----- Original Message ----- From: William B. Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 1:27 PM Subject: RE: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Keith reads Zarlenga
> >>>>> The book pretends to be a work of scholarship. It isn't for reasons I have stated.<<<<<< This is ridiculous. You haven't even seen the book, but say it cannot be a work of scholarship for the reason that you think you know the author's political orientation and it doesn't agree with yours. Scholarship indeed! >>>>>>> Wasn't it you who said he extensively discusses Pound and Mullins? <<<<<<<<<<< No it was not. It was me who "extensively discussed Pound and Mullins", and I did bring Douglas into it. You aren't reading carefully the postings of mine you are quotiong f rom. I mentioned the book prematurely on this list because of the request circulated by Chick. The "Lost Science" seems to me to reinforce several of the arguments that are important to Social Credit, including some issues raised in the socialist's critical essay. I recommended "Lost Science" precisely because it is not a Social Credit tract. >>>>>> It isn't possible to discuss Pound and Mullins without bringing Douglas into the discussion unless you are trying to hide something.<<<<<< That is another ridiculous "principle". By the same reasoning, it isn't possible to discuss Douglas and Social Credit without bringing into it the"Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion". I haven't noticed that you have been anxious to do that. >>>>>>>>I have a theory as to why they are hiding it. It goes back many years to when the Georgists were in conflict with social credit. Now, Zarlenga is trying to demonstrate that Henry George was a greenbacker.<<<<<<<<<<< I have read the book, and it offers little support for your theory. It does, however, cite one of George's books, which, on examination, does endorse the theme that the monetary system should be a public function rather than a private privilege. >>>>>>>>>>>>> He wasn't. His movement in the 19th century was in conflict with the greenbackers. So there is some rewriting of history > going on here.<<<<<<<<<<<<< A reckless statement (the latter), given that it seems to be based heavily on a few cryptic comments from me, plus a strongly biased view of your own. > > ***>The book does not mention Social Credit or Douglas, and the author (with whom I have corresponded extensively) does not seem to be aware > of the connection between the research he has assembled here and the ideas of Douglas. <*** > >>>>>>>>>>> I think he has to be aware and is lying when he says he isn't aware.<<<<<<<<<<<<< It is not my style to interrogate new acquaintances with hostile questions. I wait until they have given me reason to complain about deliberate deception. > ***>All I know is that Alexander Del Mar features > prominently as a source in The Lost Science, and that > his work was done and published mainly before Douglas > started to write. <*** > >>>>>>>>>>.> Yes, Del Mar was prominent in the greenbacker movement and spent a lot of time in England. Del Mar's work was mostly historical not theoretical. Arthur Kitson had more direct influence on Douglas than Del Mar. Douglas was certainly in the greebacker-populist tradition. One of his books was dedicated to Kitson.<<<<<<<<<<<< > > ***>I was just tweaking you, in recollection of your > belief that Kelso and Adler stole their idea about > the cultural inheritance (capital) from Douglas. <*** > > I can't say about Adler. I am quite confident that > Kelso was a thief. By that I mean the claims to > originality. He was a pompous little fellow with > delusions of grandeur. Douglas made no such claims. > Indeed, he tried to demonstrate in every instance > that leading authorities in the literature confirmed > his thought. Even where he was original he demurred > taking credit for it. > > ***>it seems to me that it is pretty difficult to > take the trench without an army. <*** > > There was then an army and the army did have some > success in New Zealand, as it did in Alberta. It may > even have had some success in regard to the national > regime in Canada, if what COMER says is true about > Canadian Central Bank policy during and after WWII. > That is an aspect of the matter I'm trying to > clarify, as per the question I posed to you a couple > of weeks ago. I presume you mean the question of whether or not any of the Canadian money supply is provided by government directly. I still do not have definitive answer to that--except for the one bald statement that Bank of Canada is responsible for the money supply. I'm not sure how coins get circulated once produced at the Mint--but suspect it is via The Bank. I expect to be getting back downtown next week sometime, after my radiation treatments are finished. It may even have had some influence in > the USA, if the WWII Fed policy of purchasing > Treasury securities directly from Treasury at near > zero coupon rates can be taken to be an indication. > That was a big though largely untold factor in our > victory and subsequent post-war prosperity. Can we hold off on further exchanges about "The Lost Science" until I am able at least to make a reasonably clear statement of his policy proposals for a public interest monetary system and a precis of his exposure of the "dark science" (my term, I emphasize again) of temple cults--which is a more precise concept than "private interests? _________________________________________________________________ > Fast, faster, fastest: Upgrade to Cable or DSL today! > https://broadband.msn.com > > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 --^----------------------------------------------------------------
