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.
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
