|Subject:||Re: [socialcredit] "Reply to Zarlenga"|
|Date:||Tuesday, August 7, 2007 02:23:05 (+0000)|
|From:||KEITH WILDE <keithwilde @.........ca>
|In reply to:||Message 4949 (written by Adavans)|
As a supplement to Alan's observations, I scanned some paragraphs from the
print edition of Mr. Krehm's magazine where he made these comments:
QUOTE The idea of Zarlenga checking the writings of Hotson to see his views
on 100% money that I might be hiding is quaint. Many of the basic documents
issued by COMER in those early days were signed by myself and Hotson. Some
by Hotson alone, or appeared unsigned in ER, of which I took over the
practical editorship because Hotson was busy with his teaching at Waterloo.
It is ridiculous that Stephen Zarlenga should apparently not been able to
organize conferences without all sorts of gimcrackery - blank "Certificates
of Achievement" distributed for the awardees to fill in, coloured hats,
warnings to people that they would not be allowed to sell their books at the
conference if they raised forbidden subjects. Even so, some excellent papers
were delivered in no particular sequence or opportunity for discussion. The
overriding impression was that Stephen wanted to claim a patent on monetary
Makes one wonder if there is some kind of brain fever that leads people to
become money reformers!
>Subject: Re: [socialcredit] "Reply to Zarlenga"
>Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 09:46:15 EDT
>I read Mr. Krehm's letter to Steve Zarlenga and had to laugh a little bit
>about it. I ran across Mr. Zarlenga several months ago in Kansas City.
>It is evident that he is intelligent. His book is fascinating and its worth
>the read. But in person in a classroom setting he isn't very persuasive
>he is definitely not into dialogue. He's figured it all out and therefore
>feels entitled to dismiss people with other ideas out of hand as being
>of any discussion at all. I was silly enough to mention social credit
>times in an attempt to engage him in personal conversation and the
>I've outlined was very much in evidence. He seems to have treated everyone
>his host that way, so it was no personal slight toward anyone in
>I feel that someone who is trying to persuade an interested audience of
>people ought to respect their audience by actually directly challenging
>conceptions rather than dismissing the questions his presentation gives
>He's also, in my opinion, near-dellusional. Mention of Bill Ryan's name
>gave him opportunity to charge that Bill Ryan is a paid agent provocateur.
>This was something he mentioned several times.
>You might have guessed it already....I was pretty non-plussed with my
>experience with Steve Zarlenga. It certainly was not pleasant, stimulating
>engaging in anyway and I felt that I had wasted several hours of my time.
>************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL
>Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
>You're subscribed to this list with the email firstname.lastname@example.org
>For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit