| Subject: | RE: [socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson | | Date: | Monday, April 16, 2007 06:18:51 (+0000) | | From: | John G Rawson <johngrawson @.......com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 4696 (written by Henry Raynel) |
Thanks, Henry. Why did I expect that from you?! Will I embarass you if I
note that you were the finest (by far) organiser our Party ever had in the field
of elections?
I will admit that a government that spends all new money into circulation could
become totalitarian, but this can result from other causes too. I see a partial
move in this direction as, taking your viewpoint, a necessary evil.
But I think we have the answer to this and many other problems in the proposal
for binding citizen-initiated referenda.
Best wishes. John R.
From: "Henry Raynel" <henry.raynel@actrix.gen.nz>
Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Subject: RE:
[socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:09:10
+1200
>
>Dear Richard, and Everybody,
>Just a word of warning from my
understanding of study of the founder of
>Social Credit work C H Douglas.
>The
two most powerful organisations with Power to dictate to the people and
>Nations
of the world are:
>One - Politicians
>Second - Bankers
>Marry the two and you
establish the greatest National and world dictatorship
>possible.
>
>Under New
Social Credit economics the creation, ownership and management of
>the Nations
money supply must be established genuinely separate with
>carefully considered
legislation and
be independent of both Government and
>independent of bankers.
>This is also
clearly stated in a publication by "The Social Credit
>Secretariat" in its
publication in their three booklets Sustainable
>prosperity " Challenge and
Change" 1994 publication. Booklet three page 16
>
>Please go to the Director of
Studies of "The Social Credit School of
>Studies" while considering my
statement.
>I also referred to in the School directors publication "A Brief Outline
of
>Social Credit" by the School director Vic Bridger page 12.
>
>Mr. Wally Klink
Canada would be another authority to discuss this matter
>with.
>Please note
although I am very interested I do not wish to get personally
>involved in
continuous debate on the subject.
>
>Very best wishes.
>Yours very
sincerely
>Henry
Raynel.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Cook
[mailto:rickycook21@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, 16 April 2007 2:30 a.m.
>To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
>Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson
>
>I
just want to point out that the proposals I am workinig on just now
>include both
direct creation of credit by the government (non-tax, non-debt)
>
>for
infrastructure spending and a national dividend for citizens. I believe
>that in
today's conditions, both are needed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Joe Thomson
<thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> >Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> >To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> >Subject: [socialcredit] Reply to John Rawson
> >Date:
Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:52:43 -0400
>
>
> >Hi John,
> >
> >I'll reply below yours in 'green'.
> > (John Rawson wrote:-) Joe, with respect, is money to be used for a
> >national dividend or consumer subsidy (yes, Douglas did use that word)
> >going to be "increasing debt" to be repaid?
> > No. It's 'debt-free', in that it has not been 'costed' into any
> >production. It doesn't have to appear in any 'price', in other words.
> >It does allow what 'costs' HAVE ALREADY appeared in 'prices', over the
> >fiscal period selected, to be (more) FULLY liquidatable in 'money'.
> >Something, primarily because of ongoing 'labour displacement', they can't
> >be in the aggregate currently without further increases in overall
> >'debt', (or a continual, and impossible, 'favourable' balance of trade).
> >
>
> If not, why should similar money, issued to fill the "gap" in other ways
>
> >need to be?
> >
> > Because some of those "other ways" create further 'costs', which then
> >have to be liquidated at some time in the future. And also will increase
> >consumer prices in the process, which further 'taxes' your income, by
> >further reducing its already generally deficient purchasing power.
> >
> > The difference from Douglas' time is that public expenditure on
> >infrastructure, health, education, police etc. has so ballooned since then
> >that different circumstances apply. With it has come mountainous debt most
>
> >of which needs to be repaid. I know a lot is simply bank credit, but it is
> >so intertwined with superannuation fund money etc. that any
government
> >simply repudiating it all would be a pariah.
> >
> > Yes, that's
true, the 'figures' are larger. But the government need not
>
> >'repudiate' them
at all. "The world would gladly pay all its debts if only
>
> >it were provided
the money with which to do so." You can't provide it with
>
> >'money' to pay its
debts as long as that 'money' creates another 'cost'
> >which then has to be
liquidated in the future. But it can be done by
> >directly augmenting deficient
consumer incomes, and in a manner that
> >'reduces' consumer prices without a
loss to producers. Debt that is
> >capable of being fully liquidated as due
cannot grow from 'interest'.
