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".
>
> "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)
>
>
>
> 3.. 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 concerned
> (which) is the relationship of the individual to the group. (TSC Oct.16,
> 1948)".
>
>
>
> As I conceive it. Social Credit covers and comprehends a great deal more
> than the money problem. Important as that is, primarily important
> because it is a question of priority, social Credit fundamentally
> involves a conception, I feel a true conception - but you must enlarge
> upon that for yourselves - of relationships between individuals and
> their association in countries and nations, between individuals and
> their association in groups. (Approach to Reality 1936)
>
>
>
> I do not wish to discuss this further at this point except offer a
> reminder that Communism is a Policy of a Philosophy, Socialism is a
> Policy of a Philosophy, Fascism is a Policy of a Philosophy, which
> hopefully may shed some light on the matter for some.
>
>
>
> Those who desire to discuss the Philosophy of Social Credit have a
> choice. They can either agree or disagree with the propositions stated.
> No ifs or buts. Just a simple agreement or disagreement is requested. If
> there is agreement we can move on, if not then there is no point in any
> further discussion.
>
>
>
> 4.. 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
==^================================================================
