Re: MONETARY: Usury is a problem

["Dan Parker" <danparker@socialcredit.com>]

Thank you for your support Norman. Personally,
I can certainly look at this as a learning experience.
As progress is made towards doing our bit for
a more just world, how to deal with those who
would intentionally, or unintentionally, sabotage
the progress, will be an issue of growing importance,
in my opinion.

rgds
Dan Parker

----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>
To: <monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu>
Cc: "Bell, Dan" <dbell@kent.edu>; "Logue, Ph.D., Dr. John" <jlogue@kent.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: MONETARY: Usury is a problem


> I want to congratulate Dan Parker for his extremely restrained and
civilized
> response to William Ryan's ad hominem and unwarranted personal attacks in
the
> postings on COG's Monetary Discussion Group.  This is not Ryan's first
display
> of outrageous behavior.  He did the same in the discussions in the
Economics of
> Ownership Group.  He shows utter disrespect for the dignity and
seriousness of
> other discussants.  He even engaged in libelous remarks against one of my
> colleagues, Michael Greaney, and never apologized when confronted with
evidence
> of his libel.  In a courtroom he would be ousted for contempt of court.
To me,
> the marketplace of reason is sacred turf and people who try to bully their
way
> in this marketplace are committed a treason against the advance of the
truth.
>
> Yes, Ryan deserves to be heard if he plays by the rules of fair debate,
but not
> if he engages in intellectual anarchy and libelous behavior.
>
> The moderator of this panel and/or COG should intervene, set and seek
consensus
> from participants for the rules of the group, and then enforce the rules
before
> Ryan drives more people out of the discussion.
>
> Thanks again, Dan, for doing what's right.
>
> Norm Kurland
>
> Dan Parker wrote:
>
> > First, I would like to apologize to list members for
> > what has become an unpleasant episode. However, I
> > think it is a duty to not shrink from confronting
> > that which would sow discord and confusion.
> >
> > After this I look forward to continuing to work on the
> > positive aspects of monetary reform and toward Douglas'
> > idea of "the emergence into the full light of a day of such
> > splendour as we can at present only envisage dimly."
> > (C.H.Douglas: Social Credit (1924) p.215-217).
> >
> > William, here is a statement that you made:
> > 'The "effects of interest" have nothing to do with the A + B
> > Theorem nor any aspect of the Douglas theory.'
> >
> > To which I replied - The Monopoly of Credit, Fourth Edition.
> > by C.H. Douglas Appendix I on detailing A+B theorum. p. 143
> > "Group B - All payments made to other organizations (raw
> > materials, *bank charges*, and other external costs)".
> >
> > I elaborated on how this book went on to say bank charges, of
> > course, included interest.
> >
> > Your response, to being demonstrably wrong, about a very basic
> > social credit matter, was not to insist on a typo, or even that
> > you had been mistaken. You had to admit the point, but then
> > just sailed along saying the interest part of Douglas' theories
> > were now unimportant, instead of non-existent.
> >
> > On picking up the book Social Credit, and flipping through it,
> > I almost immediately found this bit on Douglas' description
> > of the effects of private banks creating most of the money
> > supply:
> >
> > "Now the first point to notice is that the result of this
> > complicated process is exactly the same as if the Government
> > itself had provided forty millions, in Currency, with the
> > *important* exception that the public pays 4 or 5 per cent
> > per annum on the forty millions, instead of merely paying
> > the cost of printing the Currency notes." - p. 138, 139
> > Fifth edition, Social Credit by C.H. Douglas.
> >
> > Now I've just pulled a quote proving you are wrong about
> > the unimportance of interest in Douglas' theories as well,
> > where he *specifically* says it is *important*. I don't expect
> > any straightforward admission from yourself that you were
> > wrong again, even though its right there, from the horse's
> > mouth, so to speak.
> >
> > I have a copy of a letter by genuine socred expert Wally Klinck
> > here as well, where he states that both interest-free money, and
> > some debt free money are necessary for a proper money system.
> > The letter to the editor is about the A + B theorum.  The time
> > factor is of course also a consideration.
> >
> > Or here from another letter Wally had published
> > "..a false economy which cannot function without unrepayable
> > debt, as receiving agencies to accommodate the debt mongering
> > *and usury* of the banking system.."
> >
> > Or "the money supply injected...on an interest-free basis"
> > And Soddy "(the banks) have corrupted the purpose of money from an
> > exchange medium to that of interest-bearing debt" - These last two
> > are from the top issue of The Social Crediter in my pile of research
> > (Volume 77, no. 6).
> >
> > Interest, or usury is a major concern of social credit. I don't
> > even have to dig for the references to it. It's everywhere,
> > a central concern, as it should be according to basic math and
> > common sense. Yet you clearly stated the effects of interest had
> > nothing to do with Douglas' theory, then backed off and said it was
> > unimportant when I proved you wrong.
> >
> > I really don't know where you are coming from. That
> > you would send me attachments with two e-mails of insults
> > and expect me to open it seems strange.
