A program being launched this month is seeking to change young people’s perceptions of the Holocaust by bringing students, both Jewish and non-Jewish, on archaeological service tours of Poland.
Called “Together, Restoring Their Names,” the program, an alternative to “heavily scripted… death camp tours” such as March of the Living, aims to “craft a new kind of experience for young adults in Poland – one that engages not only Jews, but their peers of all backgrounds,” according to its organizers.
A joint project of iACT, a Birthright followup initiative run by Boston’s Combined Jewish Philanthropies, and Israel’s From The Depths NGO, the project will involve participants in examining Jewish life prior to the Holocaust and incorporate a service component excavating Jewish tombstones used for road building by the Germans.
“Our mission statement at ‘From The Depths’ is to make sure our generation, the third and fourth generation since the Holocaust, stand as witnesses to the witnesses, making Holocaust memory and memorial relevant to us. This remarkable partnership between ourselves and CJP shows the deep interest reclaiming this past, by traveling to Poland on a service and memorial trip with both Jewish and non-Jewish students alike,” From The Depths founder Jonny Daniels told The Jerusalem Post.
“This upcoming trip is a true first,” he continued. “We will be working alongside Polish firemen, students and even ‘Poland’s strongest man’ to remove Jewish tombstones stolen over 60 years ago by Poles and return them to the local Jewish cemetery. This focus on physical work and partnerships with young locals is what makes this trip so unique, and what has led to countless groups around the world reaching out to us, looking too to prepare ‘Service and Memorial’ trips to Poland.”
Matt Lebovic, director of campus services at CJP, said that “Students today want to visit a place like Poland and do more than mourn, which has been the traditional model.”
“Students want to bear witness, but beyond that they want to play a restorative role. This trip was crafted using findings from other Jewish service-learning experiences, largely in Israel. Involving non-Jewish students was essential from the get-go. There is Holocaust denial in the world, and ongoing calls to annihilate Israel. We need allies and partners to ensure another genocide does not take place, this time against Israel,” he said.
“For many years, there has been a notion in the American Jewish community that Jewish youth have been overloaded with the Holocaust, and that this ‘overload’ is somehow damaging to their Jewish identity.
“In our rush to sort of ‘bury’ the Holocaust and not have young people identify too closely with it, what actually wound up happening is that today’s Jewish college students know almost nothing about the Holocaust, much less anything about Europe’s treatment of Jews in the centuries leading up to it. There is no understanding of Israelis’ psychology, much less of the condition of the Jewish people around the world today, without studying the Holocaust,” he added.
The program will have a “huge emotional impact,” said CJP President Barry Shrage.
Examining a thousand years of Jewish civilization in Poland will be very significant for students, he continued, adding that while there is no “perfect followup” for everyone returning from Birthright, programs like this are very important in adding to the multiplicity of post-Birthright options that are now being made available.
One of the participants in the upcoming trip is Makalani Mack, a senior at Brandeis University who serves as a member of the board of the Men of Color Alliance and is active in building relations between the campus’s African American and Jewish students.
“I’m going on the trip to Poland to better my knowledge of the Holocaust and what that traumatic event did to the Jewish community, and to also further my efforts in working for solidarity between Jewish and Black people because I do believe that we share similar pasts,” Mack said.
“I’m overwhelmingly excited about this opportunity and am very appreciative to everyone making this possible for me.”
64 thoughts on “New program looks to reinvent the Holocaust memorial tour”
Where do you begin your criticism when the article is a load of shit, from the first word to the last. The holocaust has already been disproven many times over already, notably when they tore down the sign at Auschwitz in 1993 after almost fifty years that claimed four million people were murdered there and changed the official figure to one million people, still without a shred of proof. The same thing can be said about every aspect of the holocaust story – the Jews and their allies lied about everything. This is all out in the open now. That is why historians and scientists in Europe are jailed for revealing the truth. Germany’s former enemies have been exposed as the biggest liars in human history.
Ah, Peter, if only it were “all out in the open now”. Nothing is out in the open if the mainstream media totally excludes it.
If we ordinary people don’t get organized and clean up our governments and our mainstream media, the biggest liars in human history will write human history and will thereby become the greatest truth tellers in all of human history.
I have to admit… I didn’t even read the article. But, the picture with A. Wyatt Mann’s caricature cracked me up!
The Jews absolutely need the legend of the ” Holocaust ” .
That term itself ,” burnt offerings ,to Yahweh “.
Holocaust is is shield ,and sword they use to control the world .
The story has changed over,and over…The methods,motivations, logistics. .Some morons still use the 11 million sum !
My local paper still does !
The Gentiles just love the higher figure,thinking they can derive some ” victimhood” from it ….of course to keep nailing Germany to the cross too.
Guess what religious nuts Tea Party, and assorted ignoramuses in the Liberal /Conservative matrix?
Only Jews allowed .. Ok ?
Field trips for the children students.
Remember how excited you were then.
Soaking up every minute you had there
and the impressions that were made on
you?
Mine were always hiking into mountains
and nature and ranches.
It made quite an impression on me.
I still remember moments of those times
when I am 50.
I would guess that this is a devious way to
embed another childhood impression for a
generation for another 50 years.
The Jews know that this is the one utter
left on an old and tired cow.
It’s all they have had for a while now.
And they will milk it for every drop.
The thing is,
The milk is sour, and the meat is too old
and rotten to eat.
The “Holocaust” is pure Jewish/Soviet lies & propaganda to a) Have a solid excuse to steal Palestine and b) distract from the REAL HOLOCAUST by the Red Commie Jews’ slaughter of 60,000,000 gentiles between 1917 & 1945. If you want to see what life is like under the heel of the Jew, just study the Soviet Union from 1917-1945 and also the Weimar Republic which mirrors the USA today.
#5 Todd Raine: Yes, our belief in The Holocaust is important to them.
But that ain’t the most important of our false beliefs. The holiest of our false beliefs is not The Holocaust – not by a long way.
The most important of our false beliefs is the belief that money stores (= has!) value.
That is not just another udder; that is The Milk Corporation LLC.
Just about every person on the planet is dependent for survival on their money.
Money don’t need a memorial tour to keep that false belief going.
It just needs people spending their money for the essentials of life.
Nonetheless, as Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, The Holocaust industry is itself quite a good earner for them – a nice little cherry on top of a dish bigger than Mount Everest.
Hi Alan. I understand what you are saying and I agree. But the only thing holding up the big lie is the omission of the truth by the mainstream media and the repetition of already disproven lies. I am comfortable saying 95% of what they say are lies. I didn’t know this ten years ago. The revisionist historians have uncovered damning evidence uncovering the Jews lies.
@Alan Krernes,
I agree with you on this also.
I have before spoken here of this most important
subject and provided references for any that would
care to/dare to read them.
This is a most important subject. One that in our
situation voids maybe the most important part of
Our constitution.(Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5).
Money cannot add more value or volume or demand for itself
any more than water or any other resource can.
“Money” represents only exchange value and must be
independent of artificial values and fluctuating demands of material
markets.
America’s revolutionary war was principally fought against the
confiscation of our debt free continental currency in which
we, the soveirgn citizens of the colonies, controlled the
value of our own currency without having to borrow the
Usury debt based Judaic scheme from the Judaic
Bank of London in order to do business and trade with
our neighbors and partners.
The Judaic Bank of London sent British ships and armies
to stop this “rebellion”.
Now we just send planes, and drones, and mercinary thugs
to squash any similar “rebellion”.
So, back to point Alan.
I agree wholly with you.
Thank you again for the work you are doing here.
#9 Todd Raine: Thanks for the kind thoughts, Todd.
Article 1, Section 1 states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 states that the Congress “shall have Power” (see Clause 1) “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”.
Clause 2 gives Congress the “Power” to “borrow Money on the credit of the United States”.
BIG QUESTION: What is money?
The Constitution does not define what money is! Organized Usury would have been delighted with that. It is my understanding that at least one of the “Founding Fathers” could be regarded as an agent of Organized Usury, and would therefore have had a direct say in what the Constitution says. I am thinking of Alexander Hamilton, but my knowledge of the history is only sketchy, so I invite correction and elaboration.
We can infer from Clause 5 that money is:
1. something that can be coined; and
2. something that has value.
We can also infer that “foreign Coin” also has value which may differ from the value of American Coin.
And I think it is important to note that the Power to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” is included alongside of the Power to “coin Money”.
