TURMEL: Castlef beating up Bill Ryan on Social Credit

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 11/07/04 

Date: 7 Nov 2004 15:13:55 GMT

JCT: In my early political career upon being signed up to
the Social Credit Party of Canada in 1979 by my grandfather
Adelard Turmel and ejected for running for the leadership,
(shades of the Green and Marijuana Parties of Canada), I
founded the Social Credit Party of Ontario and the
Christian Credit Party of Canada; you can't imagine Jesus
sharking you interest on a loan, can you? I proudly signed
myself the Social Credit Engineer because I'd promised my
grand-dad I'd engineer a Louis-Even-style system of Social
Credits for myself and the rest of the world. Getting
UNILETS on the UN Millennium Declaration Resolution C6 is
half my greatest dream, design, come true.

Do a search for UNILETS IMF World Bank and you'll find seven
online dictionaries already having adopted a definition:

"UNILETS is a scheme for a globally-integrated LETS. It,
along with Global Resource Bank and variants of Ithaca
Hours, was one of three schemes actively promoted by the
United Nations as alternatives to Bretton Woods institutions
(the IMF, BIS, World Bank)."

JCT: So UNILETS is just a global time-based LETS run by the
UN. Global Resources Bank, with the Tobin Tax, were just
straw men systems trying to steal away some limelight from
the workable world-wide LETS. I've analysed and exposed the
GRB flaws so that it's no longer a credible alternative to
anything; eg: Why does everyone get $43US dollars a day? The
Tobin Tax on the rich for the poor is just more splashing in
the economic pool that has no effect on the growth of debt
in the money pumphouse and hasn't been heard of in years.
But the UNILETS is now the recognized alternative to the
international usury-system. Sweet revenge by the guy who was
arrested protesting the IMF-World Bank meeting in Toronto in
1982 for being right. Har har har har.

Bill Ryan has arrogated to himself the role of the
Internet's Social Credit guru. While I had some free time, I
crippled him in debates on a regular basis (all listed in my
online archives, of course) so I can easily certify that in
Banking Systems Engineering analysis, Bill Ryan is a
complete lunatic.

That the English School Socreds can take him seriously is
truly sad. But he's now being beaten up by some other French
schooled in LETS-style credits sociaux: social credits. It's
hard to get things wrong when a system of social credit is
discussed in the plural as a system of social credits rather
than in the more singular English analysis.

The heated debate is taking place in the USENET newsgroups
listed which can be also found at Google Groups with a
search for TURMEL sorted on date. For monetary reform
students, it's a chance to see how a LETS system of social
credits beats up a bad explanation of old system of social
credit. Because, I can show that Douglas Social Credit could
have worked, though not as efficiently as LETS social
credits.

Here are a few tidbits that I can relate to:

>Article #3140 (3145 is last):
>From: joejmd@yahoo.com (Castlef)
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.john-turmel,can.politics,can.legal,
>alt.drugs,sci.econ,sci.engr,alt.conspiracy
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble
>Date: 4 Nov 2004 05:32:38 -0800
 
C: william_b_ryan@hotmail.com (Bill Ryan) wrote:

"Case closed on interest per se being the cause of the
problem"

JCT: This is funny because anyone looking at the control
system of the 1/(s-i) usury banking system drawn at
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm can be asked
what wire would have to be cut to keep debt owed equal to
money borrowed. The "i" positive feedback wire stands right
out. And Ryan tells us that it's case closed that fixing
the system takes something else. Without offering any other
alternative.
See how he gets my goat. I have over a dozen posts full of
correcting his errors, and making fun of him of course. Why
else would anyone read it if he weren't being made a fool of
on a regular basis.
So I just want to say how much I enjoy seeing Castlef (Joe?)
beating him up so that I don't have to.

C: Wrong there... You see I even agree with you that "The
only way that "debt virus" can be salvaged in any form is to
demonstrate that bankers somehow "underconsume" "... or in
other words, not spend the money back into circulation
throwing a monkey wrench into the operation. But this still
does not in any way conclude that the case is closed and
that interest is not the cause of the problem. If you cannot
see how creating money from nothing, and charging interest
is profitable to the lender, and inimical to the borrower...
then I beseech you to open your eyes, because your limited
point of view is the kind that drags everyone, including
yourself, down.

