gezondverstand.web-log.nl

HUMANE PATRISTEN (WOESTIJNVIRUS) BESTRIJDING
Dat valt wel uit te leggen als u even tijd heeft .. .

a rerout to reach an old newswire watcher rookie

http://newswire.indymedia.org/nl/newswire/2005/06/823512.shtml

adress change for poetpiet's indymediasamples and other olds/news amounting to 60 MB intricately crafted and presented text) ----

Apparantly the click through rates on ads tacked onto my pages by free host lycos.nl were so low that not even my semi-large volume -- 300 google referrres a day, whereas their own stats indicated just a hand full just as consistently making me wonder if they don't start counting visitors till 10 minutes go by -- made up for it and they sent me a message 're: abuse', wherein some waffling about guaranteeing service and reason for discontinuance: 'wishes of webmaster'.

???

You wanne feel more conspirational about it? A suprising large number of (chinese) tripod lycos pages are blocked by china, in fact a ridiculous number of the sites listed as blocked on this page http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/China-M.html are hosted by lycos tripod.

serious anti-semitism (the hostility to arabs variety) doesn't seem to appear to be a problem: http://members.lycos.nl/whatsthisthen/links.html

looking for hits with 'zionism lycos.nl' almost all referrals are to my site

???

anyway, for now just use google caches while they last; try 'indymediasamples' if you haven't yet and lots of stuff can be found dropping this:
http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats/logbriefer.htm or any other complete
into the 'wayback machine' at:
http://www.archive.org
it comes out like this:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats/logbriefer.htm

so long

it's been good to know you.

Ps: this address (for older stuff) is unaffected (as yet?), it certainly pulls less traffic (10.000 a month by their own stats): http://poetpiet.tripod.com

see a few more items: http://newswire.indymedia.org//nl/newswire/archive.shtml
my selection

Amerikaanse persvrijheid in aktie!!!!!!!!!!!

Ik geloof dat ik liever de persvrijheid beperkt zie als dat zou betekenen dat ze in verre vreemden niet zo nerveus met de trigger finger de 'zegeningen' uit het land van devils en dust opjagen en een op-, uit- en overstapje naar de rest van de wereld geven op een manier die ze zelfs tot in de vredigste gebieden de vlam in de pan doen slaan - op manieren die dermate mysterie blijven dat ze zelfs het godsgeleerdste volk ter wereld ten ene male te boven gaan kennelijk .. . .Bewijst eens te meer dat godsgeleerdheid-bezigheden allemaal uit den boze zijn en blijven. Geef mij maar heilige bomen en modder . . .en zo ...

http://newswire.indymedia.org/nl/newswire/2005/05/822307.shtml Why America needs to be Defeated in Iraq
Mike Whitney (reposted by Jamie)
May 1, 2005 — The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It's an issue that has caused anti-war Leftists the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who've never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American "Exceptionalism".

For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There's simply no other morally acceptable option.
As Americans, we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed, and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness....when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.

weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/496cjzrn.asp Lenghty article by Tim Labash on WC appearance in SF; it predictably enough doesn't rise above stirring the oodles of target missing mudpoodles slung fast and flung furious a little -- The Ward Churchill Notoriety Tour -- From the April 25, 2005 issue: The worst professor in America meets his adoring public.
by Matt Labash

www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/496cjzrn.asp Deze columnist generalizeert waar Ward Churchill wel degelijk verschil maakte tussen 'little Eichmanns' en mensen minder direct verwoven met de hoogste verworvenheden van Amerikaans .. eh .. .'geeik(el)':
Forget the sloppy historical analogy, since even if you favor a heads-up comparison between modern-day America and Nazi Germany, Eichmann was a bit more proactive than Churchill allows, recounting in his own words how he witnessed a mother shot with a baby in her arms, "his brains splattered all around, also over my leather overcoat. My driver helped me remove them."

Forget, also, that if you page through the obituaries of Cantor Fitzgerald financiers--that company being Churchill's oft-cited embodiment of American complicity and callousness--you discover all sorts of examples that complicate Churchill's line: There were people like Juan Cisneros, who volunteered as a Big Brother, and who only wanted to be a bond trader until he could sock away enough money for his parents, who'd immigrated from Guatemala. Or like Matthew Leonard, Cantor's director of litigation, who helped the homeless and did extensive pro bono work for poor people in Chinatown. Such lives couldn't possibly be as noble as getting paid out of the same compulsory-taxes kitty that finances our unjust wars, or cataloguing the stereotypes in Dances with Wolves, or collecting five grand a throw to feed discontent to roomfuls of emaciated anarchists, when what they most need is a hot shower and a cheeseburger.

Churchill, it seems, likes to play at being dangerous, then gets miffed when people take him at his word.

Jawel, mischien waar, maar waarom dan niet ook in de zelfde adem toegeven dat 'rechts' zich op de rechtvaardigheid van haar aggresiviteiten voor laat staan en dat bestrijding ervan in vaak heel wat erger dan een slechts 'miffy' reaktie resulteert?

De kolumnist verdient respect voor de volgende regel:

It's enough to recall the words of Austrian satirist Karl Kraus, who said, "The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience, so they believe they are as clever as he."

