| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Historic accuracy? | | Date: | Tuesday, April 3, 2007 11:49:35 (-0400) | | From: | Richard Cook <rickycook21 @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4641 (written by Keith Wilde) |
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
> > condemn him as a charletan he was too good an
> > historian for that, but do regard his work with a
> > great deal of reserve. You are however correct in
> > quoting his work as a valid source of contradiction to
> > my own research.
> >
> > W.H.McGunnigle
> >
> >
> >
> >
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> > with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 keithwilde@sympatico.ca
> > For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 rickycook21@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
_________________________________________________________________
Interest Rates Fall Again! $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new
payment
http://www.lowermybills.com/lre/index.jsp?sourceid=lmb-9632-18679&moid=7581
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message