Whether there is a "conspiracy" or not, going to employee-ownership and transferrring most personal finance to employer rather than publicly-sponsored institutions would certainly diminish the influence of the banks and the reserve systems, making the question moot.
Michael Bindner
Keith Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keith Wilde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe I now have a reasonably accurate concept of how this label got fastened to Scoial Credit, and I invite evidence-based refutations.The existence of some powerful bankers with international connections came to the attention of C.H. Douglas as a consequence of his efforts to understand why monetary policy is not conducted more sanely in the public interest. The identity of at least some of the persons involved was not too difficult to establish, and the existence of the group was traceable within historic times (modern history, even, focused on establishment of the Bank of England). One very prominent family based in Amsterdam had a large influence on getting this network started, as family members were situated in principal cities of Europe with connections to the princes of their respective countries. They continued and augmented a fairly ancient practice of lending to princes to finance their expenditures--which in those days were primarily for warfare. Traditionally in Europe, the families who did money lending were Jewish. The Amsterdam family (Rothschild) who figure largely in the modern International Banking "conspiracy" were Jewish. Some representatives of those international banking failies established branch operations in North America and were instrumental in setting up the Federal Reserve System. Significant members of the group which designed and lobbied the Fed were Jews. So, depending on how one regards the impact of the Fed on American (and world) affairs, it is a monument of the Jewish contribution to American life or a conspiracy of international Jewish bankers to enslave and impoverish the peoples of all countries.Assuming this to be the "discovery" of Major Douglas, it was picked up by Ezra Pound and relayed by him through Eustace Mullins to all the conspiracy theorists active in the U.S. and Canada for the past half century. Since it only takes a sympatheitc remark about the fate of Palestinians to turn many a gentle and broad-minded Jew into a flaming zionist, it is not hard to imagine how this conspiracy lore became "anti-Semitism". It is interesting as well as surprising to see how narrowly based is the research on which the conspiracy theories are built--i.e. to Mullins and then to Quigley, with a bit of Sutton thrown in for flavor. To compound the problem, the consipiracy debunkers are not much more impressive in their style of argument--e.g. Gerry Rough.This is indeed a problem, but I don't see how trying to hide from it is going to make it go away. Mullins claims his research is so thorough and complete that he hasn't been successfully sued for libel. (One of his claims is that the wily Nelson Rockefeller gave money to Robert Welch to set up the john Birch Society as a decoy.) Any suggestions for resolution?Keith