U vind meer over Ward Churchill in het archief van http://wwwoord.web-log.nl en http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats/WardChurchill3.htm plus de 2 eerdere delen

off topic bonus:

http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/index.html?cat=4&type=3&art=1621 New bilingual U.S.- Russia site launched today: www.America-Russia.net
By Peter Lavelle - Published on May 02, 2005

Populaire Amerikaanse Dorknoper

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001353.html
KRAZY KHRISTIAN KONKLAVE WATCH
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=CM05D17&f=PG03I03
"The filibuster is the pit bull for judicial activism." --
'filibuster = Langdradige oppositievoerder /vrijbuiter/ consensus boycotter
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001348.html
BEHOLD A PALE HORSE'S ASS
We rise in defense of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO), who facetiously referred to James Dobson, one of the leaders of the Krazy Khristian Konklave (http://www.frc.org/ -family research council-), as the Antichrist.

It stands to reason that of the assorted would-be Christian leaders, no small number of them must be agents of Satan. After all, the Bible tells us so:

"Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. . . . If anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or, "Look, there he is!" do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect - if that were possible. So be on your guard." (Mark 13:5, 21-22)

Naturally the Horned One would not disguise one of his emissaries as some jew-communist or secular Hollywood liberal. How foolish and obvious that would be. Nor would some guitar-playing Catholic or pacifist Protestant liberal pass muster. No, to beguile the most faithful, one must provide deception in the most devout Christian garb. So the only question is which of the leading lights of fundamentalism has been sent from the Deep. Our advice: play it safe and ignore all of them.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

On Behalf Of Daniel Davies
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 1:07 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: [lbo-talk] Proof if proof be needed that weblogs are a bad idea.
Look at the company Marc Cooper's got himself into:
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/04/an_open_letter.php
"An editorial board consisting of Glenn Reynolds, PowerLine, Lawrence
Kudlow, Hugh Hewitt, Marc Cooper, Wretchard of the Belmont Club and Tim
Blair"

Non-readers of weblogs might not recognise any of these names except Kudlow
and Hewitt. Suffice to say that this list includes some of the most
profound bores and fools in Christendom (I think that most of them live in
Christendom).
Anyone who thinks that Pacifica is dull, loony or full of arseholes will
really need to recalibrate their bullshit detector after the "Blog News
Network" has been up and running for a while.
yours mediatastically
dd
----------------------------------
Simon is from Judeo-Christendom, a bantustan within greater
Christendom.

This is indeed a vile bunch, though I have a better
opinion of Cooper than most here. I was thinking
of applying to join, just so I could chronicle
the reaction.

mbs

|||||||||||D|||||||||D|||||||||||||D|||||||||||

http://www.regiogeld.de/152.0.html

http://www.socioeco.org/en/participation.php

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiogeld#Weblinks
Sich nicht durchsetzende Vorlauefer in den 30er Jahren:
* [http://www.free.de/geld www.free.de/geld] - Texte Sammlung

Hoe zit het met terrorisme oorzaken kennis hier?

Kijk, dat snap ik nou weer niet; enkele weken geleden ontdekte ik dat Google niet langer alle documenten groter dan 101K standaard met dat getal aanduidde en nu zie ik ze het volgende document (maar liefst 414K exclusief fotootjes) weer met 101K kenmerken; verandering teruggedraaid of is dit landgebonden? .. . Oh, wacht, op de zelfde bladzijde staan nog 2 eitums van de ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl buurman;het maart archief www.ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/archief/03/2005 is ook met 101K voorzien maar eitum ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/log/2180847 krijgt 113k specificatie mee .. . .nu begrijp ik er nog minder van. . . .www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/websoc/jihad_nl.html Kroniek van een Aangekondigde Politieke Moord — Er is een Amsterdammer afgeslacht — dr. Albert Benschop

http://www2.fmg.uva.nl/sociosite/websoc/terrorisme.html "In Cyberterrorisme wordt uitvoerig ingegaan op de manier waarop de defensie tegen cyberterrorisme georganiseerd moet worden.
Is het internet te open om veilig te zijn?
-- Het internet gaat over vrijheid van communicatie, dat is haar kracht, maar maakt haar tevens kwetsbaar. Terroristen kunnen vliegtuigen kapen om ze doelgericht in wolkenkrabbers te laten exploderen. Zij kunnen ook onveilige computers kapen en deze als krachtige stormrammen gebruiken tegen internetsites of andere vitale elektronische informatiesystemen."

---- Te en losjes om er een erg stijle hierarchie van te maken bedoel je? Ja, gelukkig nog wel. Enne .. .waarom ben je zo blind voor http://www.electronicintifada.org/ de begrijpelijke drijfveren van deze mensen? Verkopen die slechter dan de stompzinnige pogingen daarop aandacht te vestigen?

IJCCR = intern. gemeenschapsgelden-onderzoek-groep

En wel via de linklijkst van:
http://www.centrostudimonetari.org/ Een site met zo'n irritant .wav muziekje . . . dat met een druk op de stopknop (x) stil gezet kan worden gelukkig . . .wat de weg vrij maakt om op de opmerkelijk veelzijdige en meertalige (alsmede hier en daar danig overboord kieperende) linklijst van deze site te gaan kijken. Een uitstekend voorbeeldje (of 2):
http://www.reinventingmoney.com/zanderRailway.php Duits Volksrecht 1933

http://www.rockmusicmp3s.com/mary_book2.pdf HOW I CLOBBERED
EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN
... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are
by: Mary Elizabeth: Croft - 90 pages (400K in flat text)