NOTE VERY CAREFULLY:
1. reliable standards of measurement are utterly essential for trade and commerce to be conducted fairly/honestly;
2. money has only one honest function – as a standard of measurement of value (usually referred to as the “unit of account”);
3. the self-proclaimed “science” of economics teaches us that money has two other basic functions in addition to the “unit of account”; these teachings are learned and applied WITHOUT QUESTION by economists and almost all ordinary people;
4. the first of these two additional functions (“medium of exchange”) derives from the second (“store of value”).
Now I want you to consider an assertion:
value can only be stored in real things which have real value.
If you accept that assertion as necessarily true, it follows that a measurement of value expressed as a number of units of account can itself have no value.
You might have a thousand dollars worth of timber.
The timber has a value of $1,000; but
a thousand dollars has zero value.
It’s the same logic as having a thousand metres of a certain grade of timber.
The timber has a length of 1,000 metres; but
a thousand metres has zero length.
Measurements are abstractions. They do not, and cannot, possess the concrete dimensions that they measure.
At this stage you are probably feeling irritated, and possibly even thinking that the writer (yours truly) is nuts. That’s OK. You are experiencing the discomfort of what is called cognitive dissonance.
I am telling you that money cannot store value, and therefore has zero value.
Your whole life experience is telling you that money can store value. You can save money in a bank account, and withdraw money later on, and spend it, and its value has been saved.
My response to that is. You have been tricked by the most successful tricksters ever – the people who run Organized Usury.
Once upon a time, people had to be forced to accept and use money as we know it. The Legal Tender laws make it compulsory to accept and use money as payment for goods and services, settlement of debts, payment of taxes, etc. The coercive element is downplayed, even suppressed. I don’t recall it ever mentioned in my schooling.
If you want clear brief evidence of the coercive element, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hut_Tax_War_of_1898 which describes how the British Empire coerced the people of Sierra Leone to use British money. It must be said that the British Empire was a faithful servant of Organized Usury, and present day Great Britain and the nations comprising the British Commonwealth continue that tradition of service.
The most cunning aspect of the money trick is that Organized Usury allows the unit of account to be fairly stable most of the time. People love the convenience of money, and they love exercising what is called “purchasing power”.
Economists dress up the fluctuations of money as if such fluctuations were as natural as the weather. They talk of the business cycle of booms and busts like meteorologists explaining the dynamics of air pressure and other natural variables. All of this allows Organized Usury to manage the business cycle by varying the money supply and varying the prices of things, both of which they are in a position to control. This also means they are in a position to gamble on changes that they are in control of. That’s not gambling. That’s farming.
Money is created when people or organizations borrow money from a bank. The money is typed into the borrower’s account after the borrower has contracted to repay the amount borrowed plus a compounding annual rate of interest. Thus are the people and organizations (including governments) of societies made bonded servants of Organized Usury.
All money is debt repayable at compounding interest. There is far more money (debt!) in existence in the form of derivatives of all sorts, than can ever be repaid.
Do ordinary people have to accept this situation?
Can ordinary people demand that the principle of “Odious Debt” be applied?
Should ordinary people demand that the principle of “Odious Debt” be applied?
If we do that, should we also demand that the principle of “Odious Assets” be applied?
What is odious debt? Look it up and – guess what? – you’ll find explanations not unsympathetic to Organized Usury.
I would define it as all usurious loans.
What are odious assets? Look it up and – guess what? – you’ll find nothing.
I would define it as all assets acquired by usurious or other dishonest means.
What value is the US Constitution to ordinary people with regard to money?
Zero!
What value is the US Constitution to Organized Usury?
World Domination!
Who does the buck stop with?
@Alan,
I agree with you on Hamilton, and with the
rest of your summation.
The constitution will not protect anyone without
knowledge of it and how and who it has been
usurped by.
There are other books and authors I have and
do recommend on this subject.
On the money question, I have referenced these
books by Arthur Kitson here before.
1-The Money Problem
2-Trade Fallacies; A Criticism of Existing Methods,
And Suggestions for Reform Towards National Prosperity
3-A Fraudulent Standard
4-The Bankers Conspiracy! Which Started The World Crises
Of course, there are other great books to read on this subject.
These are by far not the least important, and well worth the
time spent.
Resources(material and human resources) are all that
actually produces individual and common wealth.
Human energy and need is the only thing that can production
value.
“Money” merely represents an exchange rate of the actual value
and must remain independent of any artificial(man made)
fluctuation.
As you said, it is unnatural(impossible) for “money” by itself to be
able to reproduce itself in a reliable system.
I very much appreciated reading your summary of this most
important subject the whole world is being forced to learn quickly.
I hope that we discuss this subject more here.
Thank you for your work.
Todd: and thank you for your work too.
I agree: there is no more important topic.
I want us to have a wrestling match on what money is. Friendly wrestling match of course.
You wrote: ““Money” merely represents an exchange rate of the actual value and must remain independent of any artificial (man made) fluctuation.”
It certainly needs to be stable and reliable. But money is a man-made thing. It should do only one thing, and do it well – measure the value of things which have value.
I want to put it to you, Todd, that units of measurement should be regarded as sacred. They allow people to check that people they are dealing with are being honest and are worthy of trust. Physical units of measurement are defined precisely and give highly reliable measurements. It’s impossible for money to be that reliable. To have a reliable unit of measurement of value would require a huge amount of honest work to set up a scale, and would need to be amenable to occasional adjustments because the value of things can vary. There would need to be price control to maximise stability.
Now comes the question: why should the monetary unit of account store the value that it measures?
I can think of no bona fide reason.
Ordinary people by and large spend the money they receive. There is no benefit to them from money storing value. A single use ticket of entitlement would serve them just as well.
Affluent people – those whose income exceeds their basic needs and wants – can invest the excess so as to “earn” more income. They certainly benefit from money storing value.
But the greatest beneficiaries by far are those who control the money supply. All money is lent into existence to borrowers who have to sign up to pay it back plus annually compounding interest. All money! They do no more than type the numbers into an account. For that minuscule service they get to collect tax on everything that happens in a society that involves money. They even have governments borrowing money from them to finance government activities – and the governments pay tax to them! Interest is a tax – a burden! Using their enormous “earnings”, Organized Usury has come to own or control most of the wealth producing resources of the world. They use and abuse their enormous wealth and power with utter selfishness. They seem to regard the well-being of ordinary people as infringing on their (Organized Usury’s) rights.
Is not the illness of such a system beyond doubt?
And it all hinges on the magical idea that money can store value. That idea is magical, and it is nonsense! When you allow the monetary unit of account to store the value it measures, you make money a de facto commodity. That is a confidence trick!
We even have currency markets where investors gamble on the value of different units of account. Nations can be harmed by manipulation of currency markets by the extremely rich.
Todd, I’ve been ill the last couple of days, and I’m running out of puff. I hope this has not been too incoherent.
I look forward to your response.
@Alan,
I hope you are now, or will feel better soon brother.
The invention of money and “monetary value” was a wonderful
human invention.
But like nearly all other things in this life, Jews have attacked this
invention and have made themselves masters of this invention.
There are such things as natural business cycles.
Any business cycles we are experiencing now are a long way from
made by nature.
Our whole banking system is a fraud. Banks should merely be a
storing house for the acquired wealth of those that have labored.
A nationalized system that stores accumulated “monetary value”
held at 0% interest or charges to its depositors which are
from its local citizens and that could only give loans to local citizens
and community infrastructure.
A small federal tax could be taken from taxes to provide for this minimal
bit of accounting and personnel needed for it.
Banks, should not be allowed to invest and make any money from the
depositors own monies.
And, if I have $100,000 of my own earned money in that bank, and
then I seek a loan of $200,000 for a house, business idea, or whatever,
where would this bank get the money to lend to me?
Because the bank is not national or constitutional, they have to lend
me the deposits of my neighbor for that loan.
Or, because of the fractional reserve Judaic system, the bank is able to
turn my $100,000 of proven worth, into $1,000,000 of their own weath
ability to “lend” at interest.
The system is a lie and a fraud.
Banks should NOT be allowed to make a profit from its own depositors
monies. As the system is now, “local banks” must invest in outside
areas and corporations to profit, when it is not banks that should
profit all all. It is the people and the communities they live in and the ideals
and ingenuity that they posses that should lead them to a shared and earned
higher standard of living.
And yet, this Judaic system as we accept as progress, promotes nothing
but fear and division, and war.
$5.00 could have bought me 5 boxes of cereal when I was a boy.
The same bought me more than 5 gallons of gas as well.
$5.00 would not give me even close to 2 of either now.
There are many other examples. Any of them are not “natural cycles”.
