|
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Thanks for the elaboration, Bill, and a very Merry
Christmas to you as well. And to Bill Ryan, and all others on this List,
too. The very best of the Season to you all, and may the coming year see a
greater understanding and advancement of the potential Social Credit holds for
the betterment of our world!
It's my understanding that the separation of oil from the
tar sands and oil shales involves application of a great deal of heat. And
that currently the source of this heat is derived from burning prodigous amounts
of natural gas, reserves of which Alberta and British Columbia
currently have in abundance.
Despite that abundance, processing the raw material
to extract oil using natural gas as a heat source is not only 'financially'
costly, (since gas reserves used for this purpose cannot be sold for other
heating purposes), but is also 'physically' costly.
It adds to the 'greenhouse gas' emissions that seem to be
of such great concern to so many these days. Whether you believe we're all
going to melt from 'global warming', as the doom and gloomers endlessly
prophesise, or not, the addition of more pollutants into the earth's atmosphere
from a source such as this certainly doesn't seem to do it any good.
The potential oil contained within the tar sands is indeed
enormous. But it is definitely 'high cost' oil using the current methods
of separation. The 'price at the pump' seems to support it at
present, but there is certainly a great deal more to what meets the eye behind
that current 'price'.
There has been some talk, so I understand, of using
nuclear power to provide an alternate energy source for the heat needed.
From a practical sense this might be a better alternative, though there are
going to be lots of 'political', and other, considerations going that
route, I would imagine.
I find the whole issue of oil prices something that's very
difficult to sort out. There are simply so many different elements
involved, I really don't know whether any kind of meaningful 'accounting'
could ever be arrived at.
To me, I find it somewhat incredulous that we in BC are
now told we have to pay "world price" to access resources which we are said to
own. I think back to what my ancestors would have
thought. In 1862 they embarked on a perilous and uncertain
journey that brought them from Britain to here, ostensibly to live life
more abundantly.
What if someone then had told them they had to pay
"world price" for everything here? Would they have ever made the
journey? What would've been the point, they could've done that right where
they were?
In any case enough pondering for now, All the
best to all for a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Years!
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 5:29
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article
by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
Have a blessed and happy Christmas. With regard to the extraction of material
from oil shale and tar sands that can be used as a substitute for oil, recent
developments in the Chemical industry has reduced the extraction costs
considerably over the last 10 years. With the increases in crude oil
prices, this has meant that the extraction of the material from oil shale
and tar sands has become an economical proposition. I refer to recent articles
in Chemistry in Britain on this matter. I am a member of the Royal Society of
Chemistry (Britain), and that organisation kleeps itself well informed about
all chemical process developement in the world. It is unique because despite
intensive efforts by big oil and chemical companies it has remained
nonpartisan and refuses to accept any sort of financial support that might
infringed its status. Because of this it has a reputation for integrity second
to none in the world, and you can imagine the effort that companies like
Monsanto go to to get their work published in the Chemistry in Britain
magazine. They become very upset when the Royal Society refuses to publish
their work on various grounds usually insufficient corroborotive data and
flawed research procedures, but they are in no position to pressurise the
Royal Society. The only challenge ever to be made against the Society was by
ICI, and they were laughed out of court. Since then no one has dared to
question their findings. I know that the Canadian government provided
financial incentives to companies that would be prepared to design economical
industrial processing for Tar sand and oil shale. Perhaps their discoveries
are instrumental in developing the processes mentioned in the British
magazine. I think that it is highly likely since several North American
companies (unfortunately not identified as Canadian or American per se
) were mentioned in the article as well as some in Eastern Europe.