WOW, a Canadian mother relates her experiences with money and applies liberal gobs of spirituality and lots of quotes to make the stew palatable; a wild child for sure:
"Lawfully Avoiding the Draft
With all the angst over the allegedly imminent 'mandatory draft' which will soon include Canadians I
feel compelled to add this for all the young men and women who are waking up to the horrors of this war.
The Draft Notice, as with everything else the Feds present us, is only an offer to contract. We are free to accept it or reject it. The Feds present the rather compelling case that one is legally obliged to complete the questionnaire and sign it, but ... who said so? If we know who we are we don't have to do anything we don't want to do. They are pulling every trick in the book to get us to sign our lives away - literally. Once our signature is on that contract, we have only three (3) days to rescind it. Never sign any contract unless you agree completely with the terms and conditions therein - and preferably only contracts which you yourself have drawn up.
One question on this contract one signs when he registers for the draft is: "Are you a US Citizen?"
What this question really means is: "Are you a 14th Amendment Citizen? - in which case you are a
government-created, fictional, corporate entity and hence will do as we say" - as opposed to: "Are you an American National / American Sovereign? - in which case all your rights are reserved not only in common law but also in commerce". War IS Commerce. If you were to answer "No" to that question, you would not be drafted. You, as sovereign, are always free to volunteer, but only 14th Amendment Citizens can be drafted. They are required to do what they are told to do. Why do you think the US wants the illegal aliens, or anyone for that matter, to get a driver's licence and/or register to vote? As soon as they do, they have contracted to be US Citizens and they immediately lose any freedoms and rights they might otherwise have had as sovereign Americans.
If you don't want to go to war - and who would, knowing what that private, belligerent, foreign
corporation, known as the USG, has in store for anyone who signs up? - then don't sign the contract, the terms of which are not to your liking. Under Article 1 §10 of the Constitution, you have the right to contract and the right NOT to contract. The entire matter becomes very simple when you remember who you are.
Those who go to war are each insured for 10 million dollars. The beneficiary is the USA. Family
members get $600,000. The more soldiers who die, the richer become the Feds.
If the draft becomes 'mandatory' it will be very important that you remember that you are the master of the house and the Feds are only the frightened servants in the basement conspiring to steal the property and/ or the life of the master of the house. If you let them scare you into giving up your life, then shame on you for accepting that fear.
As with any offer of contract do not go to the basement (read: 'court') and contract with them; do not argue with them; do not study their laws to find a loophole which allows you out of their schemes; do not mention the Constitution/ Charter of Rights and Freedoms - they can't hear it; do not give them anything other than your firm word that you decline to contract with those who do not have your best interests at heart. Remember they are desperate; we are to be only kind to them, not to give up our lives to them.
This rejection of offer to contract works with any invitation you receive - whether it is an invitation to
war or an invitation to court; its all the same. They are trying to get you to contract and you want to remain free. If you remain vigilant, you can spot them coming a mile away, along with their surreptitious tactics."
***
THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE ALLOW 'MONEY' TO KEEP US STUCK IN THE CONCEPT OF
DEBTOR/ CREDITOR IS THE DEGREE TO WHICH WE BELIEVE WE ARE SEPARATE. OUR
BELIEF THAT WE ARE SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER IS DESTROYING OUR LIVES.

"Maybe we can do a 'transatlantic seigniorage dialogue'?" Marco Saba http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ijccr/message/3704

IJCCRer Bill Ryan

Dit artikeltje presenteert er een paar (engelstalige teksten):

de laatste die ik vond laat zien dat hij ook een heel ouwe bekende van me (Wes Burt) is opgevallen:
http://copsewood.net/pipermail/ccmj/2004-December/000266.html
Everingham, Gelles and Daastoel
On Closing the "gap" between "prices" and "purchasing power."

