|
Dear Michael,
Thanks for alerting me to your piece at the
ALOR site. Your incorporation of the historians' fad for cultural history
is especially useful to the problem of "Douglas and the Jews".
But isn't 1939 and Perry Miller a little late for dating it? What about Max
Weber and Werner Sombart? And the implications of the Rothschild connection
were laid out very clearly in the booklet by Stanley Allen in 1938 that I quoted
from in the longish attachment I circulated a few days ago. As that
list of items suggests, the groundwork of suspicion was already laid in the
1930s for the flowering of conspiracy talk that gripped America at the end
of the forties. That would be fully consistent, nevertheless, with
your dating of post-1940 for Douglas' primary statements about Jewish
culture as an explanatory factor in circumstances that he decried.
(Incidentally, your admonition to me of several months ago, to consider the
Protestant Reformation as a major cultural loss, is explained and justified
very well in Zarlenga's book The Lost Science of Money--Calvinism in
particular. At the time of your admonition, I was simply puzzled.) I
suppose that Douglas could have picked up quite a bit about Jewish influence on
the rise of modern money and banking from old books available in the British
Museum--but I do not find many references to works of that kind pre-dating the
20th century in Zarlenga's references.(?)
It sems to me that proponents of Social Credit
would help their cause if they could get the charge of anti-Semitism converted
to the lesser one of "conspiracy buffs". The former one is hard to dodge because
of the hypersensitive maniacs of the Jewish defense league who
scream political incorrectness if it is even mentioned that a particular
and undeniably guilty malefactor happens to be a Jew. Conspiracy
theory also has a bad press, especially among the kinds of people we are
likely to be engaging in conversation. I used to be one of those myself,
reasoning that to get all members of a conspiratorial group to keep quiet about
the nefarious plan requires a degree of intelligent control that is beyond
the capabilities of your ordinary thug. I am changing my mind about that,
having found myself forced to it by evidence and arguments marshalled
in Zarlenga's book. Reflecting on the subject now, I see that
conspiratorial behavior is the norm for human beings, manifested at very early
ages by children who form little exclusive gangs to assert their own superiority
and to exercise social and even physical power over those they designate as
outsiders. Religious organizations and social clubs manifest the same
instinct, as do college fraternities (Skull & Bones!), Masonic Lodges and
other brotherhoods dedicated to the interests of their own particular
members. It is the instinct of fascism, quite literally. In fact, it
may only be liberal intellectuals who are unable to pull off a
conspiracy because they are continually stuck in getting the argument right
and refuse to put themselves under the control of their most autocratic would-be
leader. But even academic societies reflect the pattern, as there are
insiders and ousiders in every one of them--"paradigm" being a more
polite term for "politically correct" to some of our collegaues.
Continuing the theme, I know that government bureaux are conspiracies of the
same kind, and corporations have the same reputation. Conspiracies are about
power. A few people identify a common interest and conspire to promote it
for themselves. Why would we expect persons/families who already have a lot of
money and power to refrain from behaving in the same way as we see in everyday
behavior around us?
The mystique and trappings of money and
power. Because they are clean, well-dressed, and have high social status,
we assume (hope) that they harmless and even benevolent (after all they are our
government) compared to our fear of the unwashed, unshaven, unwhite thug who
knocks over the local convenience store--or the Bushly designated "coward" who
sacrifices his own life in the cause of liberating his tribe from the class
whose Right it is to reign.
And this brings me to the "Lootocracy" paper which
I note was circulated to us both in last night's mail. The conspiracy of looters
is what individuals need to be liberated from--at least that is the biggest and
most pervasive conspiracy--perhaps. The local newspaper yesterday had an op-ed
page by a political scientist who documented iin Paul Krugman style the same
pattern of impoverishing the poorer and middle-classes at the expense of the
rich that has been conducted by the current governing party in Canada for the
past decade--in contrast to a flood of propaganda to the contrary. A big problem
is deliberate misinformation. You may have noted in the pieces I copied to
you recently the item that Rockefeller funded the John Birch Society to create
confusion. That has a parallel in Zarlenga's book, where he notes that
Jewish printing houses in Amsterdam flooded Britain with Bibles in English,
thereby fostering the unruly "revolt of the masses" that is manifested in our
time by the disunited, Bible-thumping, semi-educated, narrow-minded maniacs of
America whose fevered prose gives such a bad image to those who uncover serious
conspiracies. It seems that controlling the masses is more simple than
most anyone thought--25 years ago. Today, we are awestruck by
the breath-taking audacity of politicians who simply grab and give us the
finger.
Now, is this diatribe at all consistent with the
flavor of Douglas, and in what respects does it depart?
Keith --^^--------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
