RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy part one.
Part 1. From a perusal of postings on this subject over the last couple of weeks it is obvious that little has been done to learn exactly what C. H.Douglas wrote and spoke about on it. Difficulties arise between people in different nations who do not speak the same language. Difficulties arise when people who do speak the same language attach different meanings to words used. Difficulties arise and little progress is attained when people misinterpret, misquote, or make assumptions about what someone else has said, whether deliberately or not. Problems have occurred in this discussion group through the misquoting that has been prevalent and in addition an interpretation placed upon something, which is contrary to what was stated. Added to this is putting words into the mouth of a person who has not said anything of the sort. It is probably a different version of the straw man argument. Put up a weak or false claim allegedly said and then proceed to knock it down. None of this is likely to engender any advance on ideas put forth in good faith, which should be argued on the merit of the original statement. Social Credit has been described as a Policy of a Philosophy. It has been described as Practical Christianity. To elucidate for the benefit of those who may have some problem with these two descriptions (not definitions) I offer the following comments. A Policy of a Philosophy is simply a recognition that every philosophy (again for the benefit of those who may wish to extend this) i.e., the beliefs that are held by each and every individual governs the actions that they take. This is a very simple matter to understand. If I want a shovel and do not have one but my neighbour does have one, I can do one of two things. I can ask if I may borrow it, or I can just go into his house and take it. Whichever action I take is dependent upon my philosophy of how I should conduct myself. Douglas explained it very clearly: Social Credit is the policy of a philosophy, 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 we take based on that conception is a policy. If there is one thing which seems to me beyond dispute, it is that you cannot have a policy (here I use the word again in a way in which I have defined it), the policy of a country, policy of a race, or of a nation, without having a philosophy behind it. You cannot have a bridge without a model and drawing behind it, or without having the desire to have a bridge. (Address at Conference June 26, 1937) Among the beliefs held by Douglas and Social Crediters (I use that phrase reservedly) are: Systems were made for men, and not men for systems, and the interest of man which is self development, is above all systems, whether theological, political or economic. (Econ. Democ.) Accepting this statement as a basis of constructive effort, it seems clear that all forms, whether of government, industry or society must exist contingently to the furtherance of the principles contained in it. If a State system can be shown inimical to them it must go; if social customs hamper their continuous expansion thy must be modified; if unbridled industrialism checks their growth, then industrialism must be reined in. that is to say we must build up from the individual, not down from the State. (Econ. Democ.) If, therefore, any condition can be shown to be oppressive to the individual, no appeal to its desirability in the interests of external organization can be considered in extenuation; and while co-operation is the note of the coming age, our premises require that it must be the co-operation of reasoned assent, not regimentation in the interests of any system, however superficially attractive. (Econ. Democ.) This demand to subordinate individuality to the need of some external organization, the exaltation of the State into an authority from which there is no appeal (as if the state had a concrete existence apart from those who operate its functions), the exploitation of public opinion manipulated by the Press owned and controlled from the apex of power, are all features of a centralizing policy commended to the individual by a claim that the interest of the community is thereby advanced (Econ. Democ.) Now it may be emphasized that a centralized or pyramid form of control may be, and in certain conditions, the ideal organization for the attainment of one specific and material end in respect of any undertaking, centralization is the way to do it, but it is neither the correct method of deciding what to do nor the question of who is to do it. (ED) The fundamental subject matter with which we have always been
RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy part two
Part two.
Practical Christianity:
Social Credit has nothing
to do with any theological organization or religious faith. The introduction
of Roman Catholicism, Protestant religions or any other religion has nothing
to do with Social Credit. We can usefully distinguish in this context
(Practical Christianity) two aspects of Christianity. There is the aspect
which gives rise to Christian theology; and the aspect, which embodies certain
ethical and metaphysical values. It is with the latter that social Credit is
specially concerned.
Contrary to much that
has been written on the topica list concerning Social Credit and Christianity
there is ample evidence to show the misunderstandings.
Civilisation might be
defined as the incarnation of ethical and metaphysical values in the
institutions of society. Now, C. S.
Lewis, in his 'Abolition of Man', has pointed out that the values embodied in
the great religions are not several, but one coherent system. He uses the Chinese word 'Tao' to
denote this system.
Alduous Huxley ('The Perennial Philosophy') and Lin Yutang ('The Wisdom
of China and India') have compiled anthologies from the Scriptures of different
religious systems, which demonstrate this truth very
clearly.