> >
> > Replacing debt with honest money will be a
long, slow process, and in
> >the mean time I see
little point in paying an average citizen, say, $500
> >per year and taxing him,
locally and centrally, with two to ten times that
> >amount.
> >
> > But you're
not doing that. Taxes will fall, not rise.
> >
> > Douglas was not perfect in all
his ideas., though I would accentuate the
>
> >absolute brilliance of his
analyses. But I suggest many of his followers
> >have been even more flawed in
trying to assert that everything he said was
> >inflexibly correct, despite
radical changes in social conditions. And
> >despite the fact that he himself
recommended somewhat different approaches
> >for different countries.
> >
> >
Well, I think that's correct. There would likely be different
> >approaches in
different countries. For instance, to take Bill
Ryan's
> >proposal, I don't really know whether there would be anything that
>
>corresponds to the Federal Reserve's 'open market Committee', and the
>
>method it currently uses to inject 'debt-free' money into the US economy,
>
>in your country or mine. So what may be a feasible 'first step' in the
USA
>
> >might not be applicable in the same way elsewhere. The 'principles' might
>
>have to be applied differently, but they are still the same.
> >
> > But let's
have a look at the USA scene, where the AMI want all debt-free
>
> >money
chanelled into infrastructure and Richard Cook would pay it all out
> >as income
to citizens. Are these really so different?
> >
> > Radically different.
> >
> >
Both would bring in the fundamental reform of breaking the
private
> >monopoly of money creation.
> >
> > You can do that right now. But
it's 'how' you do it, and 'why' you're
> >doing it, that's the important thing
.
> >
> > Both would benefit individual citizens immensely.
> >
> > No, they would
not. Social Credit would be of benefit to citizens
> >immensely. The AMI ideas
will almost certainly lead directly to what
> >Social Credit stands against, in
my opinion. You will have an 'illusion'
> >of prosperity, beneath which lurks
everything that will rob you of your
> >money (purchasing power), and your
freedom.
> >
> > Both could have faults, e.g. encouragement of unnecessarily
grandiose
> >public works on the one hand, or, (if payments were also made in
respect of
>
> >infants) encouragement of
baby-farming and child abuse on the other.
> >
> > Isn't the overriding need to
get on with the main aim and do something?
> >
> > Yes, once we understand and
agree on what we really want to achieve.
> >
> > And isn't it likely that, as in
so many things, the greatest benefit
> >lies in compromise?
> >
> > That depends
on just what is being 'compromised'.
> >
> > Could we not, for example, hold a
binding referendum (with options
> >clearly and equally explained) and let the
public choose the method? Would
>
> >that not fit completely into the underlying
philosophy of Social Credit?
> >
> > No, it would not. That choice of 'method' is
exactly what the public is
>
> >being asked to choose right now, and look where
it's got us. The
choice is
>
> >one of alternate 'Policies'. 1. Are systems made for man?, or, 2.
Is man
> >made for systems?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
>
> >
> > From: Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca>
> > Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
> > Date: Sat, 14 Apr
2007 09:08:36 -0400
> > >I believe both Richard Cook and Bill McGunnigle are
still largely
> >missing
> > >the point. The purpose of any economic system
should be to deliver the
> > >'physically possible' goods and
services that are needed and desired by
> > >CONSUMERS. Each and every one of
us, as INDIVIDUALS. For we are ALL
> > >'consumers', even though it is no longer
necessary, or even desirable,
> >that
> > >we ALL be 'producers'. At least in the
traditional sense we once were.
> > >And this is true whether we're residents of
the USA, New Zealand,
> > >Indonesia, or wherever.
> > >
> > > Look around your
own country. How many people, whatever the accepted
> > >standard of living,
wherever you are, are living right now at a
> > >'subsistence' level. And are
unable to rise above it. The only
> > >difference between there, (places like
Indonesia, the 'Third-World'),
> >and
> > >here, is the accepted standard of
living here is higher. But so,
too,
> >is
> > >the level of OVERALL personal indebtedness. We, on average, live
higher
>
> >on
> > >the hog, but we're also 'financially' far deeper in the
bog.