There is immense potential in
these resources, the estimated reserves outstrip the know reserves of liquid
crude oil by a big margin. I also note that you mentioned the development of
new research into oilfields that seem to indicate that they are being
replenished at a slow rate once they initial flow has slowed down. The data on
this is still being analysed, but there is still a great deal that we do not
know about the behavior of oilfields. I also know that modern improvements in
extraction of oil has extended the life of several oilfields. It has always
been common knowledge that the older extraction methods only obtained some 40%
of the oil underground. Modern techniques has increased this to about 58%-65%
It was at that stage that oil extractors discovered that the oil level in the
wells was not decreasing at the expected rate, hence the recent reassessment
of how oil comes into being in the first place. My own observations indicate
that oil fields seem to congregate along tectonic plate boundaries or areas of
known seisemic activity. The USA for instance has most of its major
oilfields in states where there is an historical record earthquakes. World
wide the same seems to apply eg Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Western and
Southern China, Venezuela, Southern Israel,
South-Eastern Turkey, Romania, North Africa, and New Zealand. There are oil
deposits in less Seisemic areas Like the North Sea, Central Australia,
Hungary, The Caspian Basin and Siberia, so it is
obvious that tectonics is not the whole story, but I did find that fact an
interesting one. The tar sands are found in Alberta, and I believe that along
with BC those are the two most seisemically active provinces of Canada.
Regards Bill McG have a happy festive
season
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 6:28
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Article
by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
No, I wouldn't say that's quite correct, Bill.
To my knowledge, there wasn't too much 'urging' on the part of
the US for Canada to develop the Alberta tar sands.
As I recall, and maybe some of those on this
List who are residents of Alberta and closer to the situation than I am can
correct me if I'm wrong, there had to be some pretty hefty inducements and
investments on the part of Canadian government(s) to even interest the
oil companies to go ahead.
It is not, so far as I'm aware, a very 'cheap' process
to extract this oil. The attraction for Canada, and Alberta, seems to
me to be the same attraction that drives most of the decisions made
regarding any resource exploitation ~ "jobs". Our
politicos would sell their souls to the Devil himself so long as those job
creation numbers are rising under their watch.
To say that the USA " wants to preserve its
own indigenous oil stocks", and use up ours and Mexicos instead
doesn't really seem to wash either. So far as I know, there is a
considerable portion of Alaskan oil production that's exported to
Japan. I do believe there are considerable proven potential oil
deposits yet to come on stream in all three countries. And
even more areas, at least so far as Canada is concerned, and probably the
USA, too, where oil exploration hasn't been yet even
undertaken.
In addition, there is some indication that much we've
assumed about the formation of oil deposits may not be correct, and that
there may be some replenishment of fields thought to have been worked
out. It would seem there's an enormous amount we just don't yet
understand about this valuable resource.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 5:22
AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi John and Joe
Thank you both for filling in gaps in my knowledge on Canadian trade. Am I
correct in assuming that. at present, Canada is being urged to
develope the oil shales and tar sands of Alberta by US pressure under
the pretext of an oil policy for the whole of North America? I get the
impression that the USA wants to import oil from Canada and Mexico to
preserve its own indigenous oil stocks. This would seem to be detrimental
to both Canada and Mexico. However I appreciate that both those countries
are living with a ruthless giant on their borders: not a happy situation
even though that giant is obliged to provide a large measure of military
protection in return.
regards
Bill
McGunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007
11:10 AM
Subject: RE: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Interesting point on Russia, Joe. Prices for export
logs here are "the pits", presently attributable to USA housing
decline. But before that a drop appeared to be due to a lot of
Siberian lumber coming out, probably simply wastefully cleared.
One could construe that the debts Russia has accrued since the change
from Comunism have resulted in a repeat of a former
situation?
Regards.
John R.
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:46:04 -0500
From:
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Yes, I believe you're right, Bill, we
certainly can't ever 'win' in our trading arrangements. Not with
the 'flaw' in the 'price' system remaining uncorrected. No one
can.
Canada traditionally has always done a
lot of trade with the USA, and has always been particularly vulnerable
to American 'protectionism'. The Smoot-Hawley tariff in the
1930's literally wiped out most of the market for BC lumber in the US,
as the American government, quite naturally and properly, moved to
protect their own lumber industry and all the jobs and other benefits
it engendered.
The "Imperial Preference" trade agreements
negotiated with Britain and the other countries of the Empire
literally 'saved the bacon' for that industry in those troubled
times. Britain became our number one customer for lumber, as the
"Imperial" tariff structure effectively excluded much lumber coming
into British markets from Scandinavia and the Baltic region of
northern Europe.
The Soviet Union however, operating under a
different system and 'exporting' for a different purpose, just lowered
its prices and kept its market share despite the tariff.
Fortunately for BC, the Russian lumber industry, like most of their
industry under Communism, was not operated very well and increasing
volume shipped was physically difficult.