These are Judaic inflationary and deflationary cycles.
And with their “artificial” markets, they then acquire the people’s “real” wealth.
Not least was our collective loss to think critically.
That was a hell of a price to pay,
Thanks Todd for your thoughtful reply, most of which I agree with. I’ll focus on bones of contention.
You wrote: “Banks should merely be a storing house for the acquired wealth of those that have labored.”
Here we have a head-on collision. You agree that banks can store wealth. I don’t. I say banks cannot store wealth. They can store valuable things, e.g. the commodity gold. They do store money, mostly as numbers in accounts, and they do have reserves of cash to hand over to customers who make withdrawals.
Do labourers acquire wealth? I say they don’t. They acquire money which enables them to command the provision of basic goods and services they need for living. That is what “money” is: the power to command other people to give you goods and services.
Labourers produce wealth, but that wealth is stored in whatever they produce. Labour is not storable. It’s an evanescent thing; like experience – as expressed so beautifully by Omar Khayyam,
“The moving hand writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
In Germany, “In 1921 a family with 100,000 marks in savings would have been considered wealthy – but within two years it would not be enough for a cup of coffee. – See more at: http://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/1923-hyperinflation/#sthash.KFIOnlLv.dpuf”
From http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar_hyperinflation.htm, the price of bread in Berlin was:
December 1918 0.5 mark
December 1921 4 marks
December 1922 163 marks
January 1923 250 marks
March 1923 463 marks
June 1923 1,465 marks
July 1923 3,465 marks
August 1923 69,000 marks
September 1923 1,512,000 marks
October 1923 1,743,000,000 marks
November 1923 201,000,000,000 marks
Question: how reliable is money as a store of value?
Amazingly – after all the grievous losses and suffering by most, and huge profits by some – the ordinary people of Germany allowed themselves to be rescued by Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht after some months of struggle against what Schacht referred to as “sharks”. Schacht set up the Rentenmark to replace the old Mark, and then established a new Mark at the pre-hyperinflation level of the old Mark. What an opportunity lost! But what could ordinary Germans do? They would have been grateful for the trauma to end.
You wrote: “The system is a lie and a fraud.”
I absolutely agree because the claim that money can store value is a lie and a fraud.
You wrote: “It is the people and the communities they live in and the ideals and ingenuity that they posses that should lead them to a shared and earned higher standard of living.”
A beautiful sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. But we would need to discuss the nature of a “higher standard of living” in a society where money does not store value.
The existing system can be considered as Judaic or Jewish because it seems quite clear that the dominant Usurers are Jewish. I’m somewhat uncomfortable with that. I think it’s wiser to focus on the crime rather than the ethnicity of the criminals. Let them accuse us of anti-Sematism when we are talking only about usury and its ill consequences and fraudulent bases. The usurers are not short of gentile collaborators.
When you refer to “our collective loss to think critically” are you referring to gentiles as a whole or just ordinary gentiles?
If the latter, I agree that’s a tragic thing.
But I think it is imperative for ordinary gentiles to understand that the usurers rose to power in gentile countries serving gentile elites by tax farming and other abuses. That ongoing collaboration has long since become gentile elites serving the usurers.
Had gentile elites been loyal to their ordinary people …, but they weren’t.
Mental fatigue is setting in again, so I’ll leave it at that for now, and await your response. If anyone is following our dialogue and wants to contribute, that would be OK with me.
Thanks brother,
Again, I hope you are feeling better.
Money does indeed “store value”. I would even suggest that this
is one of its two vital functions. The other would be to represent
exchange value with any other commodity or function ones life must
eventually find themselves in need of seeking.
A rate of exchange.
Money only represents an exchange value that can be easily stored
with a with a proper banking system with proper accounting of what
and who earned and owns the wealth.
If I earned by my labour $1000 every week as an employee, my employer
is not going to give me 10-$100 dollar bills or the equivalent of any other
denominations of “legal tender” to pay me.
He will print out a check for me that represents $1000 from deposits he has
put into this bank account from the receipts(checks) he has received from
his own labor. These are checks that represent the value of his own work
as the employer of himself and the others which he has employed.
Gold, silver, wheat, oranges etc etc, they do indeed store an inherent value.
But why would any rational people base the value of their money on any of
these?
The value of all of these are subject to supply vs demand, harmful vs healthy
weather, selling of naked shorts on metals and speculative markets.
And yet still, all of their “inherent value” is reflected only in their exchange rate
value, i.e. the value of any fiat representative currency.
The myth of the inherent value of gold is as sad as the inherent value of diamonds.
Shiny metal and shiny stone. They are nothing more than that.
And neither of these have any cause or right to back or control the value of
exchange between neighbors and partners.
It was with their control of the fiat credit system that the Rothchilds (Jews)bought up the
gold and diamond mines of Africa, the copper in Peru, the armies of the British and
then American empires and all the booty that we could loot for them.
With Judaic control of the issue of “credit”, they have been able to control
Britain and American empires to invade and control the real natural wealth
in this world of ours. Social, cultural, mineral, and human wealth is in their
hands, because of their control of the medium of exchange between neighbors
and other partners by their control of fiat currency(exchange value).
My point is, “money” obviously Does represent and store value.
The point is also, let the Jews and fools that believe in this unstable system,
keep all of the gold and all of the silver and all of the diamonds.
If we just keep the rest, including and especially our constitutional right to issue
a legal tender that facilitates exchange between ourselves and our partners in
this world.
Money does store value.
It was the inspiration and reason and need for its invention.
That is exactly why the Jews sought control of its issue.
And they got it. And look at us now.
Thank you brother Todd. I’m feeling less bad which I guess means better, but the minor illness might take a week or more to burn itself out (be conquered by my immune system) according to the sweet young Sri Lankan medico I consulted the other day. I was delighted to find her unfaithful to Big Pharma by advising me not to use antibiotics unless the likely secondary infection did not clear up within a week.
I’ve already stated the case against money storing value, so I won’t harangue you more about that at present.
Instead I’ll do my best to play the role of that nuisance Socrates, by asking thoughtful questions.
That will take a little while, perhaps broken by a sleep, so I’ll sign off now, and get back to you.
Cheers
Let’s get to it, Todd.
Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that money has “two vital functions”:
1. it really does “store value”; and
2. “A rate of exchange”.
I can understand the first one, but I’m finding the second elusive. You seem to be combining what conventional economics refers to as “medium of exchange” and “unit of account”.
The unit of account is the unit on a scale which measures the value of different things.
The medium of exchange may be notes or coins denominated in the unit of account which is paid in exchange for some real good or service which has real inherent value.
What do you mean by “Money only represents an exchange value …”?
Are you saying it does not have inherent value, but only represents such value?
So the mark which could buy two whole loaves of bread in December 1918 stored its value?
Even though in November 1923 a mark would buy only one two hundred and one billionth of a loaf of bread?
What that means is that the mark’s representation of value failed completely.
Many millions of ordinary people were terribly harmed by that failure.
Many people made huge profits by knowing how to exploit this failure. They could, e.g., borrow money to purchase a luxury house, and a few months later take ownership of the house by repaying the balance owing with money amounting to the price of a cup of coffee.
That sort of obscenity can be brought about at any time with any currency if the unit of account stores value by law.
I have to challenge you, brother Todd, to prove that money has inherent value.
During the German hyperinflation, many productive companies ceased using money to pay their labourers, and instead issued them with vouchers for a specified amount of coal or electricity or any needed commodity which ACTUALLY DID STORE VALUE and which their workers could use to barter in exchange for the things they needed. Can you see the absolute contrast between money (which has zero inherent value, and therefore CANNOT store value) and vouchers for real commodities (which have real inherent value, and therefore CAN store value)?
Proof, Todd, backed by argument and facts is needed. Assertion by itself proves nothing.
Later you wrote: “Gold, silver, wheat, oranges etc etc, they do indeed store an inherent value. But why would any rational people base the value of their money on any of these?”
I suggest that you answered your own question. Real commodities have inherent value, and therefore store that value. Money is not a real commodity.
You went on to write: “The value of all of these are subject to supply vs demand, harmful vs healthy
weather, selling of naked shorts on metals and speculative markets.”
I concede that is a problem that society needs to deal with.
You wrote about being paid $1,000 by cheque or cash for a week’s work.
What if by the time you went to the bank to deposit the cheque there had been a sudden 1,000% inflation of prices (which equates to a 1,000% deflation of the unit of account)?