> > >
> > >The reason for that all that 'personal' indebtedness, in our
>
>'First-World'
> > >countries, ISN'T that the 'GOVERNMENT' doesn't "create
money and spend
> >it
> > >into circulation on public works". A policy which will
ultimately only
> > >lead to greater 'debt', only to a different party. (Higher
taxes ~ as
> >the
> > >'debt' is now owed, and must be repaid, to the
'Government', which in
> >spite
> > >of what many may think, is NOT the same as
you and I as 'Individuals'.
> >And
> > >it will be repaid. Either through those
higher
taxes directly. Or
> > >indirectly, through the cruelest tax of them all ,
inflation. Or likely
> > >both.).
> > >
> > >The only solution to this, if we
truly DO believe that "systems were
> >made
> > >for man, and not man for
systems" ~ in other words, that the
> >'individual' is
> > >the most important
element, and that 'society' is formed for the
> >service of
> > >each of us, as
'individuals' ~ is to make it possible for OVERALL
> >'debt', no
> > >matter
whether it's to its creator as a private bank, a Government
> >bank, or
> > >the
'Treasury", to be always completely capable of 'self-liquidation'.
> >This
> >
>it presently is NOT!
> > >
> > >We can only do this by the proper periodic
distribution of appropriate
> > >amounts of 'debt-free' new credit directly to
CONSUMERS. To ensure that
> > >'past' aggregate debt is always capable of being
fully self liquidating
>
> >as
> > >it comes due in the 'present'. Even though
'future' debt may continue
> >to
> > >grow as we continue to add necessary 'real
production' capacity,
> >(including
> > >'public works', if they are truly
necessary, which many no doubt are),
> >we
> > >will then always be fully capable
of its liquidation as it comes due.
> > >
> > >We CAN NOT make it so merely by
"spending money into circulation for
> >public
> > >works, infratructure, statues
to great leaders, armaments, etc." as
> > >proposed. That only replaces one debt
with
another. A larger one, that
> >in
> > >itself can only be paid by an endless
repitition of the process. Which
> > >will culminate in an orgy of 'physical
destruction', ultimately
> > >accomplished through 'war', and carried out in a
mindless attempt to
> >make
> > >the 'facts' fit the 'figures', rather than
properly having the
> >'figures'
> > >reflect the 'facts'.
> > >
> > >Bill Ryan
has provided the background for, and possibilities of, a
> >method
> > >by which,
in the USA at least, we might move from where we presently
> >are to
> > >where
we'd like to go. I think it is a very interesting approach to a
> > >subject
which has not, to my knowledge, been approached from that
> >direction
> >
>before. I
have some concerns, and doubtless others will surface, about
> > >certain
aspects of what's proposed. I'm optimistic those concerns will
> >be
> >
>examined and addressed, and I believe they will be. Regardless, I
>
>believe
> > >Bill Ryan has been consistant in his approach towards increasing
>
>financial
> > >'freedom for the individual' rather than in merely proposing a
'change
> >of
> > >masters'.
> > >
> > >Joe
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original
Message -----
> > >From: "Richard Cook" <rickycook21@hotmail.com>
> > >To:
<socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > >Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 9:57 AM
> >
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic Bridger
> >
>
> > >
> > > > The delusion is that a country needs someone else's money, such as
> >the
> > >U.S.
> > > > dollar, to lubricate their own financial and economic system. All
> >these
> > > > countries have the capability, either on their own or in concert
> >with
> > > > others, to generate their own indigenous currency. It could be done
> >either
> > > > by their government spending it into circulation or by issuance of
> >credit
> > >in
> > > > the form of low-interest loans. This is how Colonial America built
> >its
> > > > economy, by using scrip. Another example is the use of Greenbacks by
>
> >the
> > > > U.S. during and after the Civil War. An outside fund
source is not
> >needed
> > > > for indigenous currency which any nation can use
to develop its own
> > > > resources. It can then sell some of these products to
overseas
> >customers
> > >to
> > > > acquire currency to use in foreign trade.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>From: "William Hugh McGunnigle" <wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz>
> > > > >Reply-To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
> > > > >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > > >
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic
> >Bridger
> > >
> >Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007
11:37:28 +1200
> > > > >
> > > > >W.H.McGunnigle: comments on Reply by William
B. Ryan
> > > > > Your comments with respect to Major Douglas do have
> > > >
>some relevance considering that the financial position globally is
> >far
> >
> > >different than in his day. Nevertheless his basic axiom, namely
> >that
the
> > > > >money in circulation in our present system of financial managent,
>
>is
> > >always
> > > > >smaller than the amount of goods and services that can
be made
> >available
> > >to
> > > > >everyone, still holds true. The biggest
problem facing monetary
> >reformers
> > > > >is CHANGING the way it operates.