From: william_b_ryan@yahoo.com
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 11:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [socialcredit] social credit in one nation

~~~~~ Snip to last paragraph ~~~~

The long-term solution is to implement Social Credit (whatever the accounting adjustment is called)
throughout the world. Once the "gap" between "prices" and "purchasing power" has been closed in
the economies of the world, the irrational "imperative to export" will have been eliminated.
Trade between nations will more naturally emphasize their respective comparative advantages.

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/8421 The creditary economics group memeber Geoffrey Gardiner on Bill Ryan:

">Bill Ryan has been ferocious with you. We have all been subject to his
>fire at times, but we nevertheless have a great tendresse for him as he is
>a wonderful gadfly and has a much better understanding than the
>run-of-the-mill economists. He was a bit naughty on the matter of the
>"surplus" being the excess of assets over liabilities. The businessman
>balances his accounts by showing the "surplus" as a liability to himself.
>So the accounts do balance."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ijccr/message/3703 Excellent teazer for those unfamiliar with this INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY CURRENCY RESEARCH group (by Graeme, mentioning Bill):
"I wish to include community
currencies into the three theories already mentioned below.

Social Credit fundamentalists, dedicated socialists and bimary economists
tend to ignore Community Currencies.
It's not real money, it's playing at the edges, or so goes the theories.

An interesting aspect of non legal tender currency is the interface with the
tax regime. Essentially, it breaches industrial laws for employers to pay
employees in CC instead of in legal tender. I don't have a problem with
this.
Such tax interpretations do not apply to members of co-ops, sole traders,
partners in a business or dividends on shares.
So tax regimes interpret CCs in a way that favour small businesses and
democratic companies ahead of the transnationals.

That to me, is not a fringe issue.
Any other mechanism to democratise the workplace is, as Bill points out,
fraught with difficulties."

William B Ryan is Canadian and so, not suprisingly, active on a social credit list as well: http://www.elistas.com/list/socialcredit/archive/index/961/msg/1025/

http://www.elistas.com/list/socialcredit/archive/index/961/msg/1000/
Duplicates of stuff I have referred to in april05.htm

http://www.elistas.com/list/socialcredit/archive/index/961/msg/982/ (the 'rabbit' references a creation story attributed to chronicaleur of godly conversation: http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/assinaria.txt) -

More?

Here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/austrianschoolofeconomics/message/1596

He's not one of your usual usury haters; here's proof from a list that stopped being active at the end of last year apparantly: http://cog.kent.edu/archives/monetaryreform/msg00059.html [Ryan] There are no mathematic effects of compound interest. It is a method
of counting. Interest that is being paid is always a linear function of time.
That is the mathematical reality. It compounds only if it is not being paid.
The compound interest formula relates a rate of interest to a specific period
of time, that's all it does. An interest rate of X payable yearly is
effectively a lesser rate of interest payable weekly that is not actually being
paid weekly but paid yearly. It is indeed confusing to people who don't
understand the mathematical concept, which is why the Truth in Lending Law
requires that the actual amounts to be paid for principal and interest are
spelled out in plain numbers in the lending contract. That's all the formula
calculates. That is to say, the underlying debt will not compound unless the
interest called for by the contract is not being paid. If the debt is being
serviced in accordance with the contract, the debt is not compounding b
ecause of interest. If it is not being serviced it is not being paid. No
money at that point is changing hands because of the debt. It is in default.
Interest may be accruing and compounding, which might become a bargaining chip
in some future legal proceeding, but at that point they are just numbers in
account books. . . . . .. this is a long message, further down is another memorable snippet: [Ryan] When you put it into terms of good against evil, rather than
engineering, you can justify doing anything in the name of good against evil.
You can lie to defend yourself, as Dan does. It is the "right of defense" as
he puts it. You can ally with the Devil himself, as Churchill said he could do
in the war against Hitler. Hitler believed it too. Hitler was the extreme
example of that type of mentality. You can bomb cities and kill their entire
populations, as Churchill did. You can wipe out entire races if they are
"evil," as Hitler did. But you are good. You are above it all. You listen to
the Devil and think you are doing the work of God. It is the Sin of Pride.

---------- A critic goes (Fri, 25 Oct 2002):

Ryan has a nimble brain, but his behavior stinks. Whenever a discussant cannot understand Ryan's interpretation of the A+B formula, or disagrees with his interpretation -- in this case, Dan Parker, and in Ryan's previous postings, Mike Greaney and me -- he resorts to the same debating tactic. Rather than handling a lack of understanding, a misunderstanding or a disagreement as a good teacher should, with respect for the other person and a sense of responsibility to offer clearer explanations to the other discussant, he resorts to childish and uncivilized attempts to undermine the motives or character of that discussant. Ryan should
look closely in the mirror. If he does and thinks about it he will come to realize that his comment above best describes himself, not Dan Parker.
Dan Parker (despite our differences on the validity or political viability of social credit theory) deserves to be praised for standing up to Ryan and telling the truth as he sees it. If Ryan sees the truth more clearly than Dan, he's doing a very unconvincing job of making his case. Dan's doing what other social crediters should be doing when someone like Ryan sullies the marketplace of thought. Ryan plays by his own rules and this can only result in driving open-minded, civilized and independent thinkers away from any dialogues on social credit.

When Rodney Shakespeare gets back to London, I hope that as the moderator of this group he will propose rules for discussants in this group that will hold people like Ryan in line with the goal of promoting intelligent and civilized discussions on monetary policy.

Norm Kurland -
Center for Economic and Social Justice
Web site: http://www.cesj.org