Wouldn’t you be motivated to go back to your boss and ask him to rip up that cheque and give you instead a voucher for whatever commodity the company produces, to the value of your work, knowing that that commodity will store its value?
Please explain your reference to “selling of naked shorts on metals and speculative markets”. Are you suggesting something about the value of their labour?
You mention Rothschilds, etc, purchasing natural resources of immense monetary value in exchange for fiat money. And you write of “Judaic control” of usury. Yes it does seem that Jews do dominate our usurious civilization.
Are you arguing that gentile control of usury would be a good thing?
I need you to explain how and why that would be a good thing.
You finish off with: “It was the inspiration and reason and need for its invention.
That is exactly why the Jews sought control of its issue.
And they got it. And look at us now.”
You’re implying here that gentiles invented money, and it was a good and necessary invention, but the Jews got hold of it and made it bad.
That’s an assertion, Todd. You need to back that up with facts and argument.
The earliest historical records of money that I have come across go back to Sumer about 3,000 BC, and they charged interest equivalent to 20% p.a.
That already qualifies as usury in my mind.
I’m getting fatigued. I’ll just do a quick check for typos, and post it.
As you can see, a Socrates I am not.
Cheers, bother Todd.
@Alan,
I am happy you are feeling better brother.
I am not saying that Gentiles invented “money”.
I am also not saying that money has inherent value
in itself. I am saying that a National money system that represents exchange
value of commodities and services to its citizens and trade partners without usury
is completely valid and possible. It has been done before. The British “tally stick”
that built the British empire before the Bank of London and “colonial scrip”
of the American colonies are two examples that worked perfectly well to
facilitate production and trade of commodities of various labor and ingenuities
within its communities and trading partners.
I am only saying a National money does represent inherent value in commodities
and services and labour and production cost and value among its own citizens.
Any abundance that could be produced after the comfort and satisfaction of our
own citizens is achieved, could be traded with any other community(state,country)
that desires our over abundance with any raw or refined product they posses and
that our communities could make good use of. Quid pro quo. Whether that product
is raw of finished material, or strategically motivated, as long as our own citizens
have been taken care first, all could profit from these exchanges.
You mentioned Hamilton early on, which advocated a “privately owned”
central bank. Private parties owning and loaning “credit” at interest to
to the government, and therefore it’s people of the US.
Jefferson rightly argued against this potential tyranny.
And what a horrible tyranny it has become.
It is not that the fiat system itself is bad. The original design is rational and lucid and
functional. It is how the system has been hijacked and perverted and exploited for the
worldly gain by the same group of people that have perverted everything else in this
world for their own gain.
The destruction of the Mark was because it was in the international market that the
enemies of mankind created and control.
Hitler changed that. He Nationalised it. Germany prospered. He became enemy
numuro uno. Others did and others tried. All died before or after because of it.
Was not the Mark itself a National fiat system that facilitated production and trade and
actual wealth for Germany and her great people?
Paul Craig Roberts, who I am happy to read here and have 3 of his should read books
has also said that Putin should immediately pull ALL of the treasonous traders out
of the bank of Moscow. I have watched him say, that anytime you put your national
money out into the international system, the Americans (Judaic monetary system)
can do whatever they want to it, i.e., raise or SQUASH it.
Everyone trades amongst themselves in fiat currency. America, Britain, France, and even Syria, Iran, and Russia. That is not the problem.
The first 3 are borrowing their own countries wealth and credit at interest and injury to their
own country and citizens. The next 2 refuse this slavery and Russia is quickly building roads
to eliminate this sort of demonic international kosher slavery.
You can say that these BRICS monies will be backed by gold. But that is not the real wealth
in the currencies. Gold is a fraudulent standard of measure. It is nothing but an attractive
and limited metal with no actual value outside of any human scientific and artistic value
that is created from it (I say this with the utmost respect and honor I have for
Sheikh Imran Hosein, who I think disagrees with me).
The real wealth backing these roads now being built by Putin and company, is not gold.
The real wealth is human respect and collaboration to make their own people’s lives
better in this life while not making it the expense and tragedy of other people.
Everything I bought today I payed for in fiat currency. It was recognized as proper
exchange value.
I saw nobody today that took this currency thought my $20.00 bill was borrowed and cost
more than its face value.
Under our own constitution, we could have printed and issued that bill for nearly free.
I don’t have a problem with fiat currency.
I have a HUGE problem with the people that have voided our constitution and taken
control of its issue and have stolen the real wealth of this and so many other nations.
They have stolen our freedom with this Simple Little Scheme.
As I said last time, that is one hell of a price to pay.
If you think about it, a Nationalised fiat currency is the cheapest and most cost effective
way to facilitate ingenuity and production and trade.
But enemies and outsiders now control all of these because they control the issue of our
currency with compounding interest.
Let them keep their gold. I have no use for it.
Let me only have control of the issue of my countries currency, and all those with only
gold in their hands will find their hearts and stomachs wanting.
Todd, we are arguing at cross purposes. I agree that an usurious money system CAN serve the common good well if administered by honest and honourable people. The NSDAP government under Hitler did just that. They funded their amazingly effective program by offering government bonds for German people to invest in at a return of 4% p.a. I think it was.
I do not understand how a monetary system that is “rational and lucid and functional” can be “hijacked and perverted and exploited for the worldly gain by” dishonest and dishonourable people. Doesn’t that amount to a profound flaw in the system?
What did these dishonest and dishonourable people do with their “worldly gain”?
I want you to answer that extremely important question.
You wrote: “Everyone trades amongst themselves in fiat currency. America, Britain, France, and even Syria, Iran, and Russia. That is not the problem.”
Do you mean by that: that it is not a problem at all?
So you are happy with the extreme income and wealth disparity in America and elsewhere?
How much of the money you spent today goes to paying producers’ interest to be paid on the money they needed to borrow in order to produce the products they sell?
@Alan,
Sorry for the late response brother.
To answer your 2nd to last question, of course I am not happy with the extreme income and
wealth disparity here and anywhere. How could any human with an ounce of compassion
consider this acceptable? I certainly do not find this acceptable at all for anyone in any country.
What I am saying is that Nationalised fiat currency issued at Zero interest facilitates trade within
a country/culture and promotes prosperity and ingenuity from a country’s own human and material resources.
What I am saying is that “currency” from whatever region represents nothing more than an
equivalent exchange value.
Instead of 3 bushels of wheat are equal to 9 casks of wine, each are represented by an equal
exchange value denomination in a common currency that represents equivalent and inherent
value and worth.
There is no rational need to issue a currency at interest if it seeks only to promote trade from
one neighbor or regions labor and production to another’s.
As soon as that happens, the issuer of that usurious exchange value becomes the master of
both productive labors. And neither race or culture or producer matters to that master of
exchange value.
And how is it that the one that labors’ not is the master of the ones that produce?
Why should the one that produces, pay injurious (fines) fees to the ones that do not produce,
and not hope for the same comfort and luxury for their own labor and production?
Why should the ones that produce borrow from those that do not?
I did write that, “Everyone trades amongst itself with fiat currency”.
My heart never thought that this was not a problem.
My heart only wishes for ALL countries to have control over the issue of its own value of exchanges
between its own citizens production at no interest and to be able to trade with partner countries
with their surplus production for any material or intellectual product that might be of service to their
own people without compromising any partner they are trading with.
The two or more trade partners can by themselves negotiate (haggle) about the details.
No need for a Jewish war-room and international kosher court to decide the righteousness
of two or more independents that have decided to exchange values and resources.
All that they have is the material and intellectual property of the respective traders and
partners.
And the physical and intellectual value of these properties is a value they can decide
amongst themselves.
This is not a speculative or arbitrary value that needs to be borrowed from the Jewish
money press at interest.
This is just barter.
This is just understanding your own country’s interest while respecting the sovereignty
of the other country’s people and interest.
This is just real trade and exchange value.
And for the 4% interest on the mark, wouldn’t that be a nice thing now.
And it seems the Germans received the surplus for this little tax that funded
their independent government.
Cheers brother.
I appreciate so much your work here.
Again, sorry for the late response.
You are allowed to live your life, brother Todd, without worrying about when to fit in discussions such as we are having. Work and family should always come first.
You wrote: “What I am saying is that Nationalised fiat currency issued at Zero interest facilitates trade within a country/culture and promotes prosperity and ingenuity from a country’s own human and material resources.”
I agree. The only worry for me is that it involves pretending that something which is a fantasy is real. That leaves a path to corruption that is perpetually open. Have it run by honest and honourable people, and a good life can be had by all.