While I look with interest on
the
> > > > >arguments put forward about A+B I have yet to see someone who
>
>offers a
> > > > >tangible and viable method of reducing indeptedness to the
private
> > >banking
> > > > >system. This compounding problem is the reason why
resource rich
> > >countries
> > > > >like Indonesia have a massive amount of
poverty among its general
> > > > >population. I do know that many of these
"third world" resource
> >rich but
> > > > >cash poor countries are now realising
that they will get no
> >positive help
> > > > >from industrialised developed
countries beyond that which will
> >maintain
> > > > >them at a bare subsistance
level, and that they have to adopt
> >financial
>
> > > >methods that bypass the IMF and World Bank to avoid the crippling
> >debt
> > > > >burden preventing them from self-financing their own developement.
> > > > > They are looking with favour on Socred type methods to do this
> > > > >despite efforts by the IMF and World Bank to prevent it.
> > > > > respectfully submitted
> > > > > Bill McGunnigle
> > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
> > > > >To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
> > > > >Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 6:26 AM
> > > > >Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Some Forwarded Comments from Vic
> >Bridger
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Joe, I look on
Vic Bridger and also Wally Klinck as
> > > > >>being in somewhat the position of
being village
> > > > >>priests in a near dead religion, who have done great
> >
> > >>service in preserving the ancient texts of the founder
> > > > >>of their
religion, inasmuch as the ancient texts have
> > > > >>disappeared practically
everywhere else. They are,
> > > > >>however, in my opinion, not necessarily the
best
> > > > >>interpreters of the ancient texts. By saying this I
> > > > >>mean
no disrespect whatsoever. They have both been
> > > > >>exceedingly helpful to me
in supplying much of the
> > > > >>Douglas literature that they have maintained
in their
> > > >
>>personal archives.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I regard C. H. Douglas as having been a true though
> > > > >>flawed genius, flawed in the sense that every one of
> > > > >>us is flawed. He was poorly understood by not only
> > > > >>his detractors, but also his supporters.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I see very little in the historic Social Credit
> > > > >>literature apart from Douglas' own writings that is
> > > > >>worth reading today.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>--- Joe Thomson <thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Vic Bridger wrote the following
'off-list' private
> > > > >>comments as part of an e-mail to Keith Wilde, with
a
> > > > >>copy to myself, and has agreed they may be more useful
> > > > >>if
forwarded to the List.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>They were made on April 8th, and
convey some of his
> > > > >>thoughts on the subjects under discussion on the
List
> > > > >>under the heading, "In Reply to Keith, more on A+B",
> > > > >>up
to that date.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>While Vic did not say so to me specifically in
a later
> > > > >>e-mail , I don't believe his position has changed from
> > > >
>>what's appeared on the List under that same heading
> > > >
>>since then. He also notes, "The next Australasian
> > > > >>(Social Credit-Joe) Journal contains much on what has
> > > > >>been said on the Elistas group discussion particularly
> > > > >>with regards to the Banking system, the National
> > > > >>Credit Authority, Debt and Controls."
> > > > >>
> > > > >>(Vic Bridger wrote, [addressed to Keith] :-) "I am
> > > > >>taking the trouble to send this message to you,
> > > > >>hopefully, to explain some differences I have with
> > > > >>what has been posted on the Elistas group discussion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Bill responded to you on April 5th regarding your
> > > > >>comment that "the
Social Credit solution would have a
> > > > >>government office to calculate the
precise amount of
> > > > >>new claims to goods and services."
