| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] truth -- Wally comments | | Date: | Monday, April 18, 2005 10:30:33 (-0600) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
Thanks for the link Bill, but unfortunately the page was not found.
I haven't read that document yet, and would be very interested in reading
it.
I am leading to a point in all this, but I want to get some acknowledgement
that Social Credit is more than A+B before I move forward. I think that some
of the disagreement with the "Social Crediters" who want the government to
spend B into the economy, as opposed to giving it to individuals
themselves, is a philosophical disagreement, and not a disagreement over
A+B. And in my opinion, Douglas' philosophy was as important, if not more
important, than the accounting flaw he discovered in his A+B theorem.
Douglas' remedy to this flaw was based on his philosophy as much as the
theorem itself.
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <william_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] truth -- Wally comments
> "We're talking about remedy. There can be many
> remedies to a problem. Douglas admitted the
> communist solution would pretty much solve the
> financial problems pointed out in his A+B theorem."
> -------------------------------
> --------------------------------
>
> A good point. Yes he did. The theorem--he actually
> presented several theorems--is merely an analytical
> tool, useful to anyone regardless of philosophy. I
> am gaining an appreciation that his analysis is much
> more profound and comprehensive than a cursory
> reading of A+B would infer, though very tersely
> given, especially after re-reading portions of
> Credit-Power and Democracy (I will send a photocopy
> of the book to anyone who requests.) I am
> significantly revising my thinking on the matter.
> The theorem is actually only a small though important
> element of the financial aspect to the analysis.
> Every student of Douglas should study his 1934
> evidence given to the Alberta legislature, a year
> before the election into office of the world's first
> social credit government. I thank Wally Klinck for
> making this available to us. This portion of the
> evidence relates to your point. Here, Douglas says
> that the choice is between financial reorganization,
> or dictatorship:
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/douglas-alberta-
> 1934.txt
>
> :-
>
> "Q. Is there any way to stop the erratic retreat in
> living standards except by changing our present
> method of distribution of goods and services created?
>
> "A. Yes, and it constitutes the greatest danger with
> which the world is faced at the present time. There
> is no difficulty whatever in providing the world with
> a rationing system if you establish everywhere a
> complete dictatorship, leaving all powers in the
> hands of the dictator. Unless steps are taken within
> a comparatively short time to readjust the financial
> system so that it will work, the financial system as
> we know it will be swept away and we shall be faced
> everywhere with some form of dictatorship, either
> Fascist or what is called Communist which is, I
> think, in the strict sense, not Communist at all but
> another form of dictatorship. It is possible to deal
> with the material basis of the present problem; it is
> possible to provide for the general public a higher
> standard of living, through the agencies of a
> dictatorship, but that involves a surrender of all
> those things for which the Anglo-Saxon race has
> fought for a thousand years."
>
> :-
>
> Notice that he doesn't say sweep away "the financial
> system as we know it" but to "readjust" it "so that
> it will work." The alternative, meaning the sweeping
> away of, among other things, the financial system,
> "involves a surrender of all those things for which
> the Anglo-Saxon race has fought for a thousands
> years."
> -
>
>
>
>
> --- Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > Re: [socialcredit] truth -- Wally commentsHi Tim:
> >
> > You state:
> >
> > "In a way, this is somewhat worrying. If a theorem
> > and a means to fix issues revealed by the theorem
> > fits ones philosophy (and by 'fits', I mean in a
> > deep, emotional way), there is a greater chance that
> > any flaws will be overlooked or considered
> > aberrations to fit ones view. Opposition or
> > criticism of the theorem and solution be taken as a
> > criticism of ones personal philosophy or even as a
> > personal attack and thus dealt with in less than an
> > objective way. There is also a risk that even though
> > the raw mathematics are sound the accepted causes
> > may be either wrong, incomplete, overlook the
> > significance of some elements or overemphasise
> > others, again, so as to fit in 'neatly' with ones
> > philosophy. There may also be a reluctance to
> > question any part of the canon, as it were, in case
> > one error brings doubt upon the entirety."
> >
> > I cannot speak on behalf of Wally, but I know you
> > have completely misinterpreted what I'm saying, and
> > if I can be so bold, I think you are misinterpreting
> > what Wally is stating.
> >
> > We're talking about remedy. There can be many
> > remedies to a problem. Douglas admitted the
> > communist solution would pretty much solve the
> > financial problems pointed out in his A+B theorem.
> >
> > Everyone has a belief system based on a philosophy.
> > If you adhere to the belief that the "nation",
> > "class", or "race" are more important than the
> > individual, then you will never believe in Social
> > Credit policy. Douglas was clear to outline his
> > philosophy. In fact, A+B is but a small part of
> > Social Credit. By stating that disagreement on
> > philosophy leads one to agree to disagree does not
> > mean that ideas and theories are not to be tested by
> > fact. But the idea that the sovereignty of the
> > individual is supreme is a philosophical belief.
> > Communists and Fascists hold contrary beliefs.