The example of the NSDAP government under Hitler provides brilliant proof of your assertion. The colonial scrip days in the American colonies probably provides further evidence in support, if we turn a blind eye to slavery, etc. You probably know much more about pre-Independence America than I.
You wrote: “What I am saying is that “currency” from whatever region represents nothing more than an equivalent exchange value.
Instead of 3 bushels of wheat are equal to 9 casks of wine, each are represented by an equal
exchange value denomination in a common currency that represents equivalent and inherent
value and worth.
There is no rational need to issue a currency at interest if it seeks only to promote trade from
one neighbor or regions labor and production to another’s.”
OK. But do we need a currency at all?
I suspect your answer would be “Yes we do”.
My answer is “No we don’t need a currency. What we need is unit of account that is as stable and reliable as possible.”
I think we should change our modus operandi during our extended discussion. Instead of long responses dealing with multiple issues, I think we should restrict ourselves to one issue at a time, and argue intensively about that issue until a clear resolution is reached. Of course, a clear resolution may well be respectful disagreement. That’s fine.
Perhaps we need to ask our moderator whether we are unnecessarily imposing on him, in which case I could start up a new thread which would get us off our patient moderator’s back.
Cheers
@Alan,
Happy you did not mention your illness this time.
It is my only hope that this is because you are feeling well.
Look, “money” represents exchange value only.
That is its only service.
All material things have inherent value.
An once of mined gold has value.
A cob of corn has value.
A finished wooden bed shelf has value.
None of these many values could not have been realized without human
labour and ingenuity.
Without human effort, they all would have stayed in the ground, or wild fields
left to rot, or would have never been invented by human desire and need
for comfort and rest.
Not all of us desire or need gold to live.
At the same time, everyone of us must have corn(food) and comfort(rest).
This is our human condition.
You are missing the point. Money (dollars, pounds, pesos, or whatever), is
not wealth. These are only exchange values made amongst local
communities and any of their partners they choose to produce and exchange
raw or finished material with.
“Money” does not have to be borrowed into existence.
“Money” only represents exchange value of the raw or human and intellectual property to those that
agree it has a value.
The issue of credit to our nation, or any other we have attacked and conquered,
is nothing more than a promise for the citizens of America and/or all the countries we
have destroyed because of this hubris to pay for.
It is a promise that our labour would pay with interest the extension of our own
labor and resources and ingenuity.
That makes us ALL slaves.
They only thing that has ever backed a regions, or a nations money, has been its
human and material resources and needs.
It never had to be borrowed into existence by a usurious rate of exchange.
Because we have accepted this lie, the issuers of “our credit” have made themselves
masters of all labour and ingenuity and resources.
Dollars that represent exchange value cost very little to print.
The digital credit is even less a cost.
The usurious compounding interest that is created “for the benefit” of ours or any
other nation at the expense of our labor and any other resources they confiscate
seems a price too high. An agreement that only a sucker would make.
If you still defend gold brother, I will recommend reading,
“A Fraudulent Standard” by Arthur Kitson.
I also agree, I do hope I am not imposing on the moderator.
Please do more on the “money question”.
It’s a partner in crime with the “Jewish question”.
Glad you are feeling better.
Cheers
Ah, brother Todd. You floored me with: “If you still defend gold brother, …”.
So you’ve been thinking that I have been defending gold as the standard of value?
Gold is one commodity; no more than that. There are many who argue that gold is “real money”. It drives me mad listening to such nonsense. Others jokingly refer to “The Golden Rule”, viz: “He who has the gold rules!” There is some truth to that. We agree about gold. OK?
The reality we live in is that people of extreme wealth have gained ownership and/or control over most of the accessible wealth producing resources of the planet. Please tell me if you don’t agree with that.
And they purchased a lot of that ownership/control in exchange for money. Money is so much cleaner than conquest.
Please do me a favour, brother Todd, of explaining the gist of what brother Arthur Kitson has to say in “A Fraudulent Standard”. The title has me drooling in anticipation.
I need you to define “exchange value”.
How do you think money should come into existence?
How does a metre come into existence? Or do you think such a question is irrelevant? It is highly relevant in my mind.
Let’s try to keep it short and manageable each time.
I will know when the minor illness is over, when I feel in the late afternoon fit enough to take the dog – His Highness, Shorty the First – for our daily walk. The tropical spring of coastal far north Queensland is stoking up towards another sweltering summer.
Moderator you are a saint.
Cheers
@Alan,
The complete title of the book reference is,
“A Fraudulent Standard,
An Exposure of the Fraudulent Character
of Our Monetary Standard with Suggestions
for the Establishment of an Invariable Unit
of Value”.
By-Arthur Kitson
London
P. S. King & Son, LTD
Orchard House
Westminster
1917
“In the place of a “store of value,” all one requires
of money nowadays, is an assurance that one will
be able to pay one’s debts with it or exchange it for
what one needs, at any future time at its face value,
which should represent a certain fraction of all
exchangeable wealth at the time the money is paid.
“The American greenbacks up until the time they
were dishonoured by their own Government, and our
present Treasury notes, would represent such units
provided their supply was made contingent upon
legitimate trade demand.
“Those who have been taught to regard value as
something material and tangible, may have some
difficulty in understanding how an immaterial and
intangible unit can function as the bases of a
monetary system. Such units would be ideal. It is not
necessary that these units should correspond to any
fixed amount of any given commodity. On the contrary
since they must express the values of all other
commodities, they must be free from such association.”
–Page 107, of the referenced book,
Chapter VIII, The Functions of Money
In a nutshell, the work of this book establishes the fact
that private banks have no rational need to exist and to
loan value at interest to Goverments and productive labor
and that labor and resources(human and material), are
the actual value and potential for wealth.
Money represents exchange value only.
There is no need for it to be borrowed into existence.
It only facilitates a rate of exchange value for production and trade
and is backed by the material and ingenuity and labor of
a regions citizens. And as Edmund Burke quipped, I rejoiced
in the prosperity of foreign States, believing that such prosperity
would materially assist our own.
But this cannot be realized under our current system.
I think you will enjoy this book brother.
Thanks again to the moderator.
Peace
OK brother Todd, I’ve downloaded the book in txt and pdf formats, the latter to help me correct the scanning errors in the former.
In the meantime, Todd, please define what you mean by “exchange value only”. Full rigorous definition please.
Second: please address the issue of what is to be done about Organized Usury’s ill-gotten (odious) wealth.
Cheers
Alan,
In one sentence,
America should default on this (odious) false debt, and nationalize its
issue of currency and credit and take back control and ownership of
the human and material wealth that under our own constitution belongs
to the citizens of this country.
America is not materially poor, anymore than the resource rich
continent of Africa and
the oil rich countries of Arabia are poor.
But the actual and potential wealth has been confiscated be this Judaic
fraudulent standard.
And yes, I know, there are many gentile collaboraters.
Aside from the Jews ability to worship themselves, organization,and to tell lies, they have
very few other other talents other than this one.
They can sniff out a Judas as well as any hunting dog can sniff out a fox
or a pheasant.
And as these Pharisees have always done, they buy these Judas’ with the silver of
the laborer that actually earned it. (Buying things, people with the earnings of
other people’s labour with Judaic control of exchange value and with it, all labour,
because of silly superstition they project as truth, and threats of worldly harm
and eternal punishment if this fictitious law is not followed to the letter they wrote).
I would also recommend that you read(besides other works of Mr Kitson),
Louis T. McFaddens’s speech In The House of Representatives, 10 June 1932.
He was killed shortly after this.
These are good and important and easy reads.
I am sure you will appreciate the lucidity of these works.
Cheers
Brother Todd, in response to my request for you to address “Organized Usury’s ill-gotten (odious) wealth”, you addressed America’s “(odious) false debt”.
I dare say your reference to Pharisees “buy(ing) these Judas’ with the silver of the laborer that actually earned it” does obliquely address “odious wealth”. And your elaboration about the Pharisees practice of “Buying things, people with the earnings of other people’s labour with Judaic control of exchange value and with it, all labour” actually takes the issue into the concrete world of reality.
I take it that your “Pharisees” = my “Organized Usury”.
Well, the modern Pharisees now own/control most of the valuable (or should that be exchange-valuable?) resources of our planetary speck in the cosmos! And they have purchased all of their wealth-power with “the earnings of other people’s labour”.
Please note: “other people’s labour” = the Pharisees’ property!
So the issue I asked you to address is what to do about the Pharisees’ property and its value.
Please keep in mind that the principles involved in dealing with the Pharisees’ property MUST also apply to the property of us all!
