I think you have put the issue bit backwards, Wally. It is we who study Social Credit who stand accused, along with Douglas, of espousing "anti-semitism". It is an epithet hurled at us, and I don't see that we have any responsibility for defining it. That is the burden of those who make the accusation. For us, it is sufficient to understand what elements of Douglas' words and thought inspire the fear and loathing in those who call it anti-semitic. From the understanding I have put together over the past few days, I'd say that your final paragraph below does encapsulate the position that is attacked. The reaction of "anti-semitic" is obviously made in ignorance of the position, but it is not for us to tell them what they mean by it. Let them do the defining.
Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: Wallace M. Klinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 2:08 AM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Douglas's views on the "Jewish Question" and "Antisemitism". > If this topic is to be discussed, it would seem essential that the > origin(s) of the term "Antisemitism" should be determined precisely and > that a clear definition of whatever it is, or is SUPPOSED to be, should > be posited at the outset. Otherwise, there appears to be no end to > discussion which has no parameters because their is no common > understanding of the precise nature of the subject. If the "accepted" > definition is no more accurate that the "dictionary" or oft expressed > "academic" descriptions of Social Credit, then certainly the "accepted" > or establishment definition can hardly be taken as authoritative in a > serious sense without critical examination. > > Hence, there can really be no way of exploring Douglas's or anyone > elses' attitude toward the subject until there has been a clear > determination of what the subject really means. > > We do know Douglas's attiude and opposition toward the increasing > centralization of power (in the main resulting from a defective > financial system), WHEREVER and by the efforts of WHOMSOEVER (whether by > conscious intent or not and regardless of motivation)this may occur at > the expense of the independence and security (i.e., "immanent > sovereignty") of the individual citizen. > > Wally > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
