OH: Regardless of what it may sound like or with what it may be associated, the principle of solidarity simply means that society has an obligation to ensure that everyone’s needs can be adequately looked after, especially the needs of those who are vulnerable or otherwise incapable of meeting their own needs. What would meet that desideratum better than a National Dividend?
Me: Yes, why are such things good? Because they are infused with Love and Love in action, Grace.
And how are love and Grace created? First by the will/the will of God and then by individual contemplation.
And if one will not chose, will not look at and will not contemplate this they condemn themselves to lesser means of understanding and acting.
Love is the personal means and Grace is the personal and temporal fulfillment of all things actually….because love and Grace are simultaneously inclusive, encompassing and redeeming/transformational. That way power becomes a concern to enable the empowerment of others, and well meaning but obsessive doubt becomes enlightened communion with those who want love and Grace increasingly in the world.
GM: He is the Judge. Our mandate is “Judge not”. He dined with tax collectors, and was accused of consortring with sinners. Nowhere does He tell us to plait whips against money changers or anyone else. What are we to do! Love them as we love ourselves. That is our mandate.
Me: Transcendentalism and Perfectionism are their own traps. We are able to cultivate graciousness if we do not habitually or perfectionistically judge and build a more gracious world if we deal effectively with its idiocies and injustices.
WK: If you were familiar with the strategy of Revolution you would be aware that the Church has been a target for infiltration and misdirection both by individuals and the intrusion of deceptive ideas which can mislead even the innocent and unsuspecting. Where Pope Francis may fit into this matrix is difficult to say. Perhaps even he may not know. One has to have conscious intent to be held culpable. But it is essential to recognize the pedigree of ideas regardless of who may be their carrier.
Me: Yes, there is both a materialistic dialectic and a spiritual one as well. Trinity-Unity is consistent with Christianity and Grace. The material world operates within Trinity-Unity as well, but because it has dropped out/rejected/become ignorant of the spiritual aspect of the Trinity, it is left with only contention/conflict.
[ (Thesis x Antithesis) Synthesis ] = Trinity-Unity of open minded logic
[ (Body x Mind) Spirit ] = Trinity-Unity
The Catholic church was correct to reject Liberation Theology because it was corrupted by the non-resolving, economically unworkable unnatural nature of socialism. The Church has said that Social Credit is not in conflict with it and yet it does not openly/consciously advocate it. This is probably mostly because it is also an institution whose leaders still have one foot in the current economic and monetary paradigm and thus lack the faith/confidence to do so.
We can also see that Social Credit is the more conscious and integrative Trinity-Unity of:
[ (best aspects of capitalism/dynamism x best intentions of socialism/economic democracy) Social Credit ]
GM: Masses unable to understand? Sounds like a French Marquis talking circa 1791. SC sounds on first acquaintance like an impossible dream, so one must.be.prepared to explain even to the masses(who vote) how it might actually work. It must be put in terms that the press, at least,.can grasp, then Through the press to the electorate.
Me: Simply look at its policies, no matter whether you are economically astute or not. If you won’t look and/or are caught in obsessive dualism/conflict….you’ll never perceive its truthfulness, workability, ethical superiority and applicability.
GM: Puritans, like you, thought it their duty to condemn and punish wrongdoers. Hence the Glorious Revolution, the hunting down of Catholics, extermination of North American “savages”, witch trials, ostracism of such as Roger Williams, etc. Jesus by contrast did not tell us to judge and punish or even defend our just rights. “If someone demands your coat, give him your cloak as well..If someone commands you to go a mile with him, go two.”. “If someone strikes your right cheek, give him your left as well…”
Christianity is personal and a communion of persons, not formal institutions, and ours is to first be Christ in our daily lives, in humility but not in judgement or vengeance because “The Lord makes his rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Also, “Do not pull up the tares lest you harm the wheat as well.”
Me: An intellectual debate is ALWAYS a judging/Dualistic process, and both sides can make legitimate INTELLECTUAL points. However, if the one of the participants’ program and points are aligned with faith, hope, love and Grace and the other’s program is unstated/unvisualized and is riven with obsessive doubt and the intention to introvert. Which is the wisest and most affirming point of view? “By their fruits shall ye know them.”