>Article #3141 (3145 is last):
>From: "Meldon" <getlost@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Ben Franklin, Prof. Flaherty, on Death gamble
>Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:29:47 -0500
 
If the argument states that lenders shouldn't be paid for
lending, then what would be anyone's incentive to lend?

JCT: Here is the reason why banks pay interest to depositors
whose savings from the reservoir they do not lend out when
they actually lend out new money out from the tap. It fools
them into thinking they are borrowing someone else's money
and if they'd want interest for risking their savings, so too, they
expect others to want interest for risking theirs too. They
always get a blank look in their eyes when you say: "I'm
only talking about the guys who create the new money, not
savings and loans. If they got it for free, why should they
get interest like real savers who got it by working. No,
we're only complaining about those charging interest who
create it and get it for free.
It's a complete stumper that challenges the complete
cognitive dissonance conditioning. You know he'll have
forgotten it in minutes because it goes against
everything he's been brain-washed to believe. So they just
sit there, mouth agape, and that's one of the few times I
shut up and keep prodding: right? right? If they just
printed it, should they get interest like those who earned
it? Right? Right? Enjoy their dumbfoundedness because
they'll be back to their old beliefs in minutes.
That's why my debates with Bill Ryan are so circular. He
keeps forgetting what we had just proved that went against
his cognitive dissonance and so he want back to that belief
and I got to shoot down in a similar, but funnier and
funnier, manner for those who saw how he was going in
circles.
His greatest criticism of me was that I would not prove I
had an engineering degree from Carleton University. I told
him I wasn't going to run around proving his theories
without some equalizer and told him to bet and then I'd show
scan and post my diploma.
Ah, what the heck. He's called me a a phony engineer so
often, I may as well prove the point. Once and for all,
unless Ryan wants to allege that it's a fraudulent:
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmeldiploma.jpg
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/turmelritual.jpg is my oath
as an engineer so you can check if I've fulfilled it once I
discerned that usury was driving human civilization extinct.

>Article #3142 (3145 is last):
>From: william_b_ryan@hotmail.com (Bill Ryan)
>Date: 4 Nov 2004 20:00:32 -0800
 
C: "...creating money from nothing, and charging
interest is profitable to the lender, and inimical to
the borrower..."
BR: The banker does not create money from nothing, but
monetizes the credit of the community,

JCT: See what I mean. C says bankers monetizing the credit
of the community is not creating the money. It is. Even old
Socreds should understand this piece of Ryan lunacy.

BR: It is incumbent on you - the stereotypical crank - to
demonstrate why it is inherently "inimical" to the borrower
or to anyone else. If you can't do that, just shut up.
Mere assertion won't do it.

JCT: He wants a better explanation of how interest on new
money hurts the borrowers who sign their death-gamble mort-
gages.

>Article #3152 (3155 is last):
>From: joejmd@yahoo.com (Castlef)
>Date: 5 Nov 2004 10:08:59 -0800
 
C:The banker does create money from nothing.

JCT: See. Ryan just states something stupid that his debate
corrects, then he goes on to state something else stupid,
and it never ends. Castlef added some great quotes, all old
Socred staples that I've read so many times, I practically
know them by heart, and it never hurts to repeat the truth
since repetition of the Big Lie seems to work well. Maybe
repetition of the truth will benefit of the echo the same
way.