> > > > >>
> > > >
>>"Whilst I agree with your comment I believe it could
> > > > >>have been
worded a little better but your meaning was
> > > > >>clear enough. I notice the
comments re the name of the
> > > > >>government office and also the comments
about
> > > > >>corruption, which I find rather silly. If there are
> > > >
>>people who are concerned about what might happen under
> > > > >>a Social
Credit system, why are they not doing
> > > > >>something about the corruption
that is rife under the
> > >
> >>current system?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Social Credit policy is not about attempting to
> > > > >>change human nature nor does it make any claim to
> > > > >>absolute perfection in ALL things. It is simply a
> > > > >>method to arrest the flaw in the financial accounting
> > > > >>system to reflect facts. It makes no claim to
> > > > >>establishing a system that would lead to some sort of
> > > > >>utopia.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Bill has completely missed the point and his
> > > > >>diversion into the A+B is way off track. I believe
> > > > >>that although he accepts the A+B Theorem as being
> > > > >>correct
he attempts to read too much into it. For
> > > > >>instance although he brings
"TIME" into his graph it
> > > > >>is simply a recognition that time is a factor.
However
> > > > >>not only is it a factor but also it is a crucial
> > > >
>>factor, which cannot be graphed, in a static
> > > > >>condition. The
economy is not static but dynamic and
> > > > >>whatever may be the position at
any point of time will
> > > > >>be different one millisecond later.
> > > > >>
>
> > > >>"The only way to determine what we refer to as a
> > > > >>deficiency,
in any particular period, is after the
> > > > >>event, in other words after the
period has ended. Dr.
> >
> > >>Tudor Jones, the Chairnan who followed Douglas wrote a
> > > > >>series of lectures published under the title of
> > > > >>Elements of Social Credit. One lecture is devoted to
> > > > >>the "notion of sufficiency". I will not repeat this
> > > > >>here and if you do not have this book I can send you a
> > > > >>copy of the lecture.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Bill brings into his argument such items as "Sales"
> > > > >>and "Expenditure" neither, of which have any relation
> > > > >>to the A+B Theorem. The A+B relates to Wages, Salaries
> > > > >>and Dividends and Prices. One might argue that
> > > > >>"Prices" and "Sales" are synonymous but this is
quite
> > > > >>incorrect. The price of an article, for the purpose of
> > > >
>>explaining the A+B is an accumulation of costs, some
> > > > >>of which are
distributed and some which are not
> > > > >>distributed in a particular period
of production.
> > > > >>Sales of an article are not necessarily equivalent to
>
> > > >>the Price, which contains all costs. As Douglas quite
> > > > >>correctly
pointed out, sales below cost or at cost are
> > > > >>in fact one way of
reducing the deficiency in
> > > > >>purchasing power (not money).
> > > > >>
> >
> > >>"Expenditure is not synonymous with "Costs" and is
> > > > >>misleading
in that there
are two types of expenditure.
> > > > >>One is for wages, salaries and dividends
(A) and other
> > > > >>payments (B) that are again of two types for the
> > > >
>>purpose of explanation. One is payments to other
> > > > >>organizations for
past transactions and the other is
> > > > >>for items for which no actual
"expenditure" has taken
> > > > >>place, i.e. depreciation.
> > > > >>
> > > >
>>"The comment in his paragraph 4, "Not graphed is real
> > > > >>production."
is pointless. It is not necessary,
> > > > >>desirable to attempt and impossible
to keep (A+B) or
> > > > >>(A) constant in relation to production. This
together
> > > >
>>with his supposition on monetary policy as an "easy
> > > > >>money policy" is a reflection of his orthodox economic
> > > > >>training and has nothing to do with Social Credit
> > > > >>proposals. Monetary policy, easy or restricted, has
> > > > >>nothing to do with Social Credit proposals.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"Other issues he brings in such as credit becoming to
> > > > >>loose or too tight, open market, purchasing or selling
> > > > >>of securities are again issues relating to current
> > > > >>orthodox economic, financial and monetary policies.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>"There are a number of other items with which I could
> > > >
>>take issue but find unnecessary to deliberate on
> > > > >>here."
> > > > >>
> > > > >>(End of quoted part)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Joe
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>__________________________________________________
> > > > >>Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > > >>http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >>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
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >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
> > > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John. Enter to win
> >today.
> > > > http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline
> > > >
> > > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
> > >For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
> Live Search delivers results the way you like it. Try live.com now!
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.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
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Mortgage
rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low
as
>$771/month*
>https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search
>=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 henry.raynel@actrix.gen.nz
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming
message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:
269.4.0/761 - Release Date: 14/04/2007
>9:36 p.m.
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this
outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version:
7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/761 - Release Date: 14/04/2007
>9:36
p.m.
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 johngrawson@hotmail.com
>For more information, visit
http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
Live Search delivers results the
way you like it. Try live.com now!
|
RE: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message