> >
> > A+B is a theorem, and has nothing to do with a
> > philosophy. The Social Credit policy based on the
> > theorem is also based on a philosophy. A+B itself
> > is purely arithmetical, the solution to A+B is a
> > policy based on a philosophy.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Timothy Carpenter
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 9:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] truth -- Wally
> > comments
> >
> >
> > Hi Jim, Wally and all.
> >
> > In a way, this is somewhat worrying. If a theorem
> > and a means to fix issues revealed by the theorem
> > fits ones philosophy (and by 'fits', I mean in a
> > deep, emotional way), there is a greater chance that
> > any flaws will be overlooked or considered
> > aberrations to fit ones view. Opposition or
> > criticism of the theorem and solution be taken as a
> > criticism of ones personal philosophy or even as a
> > personal attack and thus dealt with in less than an
> > objective way. There is also a risk that even though
> > the raw mathematics are sound the accepted causes
> > may be either wrong, incomplete, overlook the
> > significance of some elements or overemphasise
> > others, again, so as to fit in 'neatly' with ones
> > philosophy. There may also be a reluctance to
> > question any part of the canon, as it were, in case
> > one error brings doubt upon the entirety.
> >
> > Tim
> > On 16/4/05 8:40 pm, "Jim" <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thank you for you lucid response Wally. You
> > definitely understand my position fully.
> >
> > Social Credit is much more than the A+B theorem.
> > It is a policy of a philosophy.
> >
> > Douglas said:
> >
> > "It is something based on what you profoundly
> > believe - what at any rate, I profoundly believe,
> > and hope you will - to be a portion of reality. It
> > is probably a very small portion, but we have
> > glimpsed a. portion of reality, and that conception
> > of reality is a philosophy, and the action that we
> > take based upon that conception is a policy, and
> > that policy is Social Credit.
> > It is in fact a policy based upon a philosophy,
> > which is, incidentally, why, in many cases, it is no
> > use arguing with many people about the techniques of
> > Social Credit, because they don't agree with your
> > philosophy; often they don't even understand it,
> > and, therefore, what you say in regard to policy and
> > techniques sounds like a loud noise to them, chiefly
> > without any sense; and the best thing to do in the
> > circumstances is, of course, to agree to differ"
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.alor.org/Library/Policyofaphilosophy.htm#1a
> >
> > Why Social Credit has been perverted into a
> > monetary reform scheme is that there is a difference
> > of opinion as to philosophy, not a difference of
> > opinion over the A+B theorem itself. Douglas openly
> > admitted that communism would virtually solve the
> > problems identified in his A+B theorem when
> > questioned in this regard by Keynes before the
> > Macmillan Commission:
> >
> > 4479. Mr. Keynes: If all firms were united in a
> > single firm would your difficulties be overcome?
> >
> > Douglas: That is the obvious remedy for the
> > financial difficulty but not necessarily the right
> > remedy. Even from a purely financial standpoint it
> > is a little difficult to say; you understand a time
> > lag comes in.
> >
> > Douglas states it would be the obvious remedy
> > for the financial difficulty, but not necessarily
> > the right remedy. Why? Because it's based on a
> > philosophy which is contrary to Social Credit
> > philosophy. Like you state Wally, to Douglas, the
> > individual is the primary factor in a Social Credit
> > society. This is based on a philosophy, and not
> > based on Douglas' A+B theorem. Douglas also stated
> > that there was no use discussing remedy if there was
> > no agreement on philosophy for you might as well be
> > speaking Greek to the other person, and in that case
> > you simply agree to disagree.
> >
> > I find that the philosophy of Douglas is in
> > complete agreement with my own personal philosophy,
> > so I find myself in agreement with Douglas' remedies
> > to the accounting flaws he discovers in his A+B
> > theorem. I think the philosophical differences
> > between remedies need to be made quite clear. And
> > Douglas, who coined the term Social Credit, made his
> > philosophy quite clear in this matter.
> >
> > Wally, you stated:
> >
> > "Insofar as Douglas was concerned he stated that
> > he believed Social Credit cast light on a limited,
> > but critical, aspect of truth and would open the
> > path to the revelation, over time, of much more of
> > the truth. He clearly said that we do not know the
> > final end of mankind but that in his view it could
> > most successfully be pursued and approached only by
> > free expansion of the human personality. "
> >
> > I could not have stated this better myself, so I
> > will use your statement as the my closing thoughts
> > on this issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Have a great day,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Wallace M. Klinck
> > <mailto:wmklinck@shaw.ca>
> > To: socialcredit@elistas.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [socialcredit] truth -- Wally
> > comments
> >
> > Jim, I think you have a very positive attitude
> > and am in considerable aggreement with your stated
> > position, as I understand it.
> >
> > We are not God or gods but only mortals and
> > can, therefore, only encompass with our intellects
> > limited aspects of truth which is infinitely greater
> > than
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
> To unsubscribe, send a message to
> socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message