| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy? | | Date: | Wednesday, April 4, 2007 14:14:31 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4643 (written by keith wilde) |
Hi Keith
Thank you for the confirmation of the work by Del Mar. I was
racking my brains to remember which of Innes's contemporaries had actually
written a work making my point. As I mentioned in the "essay" modern
research supports Del Mar rather than Innes. There are numerous examples
throughout history of coins of particular metallic assey produced by the
various empires dating back as far as Sumer and the Babylonians. It is one
position that appears to be inviolate. Rulers insisted on their coins being
of a particular purity and metallic content. The "milled edge" was an early
innovation to prevent people shaving away the edges of coins to obtain the
precious metal contained in them. Many Roman coins appear to have them. This
all appears to contradict Innes contention that "There never was a monetary
unit that depended upon a particular weight of precious metal until modern
times".
On another topic I must assume that Richards comment about Fascism is
somewhat facetious. Nevertheless he does have a good point. We should never
assume because someone has a markedly different view from our own that they
are a moron. It is only by looking at historical facts and sifting out truth
from fiction that we can obtain a full picture of a situation. You can often
gain precious insight into a problem by listening carefully to someone who
has a radically different approach to a position than your own. That is the
mark of the true scientist and historian.
Bill Mc Gunnigle
ssage -----
From: "keith wilde" <kwilde@tc-biodiversity.org>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?
>I anticipate with interest the exchange that will
> develop between you and Bill over this one.
>
> Keith
>
>
> --- Richard Cook <rickycook21@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In my opinion it is absolutely fruitless and a waste
>> of time to use labels
>> like "fascist" to discuss any aspect of monetary
>> research or proposals. It
>> resembles a smear campaign. Ideas should be
>> discussed impartially and on
>> their merits. Mussolini "made the trains run on
>> time." So I suppose trains
>> and watches are "fascist?"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >From: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>
>> >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
>> >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?
>> >Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 02:18:37 -0400
>> >
>> >Very interesting! The implication for Douglas that
>> Ryan notes is
>> >paralleled by the "creditary" theory developed by
>> Meakin and Gardiner--both
>> >of which I have found to be very persuasive. On
>> the other hand, the point
>> >made by McGunn. is reinforced in the work of
>> Alexander Del Mar. In
>> >particular, I have his 1896 book History of
>> Monetary Systems which is
>> >primarily a history of coinage that emphasizes the
>> consistency over time of
>> >particular coins and their direct link to a
>> recognized political authority.
>> >A notable example is a gold coin (solidus?) that
>> was the standard of value
>> >throughout Europe until the fall of Constantinople.
>> From the introductory
>> >notes to my 1983 re-issue of his book, it is
>> evident that Del Mar was a
>> >justifiably recognized authority on the history of
>> the precious metals and
>> >of coinage. This one is the last of his books on
>> the subject, which number
>> >six in total--plus many articles. So, there was
>> plenty of quite recent
>> >scholarship to the contrary that Innes could have
>> used.
>> >
>> >I just happened to have the Del Mar book on my
>> shelves when starting to
>> >read Zarlenga's Lost Science of Money, having
>> spotted it in the window of a
>> >used book store not many months previously. I read
>> it in conjunction, and
>> >found that Stephen made very extensive use of Del
>> Mar, resting much of his
>> >argument on the work of the latter. Although there
>> seems to have been a
>> >perception of common interest between Zarlenga and
>> Meakin-Gardiner while
>> >the former's work was in progress, publication and
>> review shattered it, for
>> >they found that they were not on the same track at
>> all. Ryan's observation
>> >about Douglas and Innes is reinforcement of the
>> point.
>> >
>> >There is interesting anecdotal linkage here to the
>> element of what Ryan
>> >calls fascism in proposals for monetary reform like
>> those of Zarlenga. The
>> >reissue of the Del Mar book that I have was an
>> intiative of The National
>> >Poetry Foundation, University of Maine at Orono, in
>> The Ezra Pound
>> >Scholarship Series. Pound was imprisoned for many
>> years by the United
>> >States because of his support for ideals of the
>> Mussolini regime in Italy.
>> >He was visited frequently in prison by Eustace
>> Mullins, a youthful admirer
>> >who researched the origins of the Federal Reserve
>> System as a staff member
>> >at the Library of Congress. This was published in
>> 1952, and the copy I have
>> >was re-issued in 1954 as The Federal Reserve
>> Conspiracy. It was put into
>> >my hands by the former leader of the Social Credit
>> Party of Canada, John
>> >Blackmore, but I had never read it until I found
>> that Zarlenga was basing
>> >much of his argument upon it. At the time he
>> published the book, Mullins
>> >was also serving as chief of research for the
>> Unamerican Activities
>> >campaign of Joseph McCarthy. This link led me to
>> review a lot of conspiracy
>> >literature, some of which I had read and discounted
>> long in the past. As I
>> >passed on these bits of info to Stephen, he became
>> upset with me and
>> >accused me of wanting to destroy his position,
>> which was not the case.
>> >
>> >(I have read the subsequent exchanges under this
>> head, those between Martin
>> >and Ryan, and the substantial essay by McGunn. of
>> this morning. This seemed
>> >like the most appropriate place to insert my own
>> comment.)
>> >
>> >Keith
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
>> >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
>> >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:26 AM
>> >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy?
>> >
>> >
>> > > Then I take it you do not agree with this from
>> Innes'
>> > > 1913 paper
>> > > http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/innes
>> > >
>> > > "...there is overwhelming evidence that there
>> never
>> > > was a monetary unit which depended on the value
>> of
>> > > coin or on a weight of metal; that there never
>> was,
>> > > until quite modern days, any fixed relationship
>> > > between the monetary unit and any metal; that,
>> in
>> > > fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic
>> > > standard of value."
>> > > ------------------
>> > >
>> > > Here's the thing. Douglas' theory makes no
>> sense
>> > > whatsoever from the orthodox money is a medium
>> of
>> > > exchange perspective. His theory makes perfect
>> sense
>> > > from the creditary perspective expressed by
>> Innes.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- William Hugh McGunnigle
>> <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > With due respect the Innes papers were designed
>> to try
>> > > to demonstrate that there was no control of
>> coinage in
>> > > the dark ages. They ignored to a large extent
>> the fact
>> > > that monarchs used the "tally stick" to keep
>> track of
>> > > finances and these were used for "tax
>> assessment".
>> > > Coin value was related to these. I therefore
>> stand by
>> > > my previous statement that, although it appeared
>> that
>> > > coinage was not really under control there was a
>> rigid
>> > > value system related to weight of Gold, Silver
>> and
>> > > Copper metal in coins. The methods of assessing
>> coin
>> > > purity had been established long before the
>> advent of
>> > > the Roman Empire by Archmeides of Greece.
>> Although it
>> > > appeared crude by modern methods of assey it was
>> still
>> > > adequate for practical purposes. Contrary to
>> popular
>> > > belief the men who did this type of assey work
>> were
>> > > skilled and generally honest because they were
>> > > appointed by Royal decree. The penalty for
>> incorrect
>> > > assey was death. Innes work, while skilled and
>> > > undoubtedly honestly conducted, suffered from an
>> > > obvious bias. He was selective in his choice of
>> > > primary sources and tended to ignore sources
>> that
>> > > contradicted his basic premises. In all fairness
>> he is
>> > > not the only historian to do this, but he is
>> open to
>> > > strong critisism because of it. I personally
>> cannot
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message