William was chucked, zapped, eliminated, ousted for crossposting from yahoo group gang8 which hasn't been very active lately; sharp feels slanderous to those who think the world of themselves and interpret gifts as threats
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/messagesearch/10058?query=ryan

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8/message/8596 Wes Burt june 2003:
The centerpiece of this post (2 of 3) is Fig. 4-3, National Macro Model,
because it helps the reader visualize every aspect of a corporation.
A corporation not only concentrates wealth, as every protester claims,
it is also the universal financial structure of every human enterprise,
from a subsistence family farm up to the global economy. As the
instructors at GE's Advanced Engineering Program used to say in the
1950s, "If you've seen one system, you've seen them all." The smallest
enterprise will exhibit each of the three flow paths shown, to some
degree. At the macro level of a national economy, the business to
business transactions will be about 150% of the GDP (value added
by the US workforce), the GDP flow path will be 100%, and the
Speculative Transactions flow path (not drawn to the same scale as
the 250% of GDP "Real Economy") will be an order of magnitude,
or more, larger than the GDP flow . At any level of the model, the
capital plant at 90 degrees is the "Node" of the enterprise.

Any one not familiar with the term "Node," used when describing
fluid, electrical, or money networks, might want to consult an
exchange of emails on the subject of "Nodes," a year or so ago,
between William B. Ryan and John C. "The Banking Systems
Engineer" Turmel.

Here's another critic:

"Dear Monetary Reform members,
I have been away at a private conference (of the Bromsgrove group) and have
come back to 250 emails and a lot of other work. I am therefore having to
read quickly a surprisingly large number of Monetary Reform postings.

1. The conference had about 40 people and was addressed by, among others,
well-known monetary reformers including James Gibb-Stuart, James Robertson,
Frances Hutchinson, and the truly remarkable William Krehm and Connie Fogal
of Canada. I therefore have to say that I was taken aback to see that
William Ryan thinks all monetary reformers are a gaggle of cranks spouting
claptrap and would point out that generalised abuse is usually a sign of a
mind which, at the very least, cannot distinguish between individuals.

2. However there is a much more serious aspect to William Ryan's
generalised attack. He openly states that he has no intention of addressing
the "cranks" and that statement can only mean that he has no intention of
following the purposes of the Monetary Reform group. The purposes of the
group are clearly set out at http://cog.kent.edu/grpMonetaryReform.htm and,
very obviously, if a member of the group cannot generally subscribe to those
positive, outward-going purposes and, furthermore, is bent on destruction
of the group, then that member should withdraw. I thank Dan Bell for
helpfully suggesting that all postings go through the Co-ordinator (me)
before they go to the group as a whole but, at this stage, I think it best
to invite members to ask themselves whether, in making their contributions,
they have a positive or negative purpose towards monetary refrom and so
whether or not they should remain group members.

It has been privately suggested that I might wish to
make clearer rules for the discussion -- I thank those who have taken the
trouble to write to me on this. The trouble with too many rules in
this situation would be that there would endless dispute about them. I
think it better to invite everybody to try to exhibit a modicum of good
manners and some good grace in admitting that sometimes, we can all get a
bit carried away and use unfortunate language (such as calling another
member a liar)

3. I thank Dan Parker for the courtesy with which he has made his
postings.

4. Although it takes time for people to adjust to new ideas and, in
particular, to begin to co-operate with others where there are areas of
common casue, it is pleasing to report that the conference showed
considerable support for the purposes of this group and, in particular, for
the extension of those aims as set out in the Seven Steps. In essence, this
means the use of debt-free money for a second basic income in a
counter-inflationary situation stemming from the use of interest-free loans
for public capital and private capital (wide ownership) investment giving a
first basic income Although there are undoubtedly some die-hards who do not
wish to co-operate with others, it is becoming clear that, for example,
social crediters and binary economists CAN co-operate together if they want
to and, in that co-ooperation, both sides will better be able to achieve
their own aims. Dan Parker puts the matter well when he says:-- "I think we
are wise to downplay the differences in our proposals; in the service of
working on the ideas of progress, especially monetary reform, that are held
in common."

5. A point for Dan -- all binary economists want a substantial basic
income for all individuals.

6. The numbers at the weekly Global meeting in London (Friends House,
near Euston Station, London, every Wednesday morning at 11.00 a.m. in the
basement canteen) seem to be sharply increasing."

Rodney Shakespeare.

.. ..again, too bad, Bill was just getting going .. using colour . .. .[url]http://cog.kent.edu/archives/monetaryreform/msg00088.html[/url]

Bil at ijccr recently:

> From: John G Rawson
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:53
> Subject: [socialcredit] Guernsey>
>
> I have several times in different places expressed my despair at the
> looseness of so many Socred writers in not "referencing" their quotes
> precisely. By contrast, the communists have always done this superbly, even if their references may often have been to lies told by other communists. S now we are faced with a situation with reference to
> Guernsey where one side says it's a myth and the other claims it is well
> documented but doesn't produce the documentation. (Sorry, Don., it's not you, it's the original literature.)
>
> So we are reduced to the situation where the "myth" exists as a hypothesis to be disproved.
>
I would therefore like our Moderator to produce his proof:>
1. That the construction of the Guernsey marketplace was not financed
debt-free by redeemable (bonds), and,
2. That it was financed either on loan or by finance provided by pirates
or whatever.
>
> I'm not interested in a reference to a modern website. If you looked at an
> (in)appropriate NZ Govt. one I am sure you would get the inference at least that banks always lend savings.
>
> John R.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John, The book I referred to is "The Guernsey
> Experiment" by O. & J. Grubiak, which I first met
> about 50 years ago, as available for decades through the (U.K.) Social