Social Credit is the practicable endeavour to transform the institutions
of society in such a way that the transcendental values of the 'Tao' may find incarnation in
them.
A further generalisation of the lessons of the Scriptures of the great
religions is that such an incarnation is dependent on the individual, and is
manifested through individual initiative.
The very purpose of Social Credit as a system is to free the individual
initiative by placing the benefits of association directly at the services of
individual initiative. The
objective of Social Credit is to enable the individual to achieve the maximum
differentiation possible.
When we say that 'Social Credit is the Policy of a Philosophy' we mean
that every action we take towards a certain policy is the result of a
philosophy. There are two
basic philosophies in the world, and, because these philosophies are
diametrically opposed to each other, they give rise to conflicting
policies. The first
philosophy is one, which conceives of all power and authority arising from a
point EXTERNAL to the individual.
The second philosophy conceives of all power and authority from WITHIN
the individual. The first
philosophy gives rise to policies, which necessitate a certain type of
organisation in order to IMPOSE certain conditions upon the individual. This philosophy results in the
individual being subordinated to the State, the System, or some other
abstraction. It can be termed a
false philosophy, because it gives rise to policies which conflict with the
natural desires of the individual. This false philosophy is
helped by many people who may be opposed to one another. For example there is the alleged
conflict between Communism and Fascism. We must learn to look beyond
labels to find the reality behind the labels.
The second philosophy, which conceives of reality as an environment in
which the individual can make the greatest progress towards self-development,
gives rise to a social structure in which there is the greatest possible
decentralisation of all policies, including financial policies. Jesus of Nazareth stated the Christian -
the realistic philosophy, when he said:
"THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU".
The corollary to this is
that each individual must accept responsibility for his actions. This is
distinct from the notion that actions by groups governments, local
authorities, institutions all of which are abstractions in name, do not, and
cannot accept responsibility for their actions. Any use of a term such as In
the interests of the nation, or the national good, or the government advises
or suggests are simply a means of avoiding
responsibility.
Vic
Bridger
==^==^=
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
==^==^=
RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy: Wally comments.
Wally briefly comments re Victor Bridger's observations below and and subsequent two messages: I much appreciate your comments below re Social Credit and the policy of a philosophy, etc. Some people seem so infected with the warm fuzzies that they completely depart from the reality that not all people in this world automatically subscribe to the same general principles. They think you can mix all sorts of incompatible elements without compromising anything and everything out of existence. I once asked a person of Armenian (might have been anyone else) background what he thought of conditions in the Soviet Union during the turmoil of its dissolution. The emphatic and unqualified response was, They need another Stalin! Never mind foolish abstract notions like freedom! I am afraid that reality is what the world IS at any historical time and not what we would LIKE it to be. The reality is that there are, IN FACT, real philosophical differences, with their different and sometimes diametrically OPPOSING policies, as to the nature and purpose of human life. Ultimately, everyone must make his choice as to which to support. And in the final analysis this is a matter faith--coming from whatever spiritual origins from which it derives. There is also a time, in the face of great evil and human suffering(as exists so pervasively and perniciously in the world overall today), to move from academic debate (seemingly often characterized by ego factors and sophistry) to concrete and positive action to effect the changes which one believes are necessary. That is where sincerity is put to the test. The ultimate test of rightness regarding philosophy and policy is in the results which flow from practical implementation. And these results can fall anywhere in the span between Heaven and Hell. One thing is certain: words without action will accomplish nothing. Those who do not understand this would do well to give serious thought to the grave consequences which may be involved. Do not imagine that everyone will automatically flock to what one considers a right cause. This is sheer, utter delusion. Douglas learned this lesson quite early in the history of Social Credit when powerful interests realized the threat his ideas posed to their positions of centralized financial, economic and political power and rapidly imposed a publicity blackout upon the subject after a brief initial period of intense and widespread public discussion. In good faith Wally Klinck Victor Bridger wrote: From a perusal of postings on this subject over the last couple of weeks it is obvious that little has been done to learn exactly what C. H.Douglas wrote and spoke about on it. Difficulties arise between people in different nations who do not speak the same language. Difficulties arise when people who do speak the same language attach different meanings to words used. Difficulties arise and little progress is attained when people misinterpret, misquote, or make assumptions about what someone else has said, whether deliberately or not. Problems have occurred in this discussion group through the misquoting that has been prevalent and in addition an interpretation placed upon something, which is contrary to what was stated. Added to this is putting words into the mouth of a person who has not said anything of the sort. It is probably a different version of the straw man argument. Put up a weak or false claim allegedly said and then proceed to knock it down. None of this is likely to engender any advance on ideas put forth in good faith, which should be argued on the merit of the original statement. Social Credit has been described as a Policy of a Philosophy. It has been described as Practical Christianity. To elucidate for the benefit of those who may have some problem with these two descriptions (not definitions) I offer the following comments. 1.. A Policy of a Philosophy is simply a recognition that every philosophy (again for the benefit of those who may wish to extend this) i.e., the beliefs that are held by each and every individual governs the actions that they take. This is a very simple matter to understand. If I want a shovel and do not have one but my neighbour does have one, I can do one of two things. I can ask if I may borrow it, or I can just go into his house and take it. Whichever action I take is dependent upon my philosophy of how I should conduct myself. 2.. Douglas explained it very clearly: Social Credit is the policy of a philosophy, 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 we take based on that conception is a policy.
