(John Rawson wrote:-) Joe, your first point is unfounded
and ridiculous emotionalism. Unless you accept that the slave state
already exists. If so, who do you prefer to be the slavemasters,
elected people you have a chance of sacking, or faceless permanent ones
behind the scenes? THIS IS A RATHER ASTONISHING STATEMENT.
ANYONE WHO HAS THE SLIGHTEST FAMILIARITY WITH THE SOCIAL CREDIT
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS IS QUITE AWARE THAT THE SLAVE STATE EXISTS AND IS
BECOMING EVER STRENGTHENED TO THE DETRIMENT OF IMMANENT SOVEREIGNTY.
SOCIAL CREDIT POLICY IS TO FIRMLY OPPOSE AND ELIMINATE THE EXISTENCE
OF SLAVE-MASTERS. TO ASK THE QUESTION OF A SOCIAL CREDITER WHICH
FORM OF SLAVE-MASTERS HE OR SHE WOULD PREFER IS QUITE PREPOSTEROUS.
MOREOVER, I THINK THAT THE LAST CENTURY OR SO HAS DEMONSTRATED
BEYOND ANY DOUBT THE DANGERS OF STATE POWER DEVOLVING INTO A SYSTEM OF
OVERT TYRANNY. ASK ANY OF THOSE MANY WHO HAVE SUFFERED UNDER THAT
YOKE.
(Joe replies:-) The "slave state"
already exists. The present financial system is a near perfect
means for making people "work". MOST
ASSUREDLY THE CASE. THE UNIVERSAL POLICY OF PROVIDING FULL OR
NEAR-FULL EMPLOYMENT WITH INCOMES TO BE DERIVED ESSENTIALLY ONLY FROM WORK
PERFORMED UNDER EXTERNAL DIRECTION IN THE CONTEXT OF ENDLESS PRICE
INFLATION IS PROOF-POSITIVE OF THE SUBJUGATION OF THE POPULATION TO THE
WORK-STATE MENTALITY OF COMMUNISM AND FASCISM--IMPLEMENTED TODAY BY FABIAN
SOCIALIST KEYNESIAN POLICY. NOT ONLY ARE WE FORCED TO "WORK" BUT WE
ARE FORCED AS A MEANS OF SURVIVAL TO WORK FOR WASTEFUL AND EVEN
DESTRUCTIVE ENDS SUCH AS WAR--WHICH PROVIDES LOTS OF "JOBS" FOR
EVERYONE.
I don't prefer to have any "slavemasters".
Whether they be 'elected' and the visible faces of those who really pull
the strings, who are certainly NOT we who elected them, or
the actual string pullers themselves.
Nor do I want to see the
"State" be in a position where it, or any agency within it,
can deny its citizens the means of full access to that for
which they've already worked unless they work some more first.
PRECISELY. HAS ANYONE SEEN A WORM, UPON FINDING A MORSEL,
FREEZE WITH GUILT AND SEEKING FIRST A "JOB" TO JUSTIFY CONSUMING THE
MORSEL. NOT ONLY IS THE SLAVE STATE UPON US--IT IS HERE BECAUSE OF
OUR UNIVERSAL AND PERVERSE VIOLATION OF NATURAL LAW--BECAUSE OF OUR
MESMERIZATION INTO ACCEPTING A FALSE "MORAL" IMPERATIVE, I.E., THAT OF
SALVATION THROUGH WORKS RATHER THAN THROUGH FAITH AND GRACE.
I personally prefer to be in the "aristocracy of
production", recognising full well that it is a 'priviledge' to remain
there. And to be able to continue to willingly serve the larger "democracy of
consumption" of which I'm also a part. So long as
my efforts in that endeavour are useful and needed. If they're not,
then I don't think I'd have too much difficulty finding something
equally enjoyable to do. DOUGLAS UPHELD THE IDEA OF AN "ARISTOCRACY OF
PRODUCERS, SERVING AND ACCREDITED BY A DEMOCRACY OF CONSUMERS."
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR QUALITY BUT THERE MUST BE ALSO
ACCOUNTABILITY AND A SERVICE ETHIC. LABOUR SEEMS NEVER TO HAVE
PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THIS PRINCIPLE.
This does not, of course mean that everyone could
just stop working, and go off and do their own thing whenever they
pleased. Or would. Rather it is the difference between
"contract under duress" ~ association agreements freely entered into, but whose
terms are enforceable by some penalty on violation; and being "under
duress to enter the contract" in the first place. THIS IS A
REASONABLE STATEMENT SO FAR AS IT GOES BUT NEVERTHELESS IN A HIGHLY
TECHNOLOGICAL STATE MANY COULD, AND PROBABLY SHOULD, JOIN THE LEISURED
CLASS. REMEMBER, "HE WHO CALLS FOR 'FULL-EMPLOYMENT' CALLS FOR
WAR."
People have to work, at something.
It's part of the
nature of every human. But "work" is simply a means to an end, not
the end itself. OF COURSE--IS IT NOT TRUE THAT IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS
IT IS A SIN TO ELEVATE A MEANS INTO AN END? And "issuing money" to
pay for infrastructure as you say your Reserve Bank did, even if it were
desirable and there were no other considerations, is still making your citizens "work" again
to be able to fully claim that which they've already worked for. I
THINK THAT A SOMEWHAT MORE ACCURATE STATEMENT WOULD BE THAT THE HEALTHY
INDIVIDUAL NEEDS NOT NECESSARILY TO "WORK" IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE--BUT
RATHER REQUIRES FULFILMENT OF HIS OR HER ESSENTIAL CREATIVITY AND
CURIOSITY IN BEING ACTIVE IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER. LEISURE PROVIDES
THE ULTIMATE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUCH FULFILLING ACTIVITY.
The ND and CPD are not making them do anything. But what
they choose to do,
in the future, if it's in any ways useful and adds to the "real credit" of
the community, (as any sensible 'infrastructure' naturally would), will be
reflected in a larger ND and CPD in that future. BY PROVIDING A GROWING
SOURCE OF ASSURED INCOME INDEPENDENT OF ANY EARNED INCOME THE NATIONAL
DIVIDEND AND THE COMPENSATED PRICE WOULD INCREASINGLY FREE INDIVIDUALS FOR
SELF-CHOSEN ACTIVITY. IF ANYONE IS SO MISGUIDED AS TO BE EMBARRASSED
OR OFFENDED AT GETTING "SOMETHING FOR NOTHING", THEY CAN REFUSE IT OR
DONATE IT TO WHATEVER PURPOSE OR CAUSE THEY MIGHT CHOOSE.
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