GM: Judgement refers to passing judgement on the moral status of others, not to legitimate civil S. If you suspect a kid of starting forest fires in Ontario, you cannot take it on yourself and a few friends to shoot him. You can report him to legitimate civil authorities to investigate, try, and punish or not. When you accuse St. Peter and Pope Francis of lying, without any evidence. As you did earlier, you are far beyond the pale. The fact that people may see the world differently than you does not make them duplicitous. However by accusing them of that, you suggest that you yourself may be duplicitous, because people most often see their own faults writ large in others.
Me: Incorrect. It’s both of those and knowledge/experience of Grace is the only and ultimate thirdness which can rescue one from making it an habitual trap….and you will not look at/consider its philosophical concept and will only consider its moral and ethical reality in its transcendental form. Good luck to you in your ability to discern truth, recommend enlightened action….and in your process of personal sanctification.
GM: It could be that Social Crediters, sharing the evident contempt for the electorate and indifference to facts displayed in this ranting post, have simply done a poor job of communicating. In fact, careers in media are secured by well done blasts against the financial establishment. Consider Tom Wolfe, the late James Michaels the late Allen Abelson, and Michael Lewis for examples.
Me: Careers have been made blasting the obvious outnesses of Finance and its structures, both of which are legitimate pursuits, but no one but Douglas and to a degree Aberhart has made a career out of pointing out its monopolistic and dominating paradigms of Debt and Loan only.
Why don’t you get on that train?
GM: The problem with writing on SC for a major outlet is that any editor worth her salt will ask the same kind of skeptical questions that the group has stonewalled me on, and calling the editor a puritan for doing that good job will very appropriately discredit SC. It is not a media conspiracy you need to worry about, but rather your own intransigent refusal to engage in honest dialog about the feasibility of SC, to answer objections respectfully and without recourse to unpersuasive mystical rhetoric.
Talking about Grace won’t go far with editors. Like it or not.
Me: I absolutely agree that taking a tack of invalidation with an editor would be stupid….but who would do that? That’s right, no one. Which makes your point about it completely irrelevant. On the other hand you come with “scepticism” and out and out accusations of anti-semitism about Douglas whose entire philosophy was reflective of the concept of grace and expect us to respond with affirmation. It’s ludicrous projection.
Wisdom is the willingness to look and integrate. You’ve shown an unwillingness to do either. If you aren’t willing to consider or able to discern both the differences and the reflectivities between Grace as an experience and monetary grace as a policy….and integrate them, then you’re missing the pinnacle of economic Wisdom. That fragmented and stubborn mentality is the entire problem with you being here.
Me: Obsessive Duality hides/masquerades as objectivity and can unconsciously habituate one to doubt and contention. This is not to decry Dualism per se, simply to understand that habit is not conscious and flowing behavior….which is what Trinity-Unity expresses. Trinity-Unity affirms all realities and simply points at the good, the best, i.e. the loving and consciously integrated resulting expression of any and all Dualities.All temporal/physical reality appears to be Dualistic until you experience/include the existence of love/consciousness at which moment thirdness-oneness is revealed to you….and you can begin the process of integrating each and every Dualism you are habituated to until your life becomes a seamless flow of (more) intensely, joyously and consciously affirmed experiences.
Thirdness-Oneness, always the loving answer to….everything.
Is truth particulate and wisdom a process?No indication of that here https://thomasaquinas.edu/about/what-wisdom
Me: Both. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” Thomas Aquinas
GM: Yes and so?
Me: So, Trinity-Unity-Oneness which includes and transcends Duality is the best personal strategy, the temporal/systemic solution and the all too often lost ethic of Christianity.
GM: If you demand that people accept your personal spirituality in order to implement SC good luck with that. I for one do not consider you a prophet or Angel of Light. No offense, just credit where credit is due, and vice versa.
Me: You apparently demand Dualism. I beseech Trinity-Unity which includes Dualism. Please do not let any antipathy toward me interfere with your thorough integration of any Duality.