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
As far as I know Douglas's earlier writings (the late teens and early 1920's) had nothing negative to say on Jews. That was a later unfortunate development brought about by circumstances as he saw them at the time (1930's). Sincerely, Tony Reznowski P.S. The last time I saw you I believe was 25 years ago this month when you picked my Dad and I up at the airport in Calgary. --- Chick Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like what John is saying and it ties in with what Bill Ryan is saying and I agree, but perhaps a better term might be crutch. These side issues are distractions but when we, for example say that Social Credit is a good philosophy because it is based on Christian principles or because it suggests a Jewish conspiracy, or whatever, is an unnecessary crutch and that crutch is brandished by some like a sword as if to say that this is a good philosophy and Christianity is here to back it up. What should be able to be said is that Social Credit is a good philosophy, period. It is totally unnecessary to create heroes and villains. And the banter about accounting is also a distraction that gets away from the real point, offering a solution to the economic oppression of the present system. Way too much time and energy is wasted on the distractions and not enough on the actual fighting of poverty and economic, social and political oppression and injustice. I have been on this planet for several years and like probably everyone else, I would like to go back to perhaps twenty five or thirty with the knowledge that I have now but. and in that time span I have met and gotten to know a lot of people, people of every colour, culture, religion and language and some were good and some were not. From what I have experienced and from what I have studied I know that not all people are alike, not all hold the views that society generalizes that they do and most, if Social Credit was not presented the way that it was, would be very accepting of it with in the context and confines of their own religion or culture and that includes Jews. In fact in Alberta, regardless of how the original books portrayed Social Credit, there were several Jews that were active members of the party and the movement. Chick - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Social Credit Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy The discussion between Keith Wilde, Chick Hurst, Vince, Victor, and Bill Ryan, thread subject -- Policy of a Philosophy, is not easy for me to fully grasp. There seems to be a concern that Social Credit, as a critique of modern accounting and both laissez-faire and command economy doctrines, may be missing an emphasis on outcomes (in the game of life, as it were, where winning may be possible) relative to (a) individual fortune and (b) economic inequality, at least. In addition, there appears to be a concern that Judaism may not share Christian values that may tend to soften, for an individual's feelings or soul, the aforesaid outcomes. If this were the case, the further concern appears to be that Social Credit advocates would find in Judaism a defect not easy to overcome -- one that might see two Venn diagram defining cricles that did not overlap -- one encircling Judaism as belief in a hard reality, the other circling Social Credit as belief in something softer now and forever. I am reading The Mind and the Market -- Capi- talism in Modern European Thought by Jerry Muller. It is a serious study of laissez-faire capitalism versus a planned economy, even a mildly planned welfare state mixed economy. Its scope is mainly philosophical -- Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Hegel (Georg, Wilhelm, Friedrich), Karl Marx, Matthew Arnold, many others, ending up with Joseph Schumpeter, Maynard Keynes, Herbert Marcuse, and Friedrich Hayek. Not only is its scope philosophical -- and therefore related to the thread under discussion -- but it tells of the Jews as an important people, including Jewish elites and Jewish commoners, in the development of both modern laissez-faire capi- talism and planned and mixed economies. Muller is an extremely gifted historian, tenured at Catholic University in Washington D.C., and an easy to read stylist. He avoids offering subjective opinion -- even makes an art of avoiding it. So he will not settle the questions presented above on outcomes or Judaism. But he does throw a lot of light on them. In my subjective view, I think that outcomes matter. Accounting is a small matter -- like all math it is trivial. But food on the table matters. Defeating
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear (he was said to be the second richest man in Great Britain) and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and a happier world to live in But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit. Chick I agree that distractions only impede reform -- especially reform that wouldrid our world and cultures of, (in Chick's words),poverty and economic, social, and political oppression and injustice. So Chick and I are singing off the same sheet of music and lyrics. He answers my concerns that social credit is more about making laissez- faire work than about using intelligent law to help make freedom of enterprise more effec- tive in concrete ways. I think we must examine mixed economy examples and ad joc solutions to arrive a a dynamic platform ready to learn from experience. Povery,pollution and injustice are the enemy. On the Jewish experience over the past 5000 years -- we must remember Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, Rome, the early Christian Jews, the Jews before the middle ages and during that dark age, and Jews around the world since the enlightenment. Jews have been as varied as everyman. If anyone seriously blames the Jews, per