Comments inserted below [In reply, Monday, September 1]. --
[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? ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] Introducing reserve money (high powered, MO, government money or whatever you want to call it) as dividends directly to consumers rather than exclusively through "open market" operations does not conflict with anyone's economic theory. It's entirely a matter of philosophy. -- [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'. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] Look, the "truth" can be told in many ways. If you want to make enemies you can tell it one way. If you want to make friends and influence people so you can actually accomplish something, you tell it in a manner that does not trigger paranoiac response. Eimar O'Duffy had the right approach in my opinion--abstract prejudicial terminology from the discussion like I'm sure Orage advised Douglas' for the third book. Instead of putting "judeo-masonic-calvinist" on one side and "christian" on the other of his "chart," he substituted ancient Greek allegory: the conflict between "Sisyphism" and "Procrusteanism." This is the politic approach because there aren't any ancient Greeks around to be offended by the terminology. But O'Duffy wrote in 1932. The damage had already been done in 1924 with the publication of Douglas' third book *Social Credit* with its references to the "Protocols" and "Jews." The term "social credit" was already associated with "anti-semitism" rightly or wrongly and most probably wrongly, but even the great literary skill of O'Duffy couldn't fix it. See: http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium/hogan-1972.txt -- Unless that term is taken to mean anything at all any Jew is opposed to. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] The zionists apply the term to any Jew who opposes zionism. That struggle is irrelevant to social credit. 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. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] The "activities of the Jews." Hmm. It's apparent to me that you personally have a world-view where the "Jews" are in conspiracy against "the rest of us." I am not at all convinced that Douglas had such a view. I believe he was arguing against a restrictive "mindset" or philosophical "paradigm" that entraps most of "us." In that general sense even I will say there is a "conspiracy." My criticism of Douglas is his lame brained terminology. Mindsets can be changed through logical argument, but what do you do about the "Jews" if it's more than mindset but part of their genetic being? If you begin to think in terms of conspiracies, where does it end? The revolutionaries who sent many to the guillotine were themselves sent to the guillotine by those who seized power from them who thought THEY were the conspiracy. Now, here's a REAL conspiracy theorist, by comparison to which the remnants of the social crediters are weak-kneed indeed: "Western Destiny makes frequent mention of Maj. C. H. Douglas' Social Credit program, without stating the basis for issuing currency...Unfortunately, the picture I have seen of Maj. Douglas makes Rabbi Schneerson look Aryan by comparison." http://www.geocities.com/socredus/thomson-eric-2001.txt -- [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. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] This comment is laughable. Perhaps you did not know that Canadian social credit very much derives from American populism. Many if not the majority of the early social crediters were the children and grandchildren of Americans who had voted for William Jennings Bryan in 1896. -- 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. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] On their own terms rather than eminating from prejudice. -- 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. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] Then why are we talking? Let's organize a putsch. [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." ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] Your rose stinks. By that I mean the self-association of social credit with anti-semitism. -- 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'. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] Forgive me, but what you just said can be interpreted as saying that social crediters are nazis without the stomach for the job. I think that is certainly the view of the gentleman I quoted above who made the crack about Douglas. Perhaps you should contact him. -- 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. ------------------------------------- [In reply, Monday, September 1] A cynical view indeed. -- Joe ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