> >
> > The following is about disinformation tactics in general,
> > and this exchange can serve as an example. I do not know
> > William's motivations,  or whether his mistakes and credibility
> > concerns led him to follow the same procedures as a disinformation
> > agent, or if this was his intention from the start.
> >
> > In any case, in the interests of making lemonade out of lemons,
> > this exercise is instructive for those who have not yet run into
> > the inevitable disinformation agent (which is quite common in
> > this line of work).
> >
> > It's worthwhile to point out that much of the disinformation falls
> > along the lines of the big lie. Instead of making a mistatement
> > about some obscure part of a theory, a central tenet will be
> > misrepresented.
> >
> > This can be done while affecting the attitude of the expert, and
> > accusing somone who understands the basics of being completely
> > ignorant of the subject matter.
> >
> > The big lie can be effective, because most people have elemental
> > standards of decency that they project onto others. Consequently,
> > they cannot imagine anyone repeatedly misstating basic concepts,
> > while pretending to be an expert, while at the same time they
> > are admonishing someone giving the correct information, as being
> > someone who hasn't the foggiest idea.
> >
> > I used to be susceptible to the big lie, but no longer.
> >
> > So if there is something positive to come out of this entire
> > sorry affair, it is that those working for the good have hopefully
> > gained some immunity from the tactics of those who would defend
> > usury.
> >
> > In stating 'The "effects of interest" have nothing to do with the
> > A + B Theorem nor any aspect of the Douglas theory', William
mispresented
> > a central concern of social credit. In saying it was a minor part of
> > Douglas' theory when I proved him wrong, he was not coming clean.
> > In saying I haven't the foggiest notion about social credit, William is
> > again grossly mistaken.
> >
> > The proof is above, and everyone that received these e-mails has
> > the proof that William clearly misstated a very basic part of social
> > credit. This is a done deal. It is not something under debate.
> >
> > And it isn't just Douglas or social credit that expounds on the
> > obvious effects of usury.
> >
> > "As a result of fractional reserve banking over 90% of our money
> > supply is loaned into existence by commercial banks and thus must
> > grow by enough to at least pay the interest on the loan by which
> > it was created. This gives a basic growth bias to the economy.
> > Fractional reserve banking also transfer to private hands the
> > state's traditional right to issue money, and does so in a way
> > that increases the cyclical instability of the economy. The
> > corrective call for 100% reserve requirements has been made
> > periodically not only by so-called 'monetary cranks'(Frederick
> > Soddy), but also by economists of impeccable reputation such as
> > Frank Knight and Irving Fisher." Prof. Herman Daly, co-author
> > of For the Common Good, former economist World Bank.
> >
> > Again, I apologize for any unpleasantness, but in recognizing how
> > the big lie works, monetary reformers are less likely to be led
> > down the garden path, by those who intentionally or unintentionally
> > adopt such tactics.
> >
> > dp
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William B. Ryan [mailto:w_b_ryan@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:14 AM
> > To: dan.parker@telusplanet.net; monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
> > Cc: socred@ecn.net.au; oassoci508@aol.com;
mike@mrowbotham.swinternet.co.uk;
> > socialcredit@fsbdial.co.uk; aopstad@telusplanet.net;
> > martinh@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca; wmklinck@shaw.ca; gkiriaka@ecn.ab.ca;
> > mklinck@hotmail.com; kwilde@ca.inter.net
> > Subject: Re: "usury" is not the problem
> >
> > Yes, the syndrome of the self-inflicted lobotomy. See the attachment.
> > I take consolation in the fact that you yet haven't accused me of being
a
> > member of Al-Qaida, lurking from a cave.
> > My intention is not to address the gaggle of "monetary reform" cranks,
but
> > those who have been tempted but not yet seduced by their claptrap. And
there
> > are some.
> > The "usury" thesis is demonstrably false.
> > By refusing to hear the arguments why this is so you are exhibiting the
> > characteristics of ideological paranoia.
> >
> > >From: "Dan Parker"
> > >To: "'William B. Ryan'" ,
> > >CC: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> > >Subject: RE: "usury" not the problem
> > >Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:54:24 -0600
> > >
> > >William, if you are not a plant in the service of the evil
> > >that constitutes our current usury based monetary system,
> > >you are doing a very good impression of one.
> > >
> > >Please remove me from your future e-mailings.
> > >
> > >Thank you
> > >
> > >Dan Parker
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: William B. Ryan [mailto:w_b_ryan@hotmail.com]
> > >Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 3:25 PM
> > >To: monetaryreform@cog.kent.edu
> > >Cc: dan.parker@telusplanet.net;
> > >Subject: "usury" not the problem
> > >
> > >
> > >[Dan Parker] "Removing the exponential driver that is compound interest
> > >from the system is also absolutely necessary in order to have a good
> > >money system."
> > >----------
> > >
> > [cut]
> >
> > Protect your PC - Click here for McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > www.socialcredit.com
>
>
>
>