C: "The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it
creates out of nothing." William Patterson, Bank of England
 
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of
nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of
sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was
conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own
the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power
to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will
create enough deposits to buy it all back again. However,
take this great power away from them, and all the great
fortunes like mine disappear, and they ought to disappear,
for this would be a happier and better world to live in.
But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the
cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money
and control credit."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England
in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain
 
"The most sinister and anti-social feature about bank-
deposit money is that it has no existence. The banks owe the
public for a total amount of money which does not exist. In
buying and selling, implemented by cheque transactions,
there is a mere change in the party to whom the money is
owed by the banks. As the one depositor's account is
debited, the other is credited and the banks can go on owing
for it all the time. The whole profit of the issuance of
money has provided the capital of the great banking business
as it exists today. Starting with nothing whatever of their
own, they have got the whole world into their debt
irredeemably, by a trick. This money comes into existence
every time the banks 'lend' and disappears every time the
debt is repaid to them. So that if industry tries to repay,
the money of the nation disappears. This is what makes
prosperity so 'dangerous' as it destroys money just when it
is most needed and precipitates a slump. There is nothing
left now for us but to get ever deeper and deeper into debt
to the banking system in order to provide the increasing
amounts of money the nation requires for its expansion and
growth. An honest money system is the only alternative."
- Frederick Soddy, Nobel Prize Winner, 1921
 
"Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of
payment, out of nothing." -RALPH M. HAWTREY, (Former
Secretary of the British Treasury)
 
"Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant
a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on
their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU.", p. 19. -
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics,
 
"Banks create credit. It is a mistake to suppose that bank
credit is created to any extent by the payment of money into
the banks. A loan made by a bank is a clear addition to the
amount of money in the community." -Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 14th Edition
 
"the banks, of course, do not lend out their depositors'
funds. Each and every time a bank makes a loan, new bank
credit is created, brand new money." -Graham Towers, Gov of
the Bank of Canada 1939

JCT: My all-time favorite quote which I've cited regularly
in my anti-bank arguments challenging the anti-social credit
system.

"I am afraid that ordinary citizens will not like to be told
that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. And
they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy
of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the
destiny of the people." - Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the
Midland Bank in London
 
"The eyes of our citizens are not sufficiently open to the
true cause of our distress. They ascribe them to everything
but their true cause, the banking system; a system which if
it could do good in any form is yet so certain of leading to
abuse as to be utterly incompatible with the public safety
and prosperity. The Central Bank is an institution of the
most deadly hostility existing against the principles and
form of our Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

JCT: All great stuff that I've heard hundreds of times and
have proven of great solace when thoughts of the bigness of
the system that has to be taken down could get us down. We
never alone in our rebellion against the usury-debt system.
 
>Article #3157 (3159 is last):
>From: william_b_ryan@hotmail.com (Bill Ryan)
>Date: 6 Nov 2004 06:12:21 -0800
 
C: The banker does create money from nothing. And are you
arguing that because they do provide a means of an exchange,
it is benefiting us?
BR: Yes. As to the phrase, "from nothing," simply means
in legal terminology, "by contract." All contracts
pertain to the future which does not presently exist.
My qualifier was "monetizes the credit of the
community," which is what banking does.

JCT: To argue that monetizing credit isn't creating money.
What a nut.

C: Lol. I do not deny that having the bankers create money
is better than having no money at all. But the point is that
for their service they should charge a service fee instead
of interest.
----------------------------
BR: "Service fee" in the context of banking is simply
another name for interest. If you don't think so, it
is incumbent on you to explain the difference.

JCT: Har har har har. I've shown the difference between a
service charge and interest the two games at bankmath.htm
for the past 25 years. And he still doesn't see any
difference. So he's a nut or an agent provocateur.
 
BR: Most of the quotations you append are fabrications.

JCT: Wow. All this time, a whole monetary reform history of
quotes and we get word from on high that they're all
fabrications.

BR: I believe the Patterson quotation is from the Bank of
England's founding charter. Patterson was a privateer who
took gold plundered from Spanish ships back to England. He
saw how the gold stimulated trade and commerce in England.
He realized that "contractual" or "creditary" money could do
the same thing, without the necessity to plunder Spanish
gold.
 
The "Sir Josia Stamp" quote is definitely a fabrication.

JCT: Bill Ryan says so even though it is knowledgeably true.
 
BR: The Graham Towers quote may be correct, but again, how
do you know?

