensuring that one's
survival depended upon obeisance within the Work State. Present policy
under the so-called existing "capitalist" system functioning under debt
finance operates in a similar if more subtle manner. Douglas observed that
furious opposition to the proposed Social Credit National (Consumer)
Dividend leads to a considerable suspicion that such opposition is based
upon a fear (and jealousy) of the economic and personal freedom and
independence which it would confer upon one's neighbor.
I believe I discern, from your comments about social behaviour likely to
occur following receipt of National Dividends, that you must have a very low
opinion of a majority of your fellow citizens. You give the impression that
the best relationships and performance are most likely to be achieved by
keeping the individual in a state of economic dependency where the basis of
security can be had only through "jobs" rationed out or extended arbitrarily
as a sanction upon the individual. These are well known attitudes and
policies but I can assure you that they are neither "Christian" nor Social
Credit. "Toil not, your heavenly Father knows you have need of these
things....ye of little faith." Forget not the lillies of the field and the
multiplication and distribution of loaves and fishes. "Salvation" through
unearned Grace, as opposed to Salvation through Works. Love your neighbor,
etc.
We are forced into a crescendo of vast, wasteful and destructive production
and yet still must struggle in intense, intensifying competion to market our
surfeit of consumer goods and services. The British Social Crediter, John
Hargrave, expressed the situation well, "He who calls for full-employment
calls for War." If the need were eliminated to produce undesired or
undesirable things merely to get the income required to purchase not current
but past production, the enormous real potential for leisure in abundance
would be manifest. Are you not aware that the Dividend and Compensation to
prices at point of retail are payable in respect of final goods which ARE
available and for which the consumer has insufficient earned income? They
are based upon the actual relationship of production to consumption. If
production fell relative to consumption the revealed statistical
relationship would be reflected in the national accounts and the Dividend
would diminish while the price level would rise. There is no basis whatever
to wild claims that the whole production system would collapse due to
universal indolence. The normal inclination of healthy humans is to explore
the universe and to enjoy the experience of life through participation--not
coerced but chosen freely. If the morale of mankind has been adversely
affected by the present system of enforced servitude then one would think
that it is high time this world system of false values was rectified.]
> 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.
[WALLY: Social Credit advocates responsible, informed action by citizens in
demanding the policies and results which we seek to obtain. If the
Citizens' Initiative, Referendum and Recall movements can be useful toward
this end, so much the better. The concept is well known and practiced in
various parts of the world. To date, it has not been successful in
acheiving much in the nature of what Social Credit seeks. They might
achieve something if they were better informed about what policies they
actually should be seeking--but of which they are now essentially uninformed
and unaware because of the tyranny of conventional thought, to which they
have been molded. They need a spiritual, intellectual and pyschological
release in order to be effective--as Douglas said, a drastic
dehypnotization. They need a vision of the new civilization which Social
Crediters wish to achieve--a civilization based, as Douglas declared, upon
absolute economic security for each individual. A civilization where all
persons may sit under their own "fig tree", and none shall make them
afraid.]
> ##################################
> Dear Don, Re: The AMI Proposals.
> Obviously, the Zarlenga proposals are not Social Credit and appear to
> be, in
> fact, in many ways its antithesis. Among other things, they would seem
> to
> give the state a monopoly over this issue of money or credit, aim for
> price
> "stability" rather than a falling price-level, incorporate a public
> policy
> of "full-employment" (implying that "work" should be the essential
> required
> basis of consumer access to goods and services) rather than providing
> opportunity for increasing leisure--and they do not provide for
> increasing
> consumer control of production policy. This is all reminiscent of
> fascism
> and/or Bolshevism, I would think. See Bill Ryan's recent quote from
> British
> Fascist leader Oswald Mosley where the latter specifically rejects
> Major
> Douglas's proposals for direct consumer credits as entirely incompatible
> with (British) fascist principles.
> Wally
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmklinck@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date: 3/31/2006
>
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message