So please have another go at addressing it.
Re Louis T. McFadden: a great and honourable man, extinguished as vermin by those entrenched in power in your already foully corrupt country. I vaguely recall reading that he may have been poisoned. Wikipedia this morning tells me “He was in New York City visiting with his wife and son in late September 1936, when he was taken ill at his hotel and died of coronary thrombosis”. What’s your take? Under the Presidency of a greatly dishonourable man. Imagine what a President Huey Long might have been like. Was he another great and honourable man extinguished as vermin?
Anyway, I haven’t finished Chapter 1 of brother Arthur’s book yet. I have been heartened to read his correct classification of the monetary unit of account as belonging with Science’s physical standards of measurement, and deserving of equal rigour in definition and application.
I have been disheartened by his British wartime illusions and transference of long-standing British vices onto the German imperial newcomer. His repeated odious references to “the Hun” are, frankly, sickening.
Nonetheless, I’ll read it through, hoping to learn worthwhile things along the way. I am hoping that it does not all boil down to value = exchange value.
At the speed I read, that will take several weeks.
I almost forgot: I’m glad you know that “there are many gentile collaboraters”. I hope you accord them the importance they deserve.
Cheers
Alan,
I disregard his sentiments about the Germans(Huns).
It is the control of the issuance of a proper and invariable
standard of value and exchange and who and what controls
the issuance of this exchange value that has the real power
that is the point.
A country can issue its own currency for education, science,
engineering. arts, and every function for its own production
or potential production through research at virtually zero cost.
Any misplaced loans at zero interest to its citizens can much
more easily be written off and covered by the expanded production
and ingenuity and freedom than is the system they are providing for us now.
Look at what we have now. We are paying, as we always have
under this system, for Judaic Bankster speculation.
In a National Socialist sense, all material and intellectual potential
and profit should belong to those that have labored for and earned it.
If one finds a house he would like to live in that cost $200,000,
the bank does not give you $200,000 loan in cash.
They issue a credit of debt.
This becomes a bank asset that can facilitate further loans at interest.
You pay for this invented debt at interest.
Why should a house worth $200,000 cost the payer $350,000
when he is done paying for it?
And if the buyer loses his income, the un-nationalized bank gets
the house back to sell to another with the same credit of debt scam.
And the guy that just lost his $200,000 house that would have cost
him $350,000, doesn’t have a job now, because the job he once had
that paid him $20.00+ an hour, just got sent to China or Indonesia
or Mexico because the same kosher banksters that “loaned” him the money
for the house he just lost, shipped his former job off to one of these
countries for workers at 10 cents on the dollar and no bathroom breaks
after they eliminated tariffs that protected the labor of this country and
the purchasing power of its own citizens.
Look brother, this whole read, and I recommend others from the same
author, is not about his propagandized self opinions of the (Huns).
It is about his reasonable solution for rational and equitable and
debt free and stable exchange value of currency.
Brother Alan,
As for the gentile collaborators, I blame
them most of all.
The current clouds would not have become this thick
and dark with storm without their help.
But we will all get through this storm brother.
Cheers
Thanks brother Todd.
Respectful agreement is a joy; but respectful disagreement is an even greater joy.
I think we agree on almost everything except for a little detail right down at the foundation level of the monetary system – the actual core of usury.
You wrote: “A country can issue its own currency for education, science, engineering. arts, and every function for its own production or potential production through research at virtually zero cost.”
I agree with that. But I ask: Is that the only possibility?
I ask you to consider this possibility:
A country can issue entitlements to many different kinds for goods and services to specified values – i.e. values specified in terms of a stable and reliable unit of account. There is no need for such entitlements to store the specified value beyond a single use. They can be – and I would argue – should be single-use-only tickets.
Regarding “loans at zero interest to its citizens”, this was successfully practised until recently in one nation. That same nation also provided free of charge, education, medical treatment, and electricity; and regarded as a right for all its citizens to dwell in their own home. Which nation?
Regarding “misplaced loans” you raise an extremely important issue. On what basis should loans (or tickets of entitlement) be issued?
That’s 3 substantial issues to be further explored. That’s plenty to go on with.
Cheers, brother Todd.
Brother Todd, I will forget this memorable titbit unless I share it now. Brother Arthur Kitson – in chapter 2 – talking about banks, as if British banks were British, and German banks were German.
Such naivete in such an astute thinker.
Brother Alan,
The answer to your question in post #31 is Germany.
Beside the previously mentioned work from Arthur Kitson,
I would also recommend “The Money Problem” and
“Trade Fallacies; A Criticism of Existing Methods, and
Suggestions for a Reform Towards National Prosperity”
by the same author, (and his other works).
Even as much as this, I recommend,
“Your Country at War, And What Happens to You
After the War”, by Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.
He wrote it in 1917, and our own government came and
destroyed his press plates in 1918. The book was not published
until after his death in 1934 (I have an original copy),
which was after his mortal death.
In this book, Mr Lindbergh did NOT disagree with a National Socialism.
He said it cannot be disregarded outright.
He also spoke of the subversive nature of our two party system
and who stands to gain through this division of the people of our
countries and the actual corporate aims of this war (WW I).
He also suggested the Nationalization of our freight transportation
(railroad and shipping then), communication (telephone then), and
our countries mineral and human potential and actual wealth,
as well as the Nationalization of the Issue of our Currency.
I kinda think that after Mr Fords Dearborn Independant, the
Chancellor from Germany might have also read this, because of the
date of its publication and humanist lucidity.
A “ticket system” is perfectly acceptable and pragmatic.
We use this everyday all over the world.
Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a ticket.
The only problem is, is that we are now borrowing our own tickets at
Interest without knowledge of why or the reason we do this.
And by “borrowing” this “ticket”, we have allowed the Issuers of these
“tickets” at interest, to become owners and controllers of our own
material and human potential.
Whether or not the ticket reads 1 penny, or $100.00 exchange value,
It does not have to be borrowed.
It is backed (same as it is now), by material and human physical and
intellectual resource potential.
It represents exchange value only.
It does NOT need to be borrowed at interest(usury).
All could be issued a living wage at ZERO cost.
There have always been the lazy, as well as zealots (ambitious).
All could have a basic standard of living.
Anything the “ambitious” achieve above that can be their reward
in this lifetime.
Human potential is an asset, same as good soil.
These are not commodities to be borrowed, or controlled, by a
self elected few at interest and disastrous consequences to the rest of us.
Human potential should be carefully cultivated and nurtured.
There is no “borrowed or real” cost in this.
Not one penny more than the cost should be for a disabled human
individual soul that is already suffering for in this lifetime.
They are the same as us, “but for the grace of God”.
“Wealth” is just a trick. An illusion.
What we have now is a “Fraudulent Standard”.
Cheers Brother Alan,
I do so much enjoy talking with you.
You have been good for my heart, and I thank you for this.
You are more than welcome, brother Todd.
The answer to that question was not Germany. That nation which recently successfully practised loans at zero interest to its citizens, as well as providing free of charge, education, medical treatment, and electricity; and regarded as a right for all its citizens to dwell in their own home, was Libya. Was! Now no more! Zero tolerance for serving the common good of ordinary people. If that’s not genocide, then nothing is genocide.
Please (!!!!!) scan that Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. book and convert it to pdf and make it readily available for download; and do it urgently before someone steals it!
Thank you for agreeing that “A “ticket system” is perfectly acceptable and pragmatic. We use this everyday all over the world.”
And please forgive me for disagreeing that the “Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a ticket.”
It is “just a trick”, “an illusion”, and a “Fraudulent Standard”.
But by means of that mere “trick”, Organized Usury owns or controls most of the ownable/controllable resources of the world.
The power that comes with such wealth is real!
Evidence? The destroyed nation of Libya, for a start. I won’t go through the obvious list of other grievously harmed nations. Here’s a less obvious example. A reformist Labour government was elected in Australia in December 1972, and set to reforming with alacrity. In May 1974 that government resorted to a double dissolution of both federal houses, and survived that election with a reduced majority. A senior American diplomat was posted to Australia – his previous mission having been in Chile! In November 1975 (11/11) Australia’s Governor General dismissed the reformist government which had appointed him – acting for our head of state, the monarch of England. In December 1975 the reformist government was swept from office in an electoral landslide. Since that time, any reforms in Australia have been welcomed by Organized Usury. Australia’s mainstream media played their part in all this, including a young Rupert Murdoch.