se, for anything, he is my enemy along with every enemy of America and my President. I hesitate to get too deeply into this -- we all have our hot buttons. -- and this is not the discussion forum to exercise them: Blaming Jews is one of mine. Disrespecting President Bush is another. John Gelles - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Social Credit Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy Thanks to Chick Hurst. I agree that distractions only impede reform -- especially reform that wouldrid our world and cultures of, (in Chick's words),poverty and economic, social, and political oppression and injustice. So Chick and I are singing off the same sheet of music and lyrics. He answers my concerns that social credit is more about making laissez- faire work than about using intelligent law to help make freedom of enterprise more effec- tive in concrete ways. I think we must examine mixed economy examples and ad joc solutions to arrive a a dynamic platform ready to learn from experience. Povery,pollution and injustice are the enemy. On the Jewish experience over the past 5000 years -- we must remember Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, Rome, the early Christian Jews, the Jews before the middle ages and during that dark age, and Jews around the world since the enlightenment. Jews have been as varied as everyman. If anyone seriously blames the Jews, per se, for anything, he is my enemy along with every enemy of America and my President. I hesitate to get too deeply into this -- we all have our hot buttons. -- and this is not the discussion forum to exercise them: Blaming Jews is one of mine. Disrespecting President Bush is another. John Gelles - Original Message - From: Chick Hurst To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy I like what John is saying and it ties in with what Bill Ryan is saying and I agree, but perhaps a better term might be crutch. These side issues are distractions but when we, for example say that Social Credit is a good philosophy because it is based on Christian principles or because it suggests a Jewish conspiracy, or whatever, is an unnecessary crutch and that crutch is brandished by some like a sword as if to say that this is a good philosophy and Christianity is here to back it up. What should be able to be said is that Social Credit is a good philosophy, period. It is totally unnecessary to create heroes and villains. And the banter about accounting is also a distraction that gets away from the real point, offering a solution to the economic oppression of the present system. Way too much time and energy is wasted on the distractions and not enough on the actual fighting of poverty and economic, social and political oppression and injustice. I have been on this planet for several years and like probably everyone else, I would like to go back to perhaps twenty five or thirty with the knowledge that I have now but and in that time span I have met and gotten to know a lot of people, people of every colour, culture, religion and language
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
The discussion between Keith Wilde, Chick Hurst, Vince, Victor, and Bill Ryan, thread subject -- Policy of a Philosophy, is not easy for me to fully grasp. There seems to be a concern that Social Credit, as a critique of modern accounting and both laissez-faire and command economy doctrines, may be missing an emphasis on outcomes (in the game of life, as it were, where winningmay be possible)relative to (a) individual fortune and (b) economic inequality, at least. In addition, there appears to be a concern that Judaism may not share Christian values that may tend to soften, foran individual's feelings or soul, the aforesaid outcomes. If this were the case, the further concern appears to be that Social Credit advocates would find in Judaism a defect not easy to overcome -- one that might see two Venn diagram defining cricles that did not overlap -- one encircling Judaism as belief in a hard reality, the other circling Social Credit as belief in something softer now and forever. I am reading "The Mind and the Market -- Capi- talism in Modern European Thought" by Jerry Muller. Itis a serious study of laissez-faire capitalism versus a planned economy, even a mildly planned welfare state mixed economy. Itsscope is mainly philosophical -- Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Hegel (Georg, Wilhelm, Friedrich), Karl Marx, Matthew Arnold, many others, ending up with Joseph Schumpeter, Maynard Keynes, Herbert Marcuse, and Friedrich Hayek. Not only is its scope philosophical -- and therefore related to the thread under discussion -- but it tells of the Jews as an importantpeople, including Jewish elites and Jewish commoners,in the development of both modern laissez-faire capi- talism and planned and mixed economies. Muller is an extremely gifted historian, tenured at Catholic University in Washington D.C., and an easy to read stylist. He avoids offering subjective opinion -- even makes an art of avoiding it. So he will not settle the questions presented above on outcomes or Judaism. But he does throw a lot of light on them. In my subjective view, I think that outcomes matter. Accounting is a small matter -- like all math it is trivial. But food on the table matters. Defeating poverty and pollution matters. Equality matters to all of us when we say, "we are all equal before the bar of justice and before God's fair and final judgement." But inequality matters when we run a foot race or ask to have the bestdentist around tostop out pain. And in my view Judaism may be a series of texts that can be assembled by scholars, but every Jew is unique and not any more connected to those texts than Christians are to Christianity. Which leads me to conclude, subjectively, that Social Credit advocates will never sell reform of