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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