So the wealth/power of Organized Usury has been attained by trickery – aided and abetted by gentile elites at every step – but that wealth/power is not illusory. It is real – deadly real! It will deploy all its assets to defend its wealth/power. Its assets include the usurious gentile nations of Europe, North America, the south Pacific, the middle east, etc.
Back to the point: the Federal Reserve Note IS MORE THAN a ticket. A ticket is NOT a commodity. A Federal Reserve Note IS a de facto commodity – a fraudulent commodity, for sure. Do you think that matters to Organized Usury? You bet it matters to them. They will defend their fraudulent commodity to the death of us all!
I agree wholeheartedly with all you wrote about “human potential” in service of the common good of ordinary people. The example of the peacetime NSDAP government substantiates optimism about that. To some extent, the example of Gaddafi’s Libya also substantiates optimism.
What Organized Usury did in response to those good examples – is the stuff of horrific nightmares.
My plodding through brother Arthur’s book continues. Further to my previous comments, it is worth noting that he would have had to contend with his “British” publisher in getting the book published at all at that time.
Brother Todd: just had to send this quote:
“The logical conclusion to which we are inevitably driven is one that will no doubt arouse considerable astonishment. In order that it may satisfactorily perform its necessary functions — particularly that of a value denominator and accurately register the variations in the exchange values of commodities — money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket. The one pound Treasury note, of course, meets this definition, provided its issue is not restricted by such absurdities as gold-redemption, and so long as the supply is sufficient to meet all the demands of trade, industry and commerce.”
from p 100 (the last few sentences of Chapter VII) of brother Arthur’s book.
Brother Alan,
I agree with you about the considerations and even alterations
he might have needed to make to get this book published.
I also considered Lybia, and should have added them.
I also took into account the gold backed dinar that
brother Gaddafi was going to back the currency with.
But considering the limited availability and socially progressive
function of this shiny metal that has no functional value to the
average human, it seems worth even less than compared to an
oil backed currency.
Both are still fraudulent exchange value standards.
He tried to beat the Jews at their own game while playing by the
same rules that they made.
Lybia was fine before then(but our masters were going to force us
to invade and destroy Lybia anyway).
Commodity values fluctuate. It is their nature in a natural world.
Supply vs demand.
Why is gold worth more than wheat?
If it is human effort that brings them both into the world, why is gold
worth more than wheat?
Both obviously have an inherent value.
Why should any of these commodity values that fluctuate in value back a
common and independent exchange value between productive
citizens of any region or county?
All production is backed by human labor.
This is the most valuable exchange commodity.
This does not have to be borrowed at compounding interest and social debt.
“Money” is nothing more than a ticket that represents agreed upon
exchange value between two or more that have labored and produced
or desire a raw or finished commodity.
I will do some research on the Lindbergh Sr book I recommend to you.
I am sure that you will both love and be disappointed that our own
government kept it out of print before WWI, and that it maybe was not
more widely read before WWII.
It is close to the best and most lucid premonitions I have in my collection.
I do hope you read it brother.
My copy is original complete with original cover jacket.
I have a re-print from the same author on the Fed.
Also brother, you are obviously much better read than I am.
If you have any books that you would recommend I give some time to,
I would very much appreciate it.
Peace to you brother.
Peace for all of us.
Thank you for your time you share with me.
Brother Alan,
I just googled the title of “Your Country At War” and Lindbergh came up.
My first choice was the “pdf” and looked like an exact duplicate of the
original that I have.
I hope that all of our family here will read it.
You and I and maybe Sabba and MG are maybe the only ones that are aware
of our current conversations.
If you read the book, and agree with its subject and thesis, maybe you can
do an article or form a discussion about its content in the future.
At this point, the “Jewish question” and the “money question” must both be the
focus of the same debate, I think.
So, anyway brother, I found a pdf re-print of the same book on-line.
Complete with pictures of Sr and Jr and table of contents and introduction.
It appears to be a complete reproduction.
I will look into it further and let you know if what I found is lacking.
Todd, I have been following your dialogue and was waiting for the last chapter to step in and thank you both for this highly, highly educational conversation.
Few things I disagree with but learned so many other things
So thank you both for this lively intellectual exchange you have have offered me/us.
Thanks for your kind thoughts, brother Todd. And Sabba, thanks for your saintly forbearance.
Both the Hitler and Gaddafi regimes should be revered as sacred examples of what was and could yet be.
Both administered the existing usurious monetary system to serve the common good of their people.
Both regimes were destroyed by Organized Usury.
Words fail me to describe the significance of that tragic reality.
You wrote:
“All production is backed by human labor.
This is the most valuable exchange commodity.
This does not have to be borrowed at compounding interest and social debt.”
I need to challenge you here. And I will use Arthur Kitson’s words to emphasise what is an absolutely fundamental point. On page 100 he wrote:
“In order that it may satisfactorily perform its necessary functions — particularly that of a value denominator and accurately register the variations in the exchange values of commodities — money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket.”
The absolutely fundamental point?
Money must NOT function as a commodity! To do so corrupts money’s only bona fide function: that of a value denominator!
The reality is that money – as it really exists – has been allowed to be a de facto (fraudulent) commodity. Because of that, “human labor” has also been made a commodity which is plainly subordinate to money. Evidence? The vast majority of people now living have been made dependent on money in order to obtain their survival needs. And all the money they need and ever use has been “borrowed at compounding interest and social debt”.
When it comes to fundamental points like that, pondering is more important than reading. I’m looking forward to reading the fruits of brother Arthur’s pondering on that issue.
Re the Lindbergh book, it is available in pdf format (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Your_Country_At_War.pdf) which I have downloaded and will read. So no need for you to scan your copy, etc.
With regard to references, I’ll just mention a couple for now.
“Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt; The Solution of the Economic Paradox”, by Frederick Soddy, 1926. Interestingly, Soddy dedicated his book to “Arthur Kitson, the British pioneer of the new economics, to whose writings the author owes his initial interest in the fascinating problems of wealth and currency”. Soddy convinced me that what he called “virtual wealth” was an abomination that no healthy society should tolerate; but he argued that “virtual wealth” was necessary but needed to be managed with great care and discipline, blah blah blah. He dodged biting the bullet! I’m hoping that brother Arthur did not dodge biting that bullet. I’m going to hold Arthur to that quote from page 100. He’s going to have to contradict himself in order not to bite that bullet.
“The Lost Science of Money, The Mythology of Money – The Story of Power” by Stephen A Zarlenga, 2002, American Monetary Institute. Lots of valuable information in this book. Zarlenga doesn’t bite that bullet either.
We need to note that our entire monetary civilization is based on that fundamental issue. In order to face that issue, the civilization we live in will have to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch. No wonder Organized Usury is hell-bent on destroying anyone who tries to interfere with the confidence trick at the core of our civilization.
I don’t want to invest more time and energy at the moment, racking my memory for other references. I want to see where brother Arthur took that fundamental insight.
Cheers
Alan,
That is indeed the key point. Human labor and ingenuity is a commodity in that it
possesses in itself inherent personal and social potential uses and beneficial functions.
Consider an orange tree and a cord of wood.
Both have beneficial functions and uses that cannot be realized without human
need and effort.
Labor must therefore have potential if not inherent personal and social value.
“Money”, that does not labor and has been made master of all that do labor and
produce personal and social comforts is the evil of this system.
Yes, this current system needs to be entirely scrapped and set ablaze.
Thank you for the book references. I will seek them out and am looking forward to
these reads. I think you will appreciate also the work of Mr Lindbergh.
Other works from Kitson are also particularly relevant and easy to read.
As you have just read, he tried to make it relevant and interesting and easy to
understand for the average curious citizens like me.
I do also have an original copy of
“The Bankers’ Conspiracy!
Which Started The World War” by Mr Kitson, 1933.
Maybe you can pdf that one also. I have never checked myself.
The booklet reads like today’s world.
And to Sabba, thank you so much for your patience with us.
And also for your email I received. I did not even consider this.
Thank you for your edit and I should have been more conscientious
in my post. Sorry about that.
Good catch, and thank you for all you do here for us in this fight.
And Alan, same to you brother. Thanks for all you do here for us and
our common cause.
Cheers
Brother Todd: I accept that “Human labor and ingenuity is a commodity”; and actually the most valuable of all commodities.
But if money is allowed to function as a commodity – and that is the purpose of the false belief that money is a store of value – all other commodities (including “Human labor and ingenuity”) are relegated to levels subordinate to money. Money as a commodity currency can be defined as ‘the power to command the provision of goods and services.’