accounting to ordinary people. But they may sell ideas that promise to end poverty and pollution and to explain that the great middle class owes it to itself to spread equality as far possible by voting against useless inequality at every opportunity. This leaves useful inequality alone -- like some great wealth to check and balance great political gifts and power. Or some great talent in sport, art and science, to exemptindividuals from any need to "be like the rest of us". And as to money-crank reformers like myself, some like me are Jews. Some not. I don't know if any are Social Credit advocates -- or if any SC advocates are money cranks. I am fairly ignorant of what a SC advocate is. But if they are mostly Christian -- that's OK with me. Most of my best friends are Christian. Why? Because there are so many of them and so few Jews inAmerica. - Original Message - From: keith wilde To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 12:36 PM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy Chicks answer to Vinces question about Douglas flawed research material is straightforward and understandable to me, but I am less sure of what Bill has in mind with his addition. I will first suggest a possible interpretation, therefore, and then add a comment of my own about the flawed research material. The issue, as I understand it, is the meaning that should attach to policy of a philosophy. Bills comment seems to be saying that the philosophy amounts to a belief that harmonious social relationships are contingent on reducing antagonisms between rich and poor by assuring an environment that holds out promise of opportunity for personal advancement from individual effort. The policy would then be implementation of dividends and compensatory payments in line with the
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
I like what John is saying and it ties in with what Bill Ryan is saying and I agree, but perhaps a better term might be crutch. These side issues are distractions but when we, for example say that Social Credit is a good philosophy because it is based on Christian principles or because it suggests a Jewish conspiracy, or whatever, is an unnecessary crutch and that crutch is brandished by some like a sword as if to say that this is a good philosophy and Christianity is here to back it up. What should be able to be said is that Social Credit is a good philosophy, period. It is totally unnecessary to create heroes and villains. And the banter about accounting is also a distraction that gets away from the real point, offering a solution to the economic oppression of the present system. Way too much time and energy is wasted on the distractions and not enough on the actual fighting of poverty and economic, social and political oppression and injustice. I have been on this planet for several years and like probably everyone else, I would like to go back to perhaps twenty five or thirty with the knowledge that I have now but and in that time span I have met and gotten to know a lot of people, people of every colour, culture, religion and language and some were good and some were not. From what I have experienced and from what I have studied I know that not all people are alike, not all hold the views that society generalizes that they do and most, if Social Credit was not presented the way that it was, would be very accepting of it with in the context and confines of their own religion or culture and that includes Jews. In fact in Alberta, regardless of how the original books portrayed Social Credit, there were several Jews that were active members of the party and the movement. Chick - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Social Credit Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy The discussion between Keith Wilde, Chick Hurst, Vince, Victor, and Bill Ryan, thread subject -- Policy of a Philosophy, is not easy for me to fully grasp. There seems to be a concern that Social Credit, as a critique of modern accounting and both laissez-faire and command economy doctrines, may be missing an emphasis on outcomes (in the game of life, as it were, where winningmay be possible)relative to (a) individual fortune and (b) economic inequality, at least. In addition, there appears to be a concern that Judaism may not share Christian values that may tend to soften, foran individual's feelings or soul, the aforesaid outcomes. If this were the case, the further concern appears to be that Social Credit advocates would find in Judaism a defect not easy to overcome -- one that might see two Venn diagram defining cricles that did not overlap -- one encircling Judaism as belief in a hard reality, the other circling Social Credit as belief in something softer now and forever. I am reading "The Mind and the Market -- Capi- talism in Modern European Thought" by Jerry Muller. Itis a serious study of laissez-faire capitalism versus a planned economy, even a mildly planned welfare state mixed economy. Itsscope is mainly philosophical -- Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Hegel (Georg, Wilhelm, Friedrich), Karl Marx, Matthew Arnold, many others, ending up with Joseph Schumpeter, Maynard Keynes, Herbert Marcuse, and Friedrich Hayek. Not only is its scope philosophical -- and therefore related to the thread under discussion -- but it tells of the Jews as an importantpeople, including Jewish elites and Jewish commoners,in the development of both modern laissez-faire capi- talism and planned and mixed economies. Muller is an extremely gifted historian, tenured at Catholic University in Washington D.C., and an easy to read stylist. He avoids offering subjective opinion -- even makes an art of avoiding it. So he will not settle the questions presented above on outcomes or Judaism. But he does throw a lot of light on them. In my subjective view, I think that outcomes matter. Accounting is a small matter -- like all math it is trivial. But food on the table matters. Defeating poverty and pollution matters. Equality matters to all of us when we say, "we are all equal before the bar of justice and before God's fair and final judgement." But inequality matters when we run a foot race or ask to have the bestdentist