JCT: I checked it in the Parliamentary Library before
I started betting my balls that loans were new chips and not
old savings while all the world bankers thought, and many
still do, think it's from the savings reservoir and don't
know it's from the new tap. Can anyone imagine I'd have kept
pounding them with this bet if I hadn't checked it out.
After all, I lived in Ottawa.
 
BR: The Thomas Jefferson quote is the most egregious
fabrication of all, in league with the fabricated "Ben
Franklin." It is a fabrication of its face to even a half
way literate person. I am quite certain that Jefferson
never used the term "central bank."

JCT: It's incredible to think this defender of anti-social
usury credits should call himself a social crediter. Just
goes to show now organizations get taken over at the top by
their moles. Isn't sad to think that Bill Ryan promotes
himself as the Internet's Mr. Social Credit, especially when
he keeps backing down from the bets of the Social Credits
engineer.

>Article #3159 (3159 is last):
>From: joejmd@yahoo.com (Castlef)
>Date: 7 Nov 2004 04:30:58 -0800
 
C: I am speaking plainly. And you are saying "banks monetize
the credit of the community"... which is simply a way of
saying banks create money. what is your point? why do you
state the obvious and add nothing to the discussion?

JCT: See how confusing arguing with Bill is? Castled says
"banks create tokens" and Ryan says they don't, they do the
same under another name. A casino bank monetises the assets
and credit of the community who gamble in that game by
creating tokens just like a real federal bank chartered to
create canadian dollars.

> "Service fee" in the context of banking is simply
> another name for interest. If you don't think so, it
> is incumbent on you to explain the difference.
 
C: Once again why are you asking obvious questions?.....

JCT: Because he's a nut. Enjoy beating him up. It helps you
learn your fundamentals by repeated batting of the truth to
someone who's willing to keep throwing easy pitches for you
to smash.

C: The banks charge interest as their service... so you are
saying that this is a service fee?

JCT: Of course, in all his years of criticism of me, he's
never gone and read my analysis with the game theory showing
the difference. Think about what kind of person that makes
him!

C: But you need to be told what I mean by saying "charge a
service fee instead of interest as their service" ? As I
have already stated in a previous thread the service fee
should be in proportion to the service they provide which is
"simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their
books
 
>BR: Most of the quotations you append are fabrications.

C: And so you have stated I am a "stereotypical crank", and
that the quotes are fabrications. All you have done is
attacked my credibility instead of telling us your own
opinions or listening to what I have said. I do not claim to
know everything, and I am willing to learn. This was an open
letter to John Turmel mostly about the subject of inflation
through foreclosure, but I see you have not mentioned
anything of this. But that it was open means that third
parties are open to chime in and give us their opinions..
hopefully listen before they do as well. So here I am trying
to have an open mind and listen to what you have to say but
you have said nothing. Are you listening to me? If you were
you wouldn't have asked the difference between interest and
a "service fee" since I already stated it earlier in the
discussion. If you believe that most of the quotes are
fabrications then so be it. THe federal reserve one
explained the point I was trying to make. THe quotes were in
fact redundant since they were all basically saying the same
thing. That you accepted one but claimed the others as false
shows that you did not care what they said, but if they
said.. since they were all saying the same thing. And by the
way, it is true that Soddy was not an economist. If
economists were doing their jobs this discussion wouldn't
even be taking place.

JCT: Anyway, it's fun watching you push the math in his
face. Ask why he never bet I didn't have a diploma though he
accused me over and over again of being a sham.

And enjoy beating on him. When I picketed the Bank of
Canada, I used to call people willing to debate with me in
public "gnurds," guys I could count on to always revert
to their previously disproven argument so I could prove it
again, and again, and again, because they suffered Orwell's
famous "double-think," the learned ability to believe to
opposite points of view as both true at the same time.

EG: Only the White House could call off the Air Force; it
can't be the White House.
Banks don't lend out savings; piggy banks lend out savings.

I just wanted to inform my readership of this debate going
on and I'd expect it to keep going on because Bill's one of
the few gnurds left willing to keep putting his foot in his
mouth for the esoteric amusement of those in the banking
systems engineering know. 

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics

Relevant Pages