GM: You do not really presume to exalt your scribbles above his cathedral of thought?
Me: Well I try and sometimes fail to presume nothing but Trinity-Unity-Oneness…..Mr. Grand Inquisitor
GM: What you write does not signify, does not mean, to me. Truth is not material therefore does not consist of particles as you claimed. How do you define “oneness?” As Sakyamuni did, or another, or in your idiosyncratic fashion?
Me: I invite you to look at and contemplate Grace in all of its aspects. It is the faster route to Truth, happiness and Love……and systemic economic stability and prosperity.
GM: No idea what you mean by Trinity etc. Aquinas was scrupulously clear about what he meant. You by contrast seem scrupulously obscure.
Me: Aquinas didn’t have nearly as much of the cultural factor of mere and obsessive science to integrate and deal with. Trinity-Unity-Oneness includes science and is the cure for its obsessive manifestations.
I invite you to look at and contemplate Grace in all of its aspects. It is the faster route to Truth, happiness and Love……and systemic economic stability and prosperity.
GM: Show me and I will look!! Where is it?
Me: The economy is given in the temporal/physical world we all presently live in. All you really have to do is supply the dual policies of Social Credit….to complete the Trinity-Unity-Oneness. Also,
“Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”
Trinity-Unity-Oneness comes out all over the place in the imagery and tenets of the Bible (faith, hope and lovING is Grace), in nature, in good science and scientific breakthrough.
I invite you to look at and contemplate the Trinity-Unity-Oneness of Grace in all of its aspects. It is the faster route to Truth, happiness, Love and systemic economic stability and prosperity.
GM: You keep recycling the same vapid rhetoric, without defining your terms.
Note: The above post was followed by an empty post to which I replied:
Me: The great silence….is also a Trinity-Unity-Oneness. …
The “Kardashian Syndrome” does nothing to disprove the fault in the price-system nor the necessity of correcting it. We all know about the largely engineered decline of American culture and recognize the desirability of a cultural regeneration. That is why we emphasize the Christian ethic and not only the purely technical aspects of Social Credit. The real credit of society can only be maximized in the context of ethical and compassionate values. In any case a Social Credit economy will have the automatic feature of compensating prices and issuing Dividends in accord with the ratio of national consumption to production. There is no benefit to agonizing over the “Kardashian” culture snd the degradation of culture by Hollywood and related influences under its current ownership. We have better things to do. I agree that the subject is dealing with an abnormal social condition which has been considerably exacerbated by the existing financial system. Falling into the trap of presumptive moralizing merely throws up obstructive obstacles to our work in promoting Social Credit by de-emphasizing and obscuring the major and over-riding causes of our problems.
Going back a few messages Greg gratuitously accused Social Crediters of having contempt for the average citizen When I think of the thousands of people who without hope or desire for personal reward have over nearly a century dedicated their effort and resources to advancing the Social Credit cause in order to bring his or her rightful Inheritance to every fellow citizen, this deprecatory comment seems quite outrageous, deliberately discrediting and even divisive. I forwarded to Greg real life historic examples of programs of price-subsidization in Australia and inter-War Austria. Unless I have missed something he appears to have ignored this evidence altogether—as seems to be the case concerning information supplied by Jim. He demands empirical data “proving” the efficacy of Social Credit if implemented. This seems to be an example of materialistic rationalism devoid of Faith, which alone leads to the initiation of achievement. When you implement a policy you accumulate data as you proceed through experience. You adjust your technique according to your data as produced and to the degree of achievement of intended results. Knowledge does not, furthermore, appear to be attainable only through conscious and laboured reasoning but also by sudden realization or inspiration.
The history of “money” is an entertaining subject but the primitive exchange economy is not relevant to Social Credit which applies to the modern credit driven and increasingly (real) capital intensive economy and its increasing need for a distributive mechanism as “tools” replace human labour as a factor of production.
Me: Excellently said Wally. Mere questioning intellectualism without the willingness (or culturally stunted ability) to look at the actual temporal effects of Social Credit’s philosophy and policies is non-looking, pitifully half brained and vapid. There is both a rational and ethical end to patience.