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
Thanks to Chick Hurst. I agree that distractions only impede reform -- especially reform that wouldrid our world and cultures of, (in Chick's words),poverty and economic, social, and political oppression and injustice. So Chick and I are singing off the same sheet of music and lyrics. He answers my concerns that social credit is more about making laissez- faire work than about using intelligent law to help make freedom of enterprise more effec- tive in concrete ways. I think we must examine mixed economy examples and ad joc solutions to arrive a a dynamic platform ready to learn from experience. Povery,pollution and injustice are the enemy. On the Jewish experience over the past 5000 years -- we must remember Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, Rome, the early Christian Jews, the Jews before the middle ages and during that dark age, and Jews around the world since the enlightenment. Jews have been as varied as everyman. If anyone seriously blames the Jews, per se, for anything, he is my enemy along with every enemy of America and my President. I hesitate to get too deeply into this -- we all have our hot buttons. -- and this is not the discussion forum to exercise them: Blaming Jews is one of mine. Disrespecting President Bush is another. John Gelles - Original Message - From: Chick Hurst To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy I like what John is saying and it ties in with what Bill Ryan is saying and I agree, but perhaps a better term might be crutch. These side issues are distractions but when we, for example say that Social Credit is a good philosophy because it is based on Christian principles or because it suggests a Jewish conspiracy, or whatever, is an unnecessary crutch and that crutch is brandished by some like a sword as if to say that this is a good philosophy and Christianity is here to back it up. What should be able to be said is that Social Credit is a good philosophy, period. It is totally unnecessary to create heroes and villains. And the banter about accounting is also a distraction that gets away from the real point, offering a solution to the economic oppression of the present system. Way too much time and energy is wasted on the distractions and not enough on the actual fighting of poverty and economic, social and political oppression and injustice. I have been on this planet for several years and like probably everyone else, I would like to go back to perhaps twenty five or thirty with the knowledge that I have now but and in that time span I have met and gotten to know a lot of people, people of every colour, culture, religion and language and some were good and some were not. From what I have experienced and from what I have studied I know that not all people are alike, not all hold the views that society generalizes that they do and most, if Social Credit was not presented the way that it was, would be very accepting of it with in the context and confines of their own religion or culture and that includes Jews. In fact in Alberta, regardless of how the original books portrayed Social Credit, there were several Jews that were active members of the party and the movement. Chick - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Social Credit Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy The discussion between Keith Wilde, Chick Hurst, Vince, Victor, and Bill Ryan, thread subject -- Policy of a Philosophy, is not easy for me to fully grasp. There seems to be a concern that Social Credit, as a critique of modern accounting and both laissez-faire and command economy doctrines, may be missing an emphasis on outcomes (in the game of life, as it were, where winningmay be possible)relative to (a) individual fortune and (b) economic inequality, at least. In addition, there appears to be a concern that Judaism may not share Christian values that may tend to soften, foran individual's feelings or soul, the aforesaid outcomes. If this were the case, the further concern appears to be that Social Credit advocates would find in Judaism a defect not easy to overcome -- one that might see two Venn diagram defining cricles that did not overlap -- one encircling Judaism as belief in a hard reality, the other circling Social Credit as belief in something softer now and forever. I am reading "The Mind and the Market -- Capi- talism in Modern European Thought" by Jerry Muller. Itis a ser
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
You are right. But some people get so tied up in the distractions that they overlook or don't have time for the real problem. Chick - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 9:41 AM Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy Vince: What flawed research material was Douglas working with? Chick: Any and all documentation and/or rhetoric that casts aspersions on someone or their group that is not founded in fact and that includes the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The absolute stupidity that has gone on between the Catholic and Protestant Churches is another which has caused a constant war between the two and Ireland is a prefect example. - The aspersions are distractions from the root of the problem that is primarily economic. They are rhetorically fighting battles that were concluded hundreds of years ago. In Northern Ireland, Bosnia, in the Middle East there are thousands and thousands of disoriented youth who have no future, on all sides of the ostensible conflicts. In Palestine the grievances are more recent, going back a century and especially a half-century with the establishment of the State of Israel. But even there the problem is mostly economic, entire generations without hope. Improve the economic condition and the rhetorical grievances will fade away. Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg was the turning point of the American Civil War. Prior to that the South had won every battle. A half-century later the surviving veterans reenacted the charge at the battleground. The Rebels advanced toward the Yankees with bayonets drawn. With families and friends watching, at the very place where so many died a half-century before, the Rebel and Yankee veterans shook hands. I have no doubt whatever that America has been able to solve its problems - such that they have been solved - because of general elevation of the economic condition that America has been able to achieve. The solution is not through education though education is part of the solution. More than one of the hijackers who flew into the World Trade Center were college educated. Men with hope, with families and children who have a future don't strap bombs around their waists or kneecap policemen, who are themselves just trying to do their jobs. _ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plusref=lmtplus ==^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
I think my response to yours would be embodied in the following (rather lengthy) posting to the SANE Network. Substantially I agree with the Pope statement, but I do not see the philosophy is embodied in the organisation he heads. The Pope and Cardinals, Bishops, etc is a political entity (hierarchy) in the same way that President Bush and the high-ups head the Republican Party. Further, the 'church-party' headed by the Vatican is no more 'the Church' than is the party in the Whitehouse the American people. I consider both to be an imposition upon the people they claim to serve. I go along with this statement by Douglas:- It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting opinions, largely discredited, and thus doubtfully on a par with many other sets of opinions, and having neither more nor less claim to consideration. Jessop. --- Let me come clean! I approach all things spiritual, political and social from my personal Christian understanding. Not long after I was converted to God and Christ from practical atheistic communism (not that I was deep in the philosophy), I began to see that the Church cannot be 'owned' by an hierarchy with head quarters in Rome, nor an hierarchy with head office in Pretoria, Canterbury, or in the Southern states of America. The Church is owned by no-one but God because he owns each individual that is part of the Church. Therefore each one of us is responsible only to God, but we are placed in 'support groups' while we are on earth, and those consist of, first, parents, then family, then neighbourhood, then clan, then tribe, then nation, then state. The support group exists for the individual, but without individuals making their natural contribution to the whole, there can be no support group. So the individual is responsible only to God, but conducts himself/herself in such a way that strengthens the group, enabling it to function. The authority over the group rests only in God, but is expressed through the common voice of all the people of God. But, because God keeps himself invisible, men take control and start to dictate. They do this firstly as an individual, and then the leadership ability in the individual attracts lackeys and fellow-travellers who see in it an advantage for themselves. So a party (or king and council) is formed which quickly moves away from a role of 'protector' to that of dictator --- sometimes under the pretense of 'democracy.' But we know from Plato that 'democracy' doesn't actually work because it soon gives rise to anarchy, which again soon sees a battle between leaders -- and emerges once more (under the guise of democracy) as a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy) because the party with the greatest resources in money will win. So the Church, when visible, is a local meeting of believers, and is ruled by God -- the Spirit of God. When men take prominent positions -- firstly in the guise of 'guardians' (of doctrine and of people) -- they soon taste the benefits to themselves of status, prestige, reverence, and financial reward, and become an hierarchy of control interposing themselves between mankind and God. And the people blandly accept it because responsibility passes from themselves -- but does it? Plato's solution to this -- which he admits will not actually work -- is that 'guardianship' of the nation or state should be in the hands of those born to the task, who do it not for gain or recognition, but because they are naturally equipped to do it and their inner nature compels them to give themselves to a task which they actually do not want! They own no personal wealth, but are maintained by the people (they share in the National Dividend!) Plato (Socrates) terms them guardians because they are not 'rulers' but are there to adjudicate between individuals involved in internal conflicts, and to provide security from outside aggression. The 'ideal guardian' in Plato's analysis ends up with the full attributes of a benevolent God. He sees that, in the absence of such a person (or persons, for he lived in an era when there were multiple gods), a 'captain' would be appointed but whose captaincy would immediately be challenged by others who want the position for themselves. Therefore, in the absence of that 'true ruler', his Republic would not work. But this is the primary concept in Christianity. Christ is the head of the Church and no one else can exercise authority over it. While some will teach and and encourage, no one is to be boss over the rest, and all group actions are undertaken after discussion in open forum of all members present. Membership does not describe a name on a list; all believers assembling together are members of Christ and of each other. In society and government today, in the absence of that sense of belonging to God inherent in the