> Credit Co-ordinating Centre, plus the Christian Book Club of U.S.A., and later a book publisher in Western Australia. It was described as a
> thoroughly researched study for posterity of the detailed financial history of the use by the States of Guernsey of interest free credit they created on
> behalf of their community.
> I have never ever seen or heard of anyone challenging any detail of its
> accuracy.... From a virtually bankrupt island state, they changed to such a prosperous little haven that they became the envy of the English mainland. (My latest copy of Grubiaks' book is out on loan, so I cannot give its publication details.)
>
> However, to support the denigration by Ryan that Guernsey is mythology, he slams it with the non sequitur stick, of its
> currents situation. No one has ever claimed that the use by Guernsey of
> rebuilding its markets and amenities with interest free money would become a permanent feature of its administration; but on the contrary. The book detailed how the English banks tried to get the Island States prohibited from their currency issues, but because of the
> prosperity so widely applauded, the English Government refused to
> co-operate. But the banks didn't give up, and offered particularly
> favourable borrowing terms to the islanders. The authors finally predicted that a combination of time, fading memories, and
> continuing pressure from the banks to stop being different from the mainland, could see Guernsey again moving back into the clutches of the debt merchants (inter alia).
>
> Ryan is just confirming the Grubiaks' predictions. From 1935 to 1950 the N.Z. Government used its Reserve Bank credit at computed "cost" of
> 1%, to backstop (ie: underwrite the shortfalls) in the building of
> hydro schemes, railways, state houses, etc, and so despite the economic benefits of that, the international banks maintained continuous pressure against it to the 2 main political parties, and eventually got the practice stopped. At the same time we had a network of community banks covering the whole country providing very competitive loans for home builders, and grants to their communities. So in the Al Capone philosophy, their Boards of Directors were made cash offers that were "too good to be refused" , and in one fell swoop the 20 or so community banks sold out to Westpac of Australia, except for the massive Auckland one which was taken over by the HKSB; just leaving one in New Plymouth and the Southland Savings Bank based in Invercargill. (Neither are commercially big, or a threat.)
>
> Should we now expect Ryan to say that because the government here does not now use any Reserve Bank credit to support its policies, its boom years were also just mythology ?
>
> Let's try learning from history instead of rewriting it........

> --------------------------------------------------------
> Don B.From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@...>
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:00pm
Subject: RE: Guernsey w_b_ryan

I have recently acquired a copy of the Grubiak book
through the good graces of Wally Klinck. It is
typical of the propaganda (the big lie) genre in
having no footnotes or references that can be
verified independently through comparison against
original sources. The appeal is strictly to emotion
and prejudice. But at the front is this:

"ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Our most profound gratitude is due
to M. Guillemette, States Supervisor of Guernsey, who
supplied all the information we requested, and
responded to our tiresome importunities with
unfailing kindness and helpfulness. Our thanks are
also due to Mr. Galt, General Manager of Glasgow
Corporation Markets, for the information (necessarily
limited by the complicated nature of the records
involved) which he kindly supplied. We are indebted
for the historical material dealing with Guernsey up
to 1937, to C. Marshall Hattersley's book, 'Wealth,
Want and War.' Last, but not least, we must thank the
generous sponsors who made this book financially
possible."

There are no original sources referenced here, you
might note. The earliest dated material is C.
Mashall Hattersley's book, apparently published in
1937. I don't have that book, nor is it available
locally--so I've reached for the moment a dead end in
tracing the provenance of the story.

(While we're on this subject, perhaps someone will
send me a copy of C. Marshall's book. And perhaps
Martin Hattersley, a subscriber to this list, will
inform us as to the disposition of his father's many

copyrights. They represent an important part of the
corpus of historic Social Credit literature that
should be preserved.)

There is, however, the last appendix to the Grubiak
book, purporting to be the reprint of a document. It
is headed: "Historic Reply of the STATES of GUERNSEY
to the Privy Council, justifying the Guernsey
Experiment. Here published, for the first time in
full, since 1829."

But when you actually do read the document in the
appendix, as I have, you'll find nothing whatever
about any "experiment." What you will find is merely
justification by Guernsey to the Privy Council for
going into debt, and their plan for amortization. In
the excerpt below, the famous "market" of the story
is specifically mentioned, but the only word
associated with it is "debt," not a word about
printing and spending "money" into circulation "debt-
free" to pay for it:-

"THE words of the second Order in Council have
already been cited. The right of levying the duty on
spirituous liquors is granted for ten years; a
condition is annexed purporting that the States shall
not exceed their annual income, and on the contrary,
that out of the produce of the duty, one thousand
pounds shall be applied annually to the extinction of
the debt; that condition is naturally in force for
the same period, and far the same period only, as the
grant to which it is annexed; it is necessarily so
limited, because the means by which it is to be
fulfilled, the produce of the duty, ceases at the end
of the ten years for which the duty is granted. THE
States are bound to prove that they have complied
with the conditions of that Order; they did so
comply, when wishing to erect a new Market, they
applied for and obtained the order of 10th October
1820, which imposed on them, at their own request,
the further obligation of an annual payment of four
hundred and fifty pounds far ten years."

Look, it's not remarkable that various corporate
entities, including governmental entities, especially
in the early nineteenth century, issued securities
which they tendered directly to vendors and were
accepted by vendors in payment for things. Not far
from where I sit is a museum, at Washington-on-the-
Brazos, the place where the Texas declaration of
independence was signed in 1836, on one wall of which
is framed a "stock certificate," issued by the