But it wasn't only with Britain that our trade
increased because of "Imperial preference". We 'captured'
markets in Australia, India, South Africa, and the Caribbean British
colonies, too. All places that had been previously
receiving lumber from the USA .
After the War, a problem developed in that our
trade with Britain became increasingly unbalanced. They were not
making sufficient sales of British goods in Canada, despite
devaluing the pound, (more than once), to come close to what we were
selling them.
Many of the things Britain made and
exported to other Empire countries, were also being made in Canada by
that time. We didn't need their motor vehicles, smaller ships,
commercial and military aircraft, etc. All those things were
being made here, and could be in ever greater quantities. If
only we had some market other than our own to absorb them all at the
'price' it cost us to make them. And therein seems to lie the
'problem', or a very large part of it.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 22,
2007 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re:
Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
thanks for correcting me with regard to Canada being outside the
Sterling area. It was a stupid oversight on my part, because
Canada's major trading partner has always been the USA, and hence
used the same currency. ( I believe at a fixed ratio set by the
Canadian government). Canada was never in the same position as NZ
who at one stage had as much as 90% of its overseas exchenge with
Britain, but you are quite right when you observed that "Imperial
Preference" helped to bolster a considerable amount of trade between
Canada and Britain. After WW2 the loss of preeminence for Sterling
as a trading currency came about as a result of the "Bretton Woods"
conference which, while establishing the World Bank and IMF
ostensibly to "stablise" trade, also established the Dollar as the
trading currency for Oil. This immediately placed pressure on the
Pound Sterling as a trading currency. The USA could do this because
it was still then a net exporter of oil and could control the amount
of oil flowing onto the world market. Western Europe, including
Britain, was a net importer and was vunerable to oil price
fluctuations. The US hierarchy recognised that oil would become the
single greatest and most important trading commodity after WW2.
Having all oil trade dependant upon the supply of US Dollars onto
the world trade market has enabled the US to offset inflationary
trends at home by manipulating the oil supply. Price increases
demanding more dollars. The British government were not
unhappy with this arrangement because it took pressure off Sterling
so that it did not have to remain at a relatively high value with
respect to other currencies. Nevertheless Sterling is tied rigidly
to the Dollar and the two currencies support one another in
International trading.
We, in new Zealand now have a
very large percentage of our trade with Australia now as a
consequence of our free trade agreement between the two countries.
Trade with Britain has been reduced to about 10% of our total trade
now. Our major trading partners after Australia are Japan, Taiwan,
China, India, South east Asia, and the USA. This leaves us
vunerable to the machinations of the IMF and World Bank instead of
the Bof E. You can't win can you?
regards
Bill Mc G
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 22,
2007 3:31 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Thanks again for shedding some further light
on an area that needs illuminating. My understanding is that
Canada never was in the 'Sterling area', as were most other
independent Dominions of the Empire, and most of the
Crown Colonies, etc.
Even though our trade with Britain and other
Empire jurisdictions was substantial, and protected due to
"Imperial Preference" trade agreements, we were in the
'Dollar area'.
Canada, for whatever reasons, perhaps to
show we were 'independent' of British Government foreign policies,
or maybe under pressure from Washington, resisted efforts by
Britain to form a more cohesive intra-Empire trading
'bloc' after World War Two.
I believe that was something Winston
Churchill was pushing for, but Ottawa wouldn't go for it. It
would be another one of those interesting speculations to ponder
"what if" that had happened. For the Empire was
physically even more internally 'self-sufficient' in regards
to resources and markets than America, or the Soviet bloc, or
a united Europe. Doubtless ''financial'' considerations played a
large role in scuttling that idea. Though the personality
and mind-set of Churchill and some of the other British proponents
might have been detrimental to the idea too.
I'll have to go through what you've written
further, Bill, and try to piece together how the 'competition' you
mention fits into it. Out of time right now.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December
20, 2007 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
What
you have postulated is essentially correct. However the BofE
never held substancial amounts of NZ currency. NZ pounds were
changed into Pounds Sterling in NZ by
the NZ Reserve Bank. NZ companies were required to purchase
Sterling from the Reserve Bank in order to undertake overseas
purchases, thus NZ currency never reached Britain. I believe the pressure from the Bof E was from
British Banks that, up until the advent
of the Labour government, had monopolised loans extended
throughout the NZ economy. They found themselves in direct
competition with a government backed bank that could afford to
offer loans at 0.5-1.0%. Obviously they could not allow any
other British Empire "colony" to follow NZ's example, because a substantial amount of Britains
overseas earnings came from Banking "investments" in the form of
loans to all Empire colonies, hence the pressure. I am sure
something similar was directed towards Canada and Australia to
force them to remain within the Sterling area prior to 1939.