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
Chick, You say that you believe in democracy. Could you expand on what you mean by democracy. C.H. Douglas believed that true democracy was economic (have you read the book?). He also stated that ballot-box democracy embodied Collectivism, Dialectic Materialism, Totalitarianism and Judeo-Masonic Philosophy and Policy. All of which are incompatible with Social Credit. Vince From: Chick Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:55:37 -0700 The topic of Social Credit being the policy of a Christian philosophy has been mentioned in this discussion group. Comments were made regarding the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I thought I'd add a few quotes to put more of perspective on the whole discussion. It is an injustice, a grave evil, and a disturbance of right order, for a larger and higher organisation to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. That is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable and it retains its full truth today. Of its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help individual members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them. One could be mistaken for thinking the above comment was from C.H. Douglas. However, it was Pope Pius XI. It comes as no surprise then that Douglas made the following statement in The Development of World Dominion, We have from time to time expressed the opinion that the Roman Catholic outlook on economics and sociology is the essentially Christian outlook; and that no other Christian body of opinion is so consistent in its official attitude. It is beyond question that the anti-Christian venom of the Communists is focused on Roman Catholicism, and that Protestant bodies, when not used as tools (and even then), merely excite contempt. Douglas also states in The Realistic Position of the Church of England, It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting opinions, largely discredited, and thus doubtfully on a par with many other sets of opinions, and having neither more nor less claim to consideration. The Roman Catholic Church has always recognised this, and has never wavered in its claims. I hope this will ignite some interesting discussion. ==^=== I agree with the Pope but I believe in democracy, for the people, by the people, of the people and with the people and the Catholic Church is not democratic. My contention is with the comment about compatibility. If the Catholic and Protestant Churches were compatible there would not be contention in Ireland, the Netherlands nor throughout history since Martin Luther and Henry the VIII. Government should be at the level closest to the people but through democracy and the vote and the voter must be respected regardless of the religion of the voter, if they have one. If Protestantism and Catholicism were compatible we would not have segregated school systems. The Essenes, the group from which Christ is reported to have been involved with prior to his crucifixion were not democratic and Christianity was supposed to have started two thousand years ago and most religious organizations are not democratic, at least not in the sense that we understand democracy and democracy was not welcomed with open arms by all religions. Democracy, in respect to one citizen one vote is actually quite a recent thing. Does this mean that Christianity or perhaps religion in general has no real appreciation for democracy? Mao Zedong and Hitler both believed that the government should also be at the level closest to the people but for totally different reasons. One thing is certain and that is that it does seem to be inherent in all humans to have an inclination to spirituality or a belief in something greater than the self. Does it really matter, in the overall scheme of things, whether CH Douglas was or was not Catholic, Protestant or even Christian for that matter, if the idea is good and sound? What if Douglas was a Buddhist, does it matter? Chick - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Social Credit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 10:19 PM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy The topic of Social Credit being the policy of a Christian philosophy has been mentioned in this discussion group. Comments were made regarding the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I thought I'd add a few quotes to put more of perspective on the whole discussion. It is an injustice, a grave evil, and a disturbance of right order, for a larger and higher organisation to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. That is a fundamental principle
Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy
Jessop, You have cut it to the quick. Too much is made of the whole subject and without any reference to what Douglas said. There has always been the tendency to multiply beyond what is necessary and thus engage in excess verbiage. Good one Jessop. Vic Bridger - Original Message - From: Jessop Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Policy of a Philosophy I go along with this statement by Douglas:- It must be insisted that Christianity is either something inherent in the very warp and woof of the Universe, or it is just a set of interesting opinions, largely discredited, and thus doubtfully on a par with many other sets of opinions, and having neither more nor less claim to consideration. Jessop. ==^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
