[Bill Ryan} Joe, you've completely missed the point.
--
Possibly.
[Joe] The question remains; if Douglas never existed, and
it had been YOU who'd developed the Social Credit
concepts, and explained them without any reference to
the "Protocols of Zion", or the philosophy behind the
Theory of Rewards and Punishments
-----------------------------
[Bill] This was Douglas' most important observation.
--
Yes, but that's the point, ( or one of them! ), you think I've missed. I've read your posts on here for some months now, Bill. And you can do a very credible job of explaining 'social credit' in what you believe would be workable manner without ever touching on that. And I'm not saying for a moment the way you describe the economic concepts wouldn't be feasible. My question still is, if you or some other eminent economist had come up with these concepts, without any reference to anything 'semitic', how likely do you think they would be to be adopted?
[Joe] as a cornerstone of the 'Semitic structure of
society', or made any references whatsoever to the
Jews themselves,
-----------------------------
[Bill] Identifying that philosophy with the Jews was his
biggest mistake.
--
Perhaps it was. But was he, or was he not, simply telling the truth? Remember now, the writings which most of those opposed to Social Credit seem to concentrate their fire on are Douglas's earlier ones. The ones most connected to his 'economic' proposals. The ones that appeared well before the Holocaust, or the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Yet when I read them, in the context in which they were written, there's nothing in them directly from Douglas that's 'anti-semitic'. Unless that term is taken to mean anthing at all any Jew is opposed to. And if it is taken this way, why should we have to countenance that type of a connotation? Are the activities of the Jews completely beyond all examination, even individual Jews, simply because they are Jews? If they are, then our society is indeed headed for trouble.
[Joe] what do you think the chances would be that those
concepts would be seriously considered?
-----------------------------
[Bill] A hell of a lot better than if they are identified
with anti-semitism. Even worse when they are
identified with the Masons and Calvinists. In the
American perspective it's just ridiculous. If you
want to make friends and influence people you just
don't do it. There are several hundred thousand
Masons in Texas alone, and millions of Calvinists--
the Presbyterians and so on. How many social
crediters are there? I don't know any at all.
It's purely a matter of opinion on my part, but I would consider the USA to be the country least likely in all the world to ever be in favour of Social Credit. And not mainly because of the presence of Jews, Masons, Calvinists, Presbyterians, etc., in abundance there either. My guess is that if you called the 'social credit' proposals something else, made no reference to Douglas, or anything remotely derogatory to any of these groups, you'd still face stiff opposition to them. And eminating mainly from the same source that opposed Douglas. True, you'd have removed one possible source that opposition could use against you, but I've little doubt the 'powers-that-be' would quickly manufacture some others.
[Bill] It baffles me that you can defend what is arguably an
anti-semitic presentation in the context of the year
2003. I think you must have skipped Public Relations
101.
--
That's true enough. They didn't offer that when I went to school, Bill. All I can say is cut out the offensive parts and 're-package' it then. And see how far you get. Who'd have ever thought 'communism' would've taken root in Russia first? Maybe 'social credit' under a different moniker will sweep America. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
And especially if the ultimate 'object' of them was
still the triumph of the 'will to freedom' over the
'will to power'? From where do you think the font of
the opposition to them, assuming there was any, would
originate?
Do you or do you not believe in free will?
I do.
If you do believe in free will it must follow that
people can be persuaded. That if there is an
ingrained philosophy that we oppose--and there most
certainly is--it is one more of nurture than nature.
For if it were nature the only solution would be the
expulsion or extermination of the offenders, or
perhaps selective breeding.
Then we're right back to the nazis, aren't we?
--
We are indeed. And I don't think Social Crediters are, or ever could be, 'nazis'. People can indeed be 'persuaded'. But we are up against some very powerful 'counter-persuasion'. Which has it's hands on all the levers of power, and in my opinion isn't going to willingly remove them.
Joe
--^^--------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^^---------------------------------------------------------------
