Chick, Society is a collective of individuals. People associate in order to increase the benefits to themselves because it was long discovered that people in association can do more than by one person by himself or herself. In that sense there is an increment of association, the results of which should be available to all.
What Social Credit philosophy refers to as collectivism is the gathering together of people by a few for the benefit of that few. It is a philosophy that is found in fascist, totalitarian states and is a principle feature in one particular religion that is not contained in any other, and the same religion that has stated openly that it is incompatible with Christianity. It is a means of control to keep "the flock" together, I believe in the freedom of the individual and is expressed in Social Credit philosophy as placing the individual above that of the group. All groups that are formed for the purpose of collectively representing the individuals that are part of that group should be subservient to the individual. It is unfortunate that not enough is known by those who blindly accept the smears that Douglas or Social Credit is anti-Semitic. The attacks are not based upon policies of Social Credit but on the philosophy which includes freedom of the individual. A recent example of what I am trying to say was expressed by Mr. Howard last night when he said, referring to the demonstrations against war,"Governments are elected to govern". I do not agree. Firstly, governments are not elected. Certain candidates of a political party which receive the majority vote are elected. That political party then becomes the government. Secondly, those candidates elected and who form part of the government were elected (although never recognised by them) to represent the people. Recently Mr. Howard made a comment that when going to see Mr. Bush he was going to put forward the case of the government. I would have thought that he should be putting forward the case pf the people. After all he was not elected to declare war, nor did he have a referendum to determine what the people wanted. Governments are one of those groups to which I refer. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chick Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Christian Philosophy/Policy > Victor > > You are right. The term collectivism is possibly the wrong term however, > what I was getting at is that there are collective aspects or traits to > every part of humanity. A family is a collective of sorts, as is a > business, a community etc. There is a definite collectivist aspect to > publicly traded corporations and because the vote is one vote for one share > it is distinctively less democratic than a co-operative which is one member > one vote, regardless of dollars invested. > > If you remove the collective aspect from any aspect of society it will > collapse. Human beings need other human beings. No different than this > exchange, if there is no discussion it all stops. > > As for the quote, I know that you were quoting from a book and what I was > saying is that you can get the same quote from all religions as to their > compatibility with other religions. I went on to mean that people are > compatible it is the religions that have been teaching the incompatibility. > > Also if the principle is supposedly Christian or Jewish or Buddhist, or > whatever but that principle is in fact good for all than it, in truth, is a > human principle, good for all human beings. Hence there is then no need to > say that it is based on something else that perhaps the theoretician who > presented it was speaking from. Probably finding out later that it was good > for everyone and not just "whatever" it was originally represented to be. > The need to continue to say that it was the "whatever" principle is to deny > it to others by virtue of their lack of interest in the "whatever." > > Chick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Victor Bridger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Christian Philosophy/Policy > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Chick Hurst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 2:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [SOCIAL CREDIT] Social Credit and Christian Philosophy/Policy > > > > > > Chick said in part: " There is a very big difference between > > totalitarianism and collectivism.". > > > > V.B. There is an obvious misunderstanding of the use of "collectivism". It > > is not the same as collectiveness. Incidentally, it would remove > > misunderstanding if, when quoting the correct source is used. aAquote was > > attributed to me that was not mine. I was, and it was made perfectly > clear, > > that I was quoting from another source. If there is any disagreement with > > the content of the original quote it should be directed to that source. > > Don't shoot the messenger. > > Vic Bridger > > > > > > > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@mail-archive.com 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 ==^================================================================