The position of the Bof
E acting as the the holders of overseas exchange for Empire and
Commonwealth gave it a unique position as banker for the
Sterling area. It could therefore exert pressure on those
countries by withholding the
exchange reserves it held in safekeeping
for Sterling area countries. I am sure the BofE would have acted
in this way no matter what, once it became apparent that the NZ
government had determined to become the master of its own
currency and foreign exchange rate. It was a necessary step for
the Bof E to maintain its financial control of NZ's developement
against NZ government efforts to become autonomous.
This is my interpretation of
the actions taken by the Bof E in 1938. Nevertheless I concede
that there are still too many "What ifs" and " If only's" in the
whole senario. That all the negotiations have been embargoed
until 75 years after the event doen't help matters either.
Furthermore I suspect that once the time expires they will be
reembargoed for a further 75 years. This
seems to be a common factor in these
events.
regards
Bill McGunnigle
--- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December
21, 2007 3:29 AM
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Bill (McGunnigle),
Many thanks for providing the background
details in regards to the New Zealand experience.
Could it be that what your
first Labour Government was attempting was tantamount to
a continual 'devaluation' of the New Zealand pound? (I
don't know the answer to that, quite honestly, but it would
seem to me that might be the case.)
If that were so, then perhaps your
main trading partner, Britain, ran the risk that what
had been acquired by the BofE in New Zealand denominated funds
through trade balance settlements, (instead of a transfer of
actual gold or silver), might quickly become progressively
worthless as effective demand for further NZ
goods?
If such were the case, and its holdings
of foreign exchange reserves in NZ pounds were substantial,
wouldn't it be likely that the BofE would naturally try to
discourage the new found 'financing' method for Government
infrastructure for that reason alone, if none
other?
Now I don't have the answers to that,
and maybe I'm way off track even in considering the issue that
way. And if I am, I hope anyone with greater
knowledge in these matters will come in and set me
straight. But at the moment, that's what comes to
mind.
If your first Labour
Government could have gone instead to some variant
of the CPD mechanism, which, in effect, makes each unit
of NZ currency held capable of purchasing 'more' in NZ goods
and services, I wonder how the BoE would've viewed that?
Other considerations aside, wouldn't it be possible you might
have had quite a sudden 'trade boom' with Britain and
found funding infrastructure a lot easier?
It's always interesting to speculate
what might have happened when we ask "what if" or "if only"
we'd done something differently, but really, all things are so
interconnected it would be almost impossible to ever
know.
Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday,
December 19, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Hi Joe
Further to John Rawson's remarks on the use of Reserve Bank
Credit for infastructure building works by the 1935-1949
Labour government of New Zealand, from my historical research into that government,
The Bank of England expressed great
disapproval of this method of financing New Zealand's
internal infrastructure developement. It, therefore,
took the unprecedented step in
late 1938, supported by the British government, threatening
to freeze all of New Zealand's overseas exchange funds to
which it had security rights, (New Zealand was part of the
Sterling area then) unless it discontinued the practice.
This put a temporary hold on the practice, but, in 1939,
with the outbreak of WW2, the Bank of England was in no
position to continue to hold that threat over NZ, because NZ
was a reliable supplier of essential raw material for the
war effort. Consequently despite the enormous amount of
expense, relatively speaking, that the war cost NZ, the bulk
of the war debt for NZ was to its own Reserve Bank at a
nominal interest rate. NZ had a balance of payments surplus
during the war years because of this. Demand for NZ products
after WW2 continued to exceed supply and it was not until
the 1970's that NZ started to experience balance of payment
deficits. Significantly the end of the 1st labour government
in 1949 saw the downturn in the balance of trade with the
advent of a series of National governments that steadily
reduced the strict monetary exchange rules enforced by the
1st Labour government. However, ironically, it was the 3rd
Labour government 1972-75 that removed exchange rate
controls, and it was from that point onwards that NZ
began to experience serious balance of trade deficits. The
swing to the extreme right during the 1980's and 1990's
completed the exchange rate "liberation", and NZ has never
been able to post an overall balance of trade surplus since
then.