township, which circulated as money in the township,
according to the caption. That's what creditary or
"negotiable" contractual agreements do--they can be
transferred from party to party through endorsement,
explicit or implicit. They've been so used for
centuries, if not millennia. They are instruments of
debt that are assets to their holders. Being assets,
they can be traded.

What is myth is the miracle story that surrounds the
Guernsey note issue. Like this:

"It's perfectly reasonable for anyone to ask if there
is any nation in the world today smart enough to use
interest-free money. And, if so, what have been the
consequences. Canada's Finance Minister, who claims
(on the previous page) that governments 'printing
money...leads to hyperinflation' obviously hasn't
heard of the success of interest-free money on the
Isle of Guernsey, or if he has, he must surely claim
that Guernsey defies reason--his reason. Because, not
only has 'inflation' never been evident on the island
of Guernsey, but it has had a stable and prosperous
economy for over one hundred and fifty years...

"When Dr. Jacques Jaikaran visited Guernsey in 1990,
he reported on the state of the Guernsey economy in
his book The Debt Virus:

"There were about 60,000 permanent residents; the
average family owned 3.3 cars; their unemployment
rate was zero and their standard of living was very
high. Also, there was no public debt and a surplus of
public funds was earning them interest. The Guernsey
Treasury increased the money supply by 50% over a 3
year period and this increase did not cause any
inflation. The price for a gallon of gas in the UK
was about $5, but the price in Guernsey was about $2.
Contrary to the teachings of economics in all higher
institutions, inflation, it was claimed, was not
related to the volume of money, but rather to the
size of the commercial debt."
http://www.monetary-reform.on.ca/archives/6d.shtml
-
--------------------------------------------------------

www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan1.htm

A Social Credit Debate among Friends
>Date: Fri Apr 16 00:12:29 1999
>From: william_b_ryan@hotmail.com ("William B. Ryan")
>Subject: [lets] A Debate among Friends
>I hereby propose a debate between you and me, in which others will
>hopefully join in, where I will challenge your "debt virus" thesis
>that interest is the root of all evil. I will argue from the A +
>B Theorem that the fundamental problem is that growth vectors in
>technology and population are insufficiently accommodated by the
>historically evolved system of finance, resulting in perpetually
>wasted resources and unrealized potential.

JCT: Fair enough. But let's make a few precisions as to the A+B
theorem. A represents the money issued into circulation and B
represents the prices demanded for the goods. Douglas and I both agree
that the money issued is the Principal of the loans and our only
difference is what components make up the B costs in the prices. I
state that the only imbalancing cost that cannot be taken care of by
velocity and interest-free credit is the interest, so Turmel's
equation is P/(P+I). Douglas's A/(A+B) theorem states that there are
several other imbalacing causes included with the interest so since
A=P, Douglas' equation could be said to be is P/(P+I+T+O+...) where T
is taxes and O is overhead and +... are any other costs you care to
consider.

>From the Douglas perspective, interest per se is not the problem; it
>would exist even if the rate of interest were somehow forced to zero.

JCT: Okay. I propose we consider this as a LETS where the
interest is zero in the denominator. I hold that the system is now
stable and cannot be destabilized. You'll have to prove that the
equation imbalance is now P/(P+T+O+...) and the Taxes and Overhead
costs are still unrecoverable throwing the system into imbalance while
I'll have to prove that it doesn't.

>The word "interest" is hardly mentioned in any of his writings.

JCT: That's because it was lumped in with his assumed other
imbalancing costs. He may not have realized that interest is the
primary positive feedback loop while the others aren't feedbacks loops
at all. I call interest the problem in the pumphouse and the other
costs are splashes in the pool.

>The trouble with interest is that it is not a supply and demand
>phenomenon, but is determined by a cartel acting in accordance to
>what are tantamount to superstitious rites, resulting in rates being
>much higher than they should be, aggravating the disparity between
>rich and poor. Money should be considered to be a public utility;

JCT: I agree. The banking system should be run as a public
utility owned and profited by all.

>interest rates should be regulated as low as possible consistent with
>financial institutions being allowed to earn a reasonable profit over
>their legitimate expenses.

JCT: And I would restrict bank computers to cover their expenses
with a pure service charge doing away with the positive feedback
altogether.

>But even if it were possible for rates to be brought down to zero,

JCT: Even if it were possible? LETS has made it possible by
insisting upon it.

>the problem revealed by the A + B Theorem would still manifest.

JCT: And here is the point of our dispute. The imbalance revealed
by the A+B theorem would not be manifest when B does not include
interest.
>Your characterization of Douglas' A+B is not Douglas' A+B. The
>simplistic fallacy of the "debt virus" thesis is easily demonstrated.

JCT: The debt virus theorem simply states that the prices needed
to repay debt grow beyond the capacity to repay. Douglas went a lot
further in stating that other factors also made the prices grow beyond
the capacity to repay.
So I propose a simple example. We'll take the example from the
famous Salvation Island example of Louis Even where castaways stranded
on an island start up their own money system, a LETS timecurrency, and
you tell me where any imbalance arises.
Eg: Island.
The first castaway is the mayor and runs the LETS storehouse and
levies a 10% income tax on every transaction.
One of the castaways is a miner and spends a 40 hour week mining
iron ore. The storehouse pays him 40 Hours for his ore and he sends 4
Hours income tax to the mayor.
Another castaway borrows 40 Hours to buy the ore and spends a
week smelting it. He also adds 40 Hours for his time and the
storehouse pays him 80 Hours for the ore with which he repays his 40
Hour debt netting him 40 Hours. He sends 4 Hours tax to the mayor.
Another castaway borrows 80 Hours to purchase the iron and over a
week fashions it into farming implements which will be used completely
in that one farming cycle. Longer lasting tools could be paid off at
the depreciation rate. Adding 40 Hours to the price tag for his
effort, the storehouse pays him 120 Hours for the tools with which he
repays the 80 Hours he owes netting 40 Hours. He sends his 4 Hours