I trust this amplifies
some of the detail around the question
regards
Bill Mc Gunnigle
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday,
December 20, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: RE:
[socialcredit] Re: Article by Richard Cook
Thanks Joe.
The first parts remain
theory either way for me and I keep an open mind until
someone comes out with hard facts.
But your comment on
NZ is wrong. There was no debt attached to the use of
Reserve Bank credit for Government operations. It was new
money issued for the purpose, non-repayable. For local
bodies and the Dairy industry, yes, you are right.
But the interest charged was only 1% and the finance
probably would not have been available elsewhere. Making
this repayable meant that more could be issued as it was
returned, or alternatively made the debt bearable if it
was not. . This distinction is in accord with our present
party policy here.
I notice Richard has not replied to
your comment on inflation, so try this translation.
"No more inflationary than any other issue of new money
from any source." That would, of course, include money
issued by a Credit Authority as per Douglas
recommendation.
The issue over government use of new
money has nothing whatever to do with (demand pull)
inflation. If it is confined to the amounts needed to
balance the prices of goods, there should be none under
either system. The critical point is that, in a
dictatorship, Government spends all new money into
circulation and therefore determines what shall be
produced. We saw that in Soviet Russia., and to some
extent in Nazi Germany, both of which seem to have
operated a form of monetary reform. In a democracy,
the public would be given at least some of the new money
to spend into circulation so that they get to determine
what goods shall be produced per economic democracy.
However, in the modern high taxation state, it would be
ridiculous to pass all new money to the public and then
simply tax a large proportion back from them before it
could be spent.
It is a pity if great ideas are made
ridiculous by slavish adherence to totally impractical
concepts
Regards. John R.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:03:47 -0500
From:
thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
To:
socialcredit@elistas.com
Subject: Re: [socialcredit]
Re: Article by Richard Cook
(John Rawson wrote:-) So the whole reform
constitutional argument is based on the clause "To
coin money"? It could be claimed logically that,
since coinage was the only form of money then, this
was intended to cover all money?
(Joe replies:-) But it wasn't the only form
of 'money' then, John.
(John Rawson:-) I note again your reaction
to the Guernsey story, but you have never given hard
facts for your attitude. So far there appears to
be more evidence for this event than against.
(Joe replies:-) That story was thoroughly
vetted on here, or the predecessor list, quite some
time ago. The ''States Notes", if I recall
correctly from what was determined in examining
the issue then, were redeemed by import duties.
They weren't 'debt-free' money.
(John Rawson:-) After all, why should
anyone invent such a happening in such an unusual
place otherwise?
(Joe replies:-) There was
a lot of propaganda put forth by various 'monetary
reformers', John. BC's own G. G McGeer, a former
Vancouver Mayor, who was later a MLA, a MP, and
finally a Senator, was one latter day one. He
was aided and abetted by still others who'd previously
created 'facts' out of fiction to further their own
ends. The myth might grow and grow, but
it's still myth.
(John Rawson wrote:-) And would
you argue that the actions of New Zealand's first
Labour Government in funding much of infrastructure,
state housing for homeless, and the dairy industry
with Reserve Bank credit at 1% is a myth?
(Joe replies:-) They
'primed the pump' with deficit
financing. That's all they did. It
relieved unemployment, and stopped the deflationary
spiral that you were in.
In a deflation it's hard
to sell anything other than essentials, for why would
you want to buy anything today if you felt you could
get it cheaper tomorrow? And when prices have to
be lowered below financial cost to move existing
product, there's no inducement to produce any
more.
So your government turned
that around, and when prices started to come up,
then there's an inducement to buy before they go
higher. It's a quick fix, but it doesn't really
solve the problem. And when it's carried on for
any length of time you'll get an 'inflation' that'll
negate its benefits. It is a crummy substitute
for Social Credit properly applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger ---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 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 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 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
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 thomsonhiyu@shaw.ca
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
|
Re: Re: Article by
Reply to this message