income tax to the mayor.
The next six castaways form a farming cooperative and borrow 120
Hours to purchase the tools. They plant crops for a week and charge
the storehouse 30 Hours for the 240 Hours labor costs plus the
original 120 Hours materials costs and they repay the 120 Hours they
owe for the the tools used up. Each sends the mayor 4 Hours in income
tax.
Finally, the storehouse borrows the 360 Hours to purchase the
crop and 40 Hours to pay the mayor for sweeping the streets and
delivering the mail. He sends his 4 Hours in tax to his office.
At this stage, the storehouse has issued 400 Hours for the crop
but has collected 40 Hours in taxes and needs only charge a total
price of 360 Hours total for the crop.
All 10 castaways each have 36 Hours to spend on food.
All the food gets bought and the mayor replaces the 400 Hours
used in the process until next time.
Now, Douglas maintains that when the prices include the cost of
the raw materials, overhead and taxes, there will be a price to money
imbalance. Evidently, there is not. I know it sounds funny to charge
taxes and then subtract them from the cost, but I had to somehow
include that element to show that such ripples in the financial pool
has no effect.
Of course, if the storehouse also owes 10% interest to the LETS
bank on the 400 Hours used in the process, then it has to charge not a
net price of 360 Hours but a price of 400 Hours and not everything
gets sold when everyone only have 360 Hours to spend. They'll have to
find a way to export what can't be bought at home.
Again, I refer you to the explanation of the difference between
how it works with interest versus service charges in my bankmath.htm.
As long as everyone has access to an interest-free credit line, all
the B costs (other than interest) can simply be paid for with new
credit which must balance in the end.
And even if the tools are assumed to depreciate over a longer
period, it means that the final prices for the food would include
labor costs and a reduced prorated materials cost so that at the end
of the cycle, people would be left with money in their wallets
matching the value of the undepreciated tools, money which can be used
to pay for the price of the tool depreciation in next year's crop.
I have to therefore challenge the notion that the cost of raw
materials, overhead and taxes have any imbalancing effect at all on an
interest-free island.
And given that there is no imbalance between the money in the
numerator and the prices in the denominator, the notion of simply
spending money into circulation "debt-free" no longer applies. When
government spends money into circulation, it acts just like any other
contributor and must recoup that money in taxes to pay its debt and
balance the equation.
Of course, if interest were to persist, then spending money into
circulation "debt-free" would be the logical way to counter the
imbalance. But since this isn't the case and there is no imbalance to
counter, "debt-free" spending is no longer possible.
So Douglas was correct in noticing that there exists an imbalance
but was incorrect in blaming any costs other than the interest in the
pump house. That finding a small error in Douglas, the engineer's,
price analysis strikes many Socreds as heresy is too bad but it's a
fact. Call them Dollars instead of Hours if you will but Turmel, "The
Engineer's, analysis that all LETS interest-free social credits are
stable and need no numerator adjustments in the money supply to remain
stable is correct no matter how it may rankle them.

-------------------------------
A Social Credit Debate among Friends #2
>Date: Sat May 1 17:18:09 1999
>From: william_b_ryan@hotmail.com ("William B. Ryan")
>Subject: [lets] Re: A Debate among Friends
>
>FIRST REJOINDER:
>>JCT: Fair enough. But let's make a few precisions as to the A+B
>>theorem. A represents the money issued into circulation and B
>>represents the prices demanded for the goods. Douglas and I both
>>agree that the money issued is the Principal of the loans and our
>>only difference is what components make up the B costs in the
prices.
>>I state that the only imbalancing cost that cannot be taken care of
>>by velocity and interest-free credit is the interest, so Turmel's
>>equation is P/(P+I). Douglas's A/(A+B) theorem states that there are
>>several other imbalancing causes included with the interest so since
>>A=P, Douglas' equation could be said to be is P/(P+I+T+O+...) where
T s taxes and O is overhead and +... are any other costs you care to
>>consider.

>WBR in reply: You begin here with a straw man argument in that you
>completely misstate Douglas' A + B Theorem.

JCT: It's not my style to beat up on straw men. I don't have to.
I can beat up on the original argument.

>In Douglas's notation, A are payments firms make to directly final
>consumers in the form of salaries, wages and dividends. B are
>payments firms make to other firms or equivalent accounting entities,
>including government. There are accumulating account balances in both
>the firms and consumer sectors.

JCT: Where do you think the money paid to government goes? To
people to be spent. Where do you think money paid to suppliers goes?
To their employees to be spent. Sure the interest can be spent but not
in the original cycle.

>If the economy is growing, and this is the big "if" crucial to
>understanding Douglas' theorem--incrementally increasing A + B is
>placed into total circulation, but only A is placed into the hands of
>final consumers. So even if consumers spend all that they receive as
>soon as they receive it, it would be insufficient to purchase the
>totality of increasing production. A cannot purchase A + B.

JCT: But with access to credit, all can be purchased and paid for
later.

>The argument is very much cast in the form of a reducio ad absurdum
>because consumers never spend all that they receive as soon as they
>receive it.

JCT: When consumers have access to credit, it doesn't matter that
others are saving at the moment. The money paid for the production
that isn't used to buy now will be used to buy from the debtors later.

>Indeed, it would be impossible for them to do so.

JCT: Not if they have access to LETS credit.

>The problem revealed by A + B is thereby compounded, and applies to
>any conceivable system of finance that preserves free enterprise, no
>matter how rationally constructed.

JCT: Not to a LETS system of finance which still preserves free
enterprise.

>What it means is that entrepreneurial investment, in the statistical
>or macroeconomic sense for the economy as a whole, cannot derive from
>income diverted from consumption by the recipients of income, or
>saving, or redistribution through taxation, to the extent that such
>income is costed into production. It must derive from some
>extraneous source, i.e. credit.

JCT: Right. Exactly what LETS does.

.... snip .. . .
this is only a 6th of the whole file