That’s why the income of the majority of ordinary people MUST be restricted to supplying basic needs. We have the power to command other people to provide us with the basic goods and services we need to carry on living. For us, money is no more than tickets. Neither should it be – for us, and everybody.
For those who receive significantly more than required for supplying basic needs, money IS power to command whatever takes your fancy. Money ain’t got no scruples – if you know what I mean. I think I have raised the issue of freedom/liberty on TUT in the past. It is a very mischievous concept – inherently oxymoronic. Are you familiar with this issue? It, too, is of fundamental importance. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion repeatedly refer to liberty as one of their primary weapons in their ongoing conquest of gentile societies. Let me know if you want to explore the problematic issue of freedom/liberty.
In any case, money as the power to command others to supply goods and services – in my opinion – lies at the core of all of the ills of our civilization.
I have downloaded a pdf of Kitson’s “The Bankers’ Conspiracy! Which Started The World Crisis” – Crisis, not War.
Anyway, I’ll get back to Chapter VIII of Fraudulent Standard.
Cheers
We will discuss cahapter VIII tomorrow brother. I am
painfully tired and have current obligations on the morrow.
I just read your thread. I apologize for the late reply.
Privatized and borrowed issue of exchange value at interest for all that
labor and produce personal and social value is the topic
and problem we have inherited.
And what and who’s interest does the representstion ( issuance of currency)
defend?
And what and whom will it affect adversely?
This(our) current system of accounting does
guarantee war for us, and the Jews will remain the effende (ruler),
If we allow it all to continue.
Todd and Sabba: I have just posted a comment to Sabba’s post “GERMANY – We must hit climate target to avoid refugee waves: Angela Merkel” that is pertinent to our dialogue on this thread.
Seen it! Gentiles are not naturally inferior, quite the contrary. Someone once wrote as a comment on a post: “we are all capable of being a joo, lacking in mercy, grace and forgiveness. While that is a weakness in human character for most of us, they took it and made a religion out of it. That’s the difference.”
Brother Alan,
Money, monetary denominations, should not function as a commodity
as they do now.
Still, they are fully capable of representing “stored value” whether it is
from physical labor or material exchange between trading partners.
That is its most simple and brilliant function.
The paycheck I receive every week is a piece of paper that represents
the value of my labor to my employer.
The problem with “our” banks, under this current system, is that when
I deposit the check for the exchange value of MY labor, that value then
becomes the property of the bank, which they can then fractionalize (multiply)
the wealth of my labor 9 times (Fed Res is much higher), and lend this
newly acquired “asset” of my labor to me or someone else at interest(usury).
Why should I have to borrow at interest on my own labor for paper denominations
that cost little to make and only represent my labor exchange value and the cost
of labor exchange value for any other goods or services I or my family
need or desire?
All non-nationalized central banks must be boarded up or bulldozed.
Banks should be nothing more than an accounting houses.
It should be a safe place to store the exchange value of your labor.
In this digital age, there is very little cost in this.
Yet, with this current system, as money being a commodity with a fraudulent
inherent value, natural resources from many lands have been captured and
“privatized” and sent to be refined by cheap(slave) labor, and returned finished
at full price to a labor force that cannot fully satisfy itself because the jobs and the raw
materials they once owned were sent to a foreign country for its production.
Under this current global system, the needs of this international scheme sacrifice
the needs of all communities and cultures.
China should not manufacture my refrigerator or my lawnmower or my television.
Mexico and Indonesia should not manufacture my pants and shirts and shoes
since I must still pay full price for all of them so that CEO’s and “shareholders”
and “banksters” that suck raw blood can profit and congratulate themselves
at a job “well done”.
The bulk (80+% I would say) of raw material manufactured into finished product
for water and sewage infrastructure in the US comes from
1-China
2-India
3-Mexico
Money is NOT a commodity. Or at least it should not be one as it is now.
What it was originally was a brilliant and efficient way to “represent”
stored and exchange value.
A truly nationalized bank that would cost next to nothing to pay for and
account for all stored value is the answer.
No more BofA, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citibank, Fed, BofLondon, IMF etc.
Get rid of this speculation and slavery, for a system of honest accounting
of labor their needs, and material and production and trade value.
Cheers brother.
I hope you read the Lindbergh book also.
It’s just a ticket that makes trade production and exchange easier for productive partners
for both the labor and partners that their labor and partners agree have an inherent service and value
to their own society.
I have some “bills” in my pocket.
I paid for it in labor.
Why should it cost me anything more?
Thanks Todd. I want to begin by focusing on one sentence that you wrote:
“Under this current global system, the needs of this international scheme sacrifice the needs of all communities and cultures.”
That describes in a nutshell why the “current global system” is ill.
That system needs to sacrifice the needs of all ordinary people everywhere in order for the system itself to survive.
That is profoundly pathological.
Before that quote, you had written:
“… when I deposit the check for the exchange value of MY labor, that value then becomes the property of the bank, which they can then fractionalize (multiply) the wealth of my labor 9 times (Fed Res is much higher), and lend this newly acquired “asset” of my labor to me or someone else at interest (usury).”
I am keeping in mind comments you made later. Do you think that the idea of “the exchange value of MY labor” is a sacred cow confidence trick to sell you the fraudulent idea (perhaps subconscious) that money is a commodity? As you pointed out, you are not the beneficiary of money as a commodity; the bankers – Organized Usury – are! As an ordinary person, do you think that seductive idea diverts you from what should be your proper focus: the basic needs and reasonable wants of yourself, your family, and the local and regional communities that you are a part of?
Please sweat a little, pondering, before answering that question.
I want to use the concept you introduced – of “sacrifice”.
Our monetary civilization sacrifices all ordinary people everywhere – USA, Australia, China, India, Mexico, and all nations – to what Aristotle [The Politics, Book 1, Chapter 9] correctly described as an “insatiable wish” for ever greater wealth by those who practice chrematistics (the art of getting money). Pity the poor bankers? Hardly! But in a sense they are pitiable – hopelessly addicted to monetary wealth which is not limited by overdose, as addictive drugs are. So we are all stuck in a bizarre predicament where the bankers are perpetually sacrificing the needs of ordinary people everywhere to the God of Monetary Wealth – a fantasy whose demands are insatiable.
Todd, I have to challenge your following assertion:
“It’s just a ticket that makes trade production and exchange easier for productive partners for both the labor and partners that their labor and partners agree have an inherent service and value to their own society.”
A ticket is a single-use-only thing whose value expires immediately it is used.
Money is a magic-fraudulent-commodity whose value is stored and that ends up with Organized Usury who exchange it for ownership/control over the world’s resources. That is pure, utter, absolute power!
And you finished with: “I have some “bills” in my pocket. I paid for it in labor. Why should it cost me anything more?”
It shouldn’t, but it does cost more, much much more. It costs you, your family, and the communities you are part of, and your children, and their children, the prospect of a life worth living, in a civilization worth living in.
I finished A Fraudulent Standard yesterday, and am well into The Bankers’ Conspiracy. I’ll comment on those when I finish the latter.
Cheers
Brother Alan,
Because you have not mentioned your illness, I am happy to assume that
you are feeling well, and it does my heart good to believe this.
You quoted a portion of my previous post that read, “Do you think that the idea of “the exchange
value of MY labor” to sell you the sacred cow confidence trick to sell you the idea
(perhaps subconscious) that money is a commodity?”
The first sentence of my last post stated clearly, I thought, that “money” in and of itself is not
a commodity that fluctuates in values as all actual commodities will.
Money must be independent and still reflect true and fluctuating values of real commodities.
You are writing to me as if I am the one sucker that could not find the pea under the one of the 3
cups in a slight of hand trick in Chicago or Jersey street scam and that I that did not have the sense
to not bet my hard earned monies on a scam that cannot be won by travelers and suckers.
The way I win is to recognize the game(scam), and to not wager my honest earnings for a
potential or promised profit with a dishonest man and his system of so called equity and
potential “personal profit”.
That is a bet against the house that owns the chips and the odds.
I now quote you,
“A ticket is a single-use-only thing whose value expires immediately(when) it is used.”
True. That is its beauty and its singular function.
And it does not matter to the seller of goods (economically) whether it was worked for, or begged for.
It still represents “exchange value” and “stored value” for him and all.
The one that labors can buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a steak for $20.00
exchange value notes and/or change.
The beggar can buy the same thing with the same amount.
The beggar was given the monies free of charge from only compassion from his fellow
man.
Why should not the man that labors be allowed to have this same compassion and utility with
the exchange value he has been fortunate enough to labor for and earn?
Why should he pay interest on the the exchange value of his own labor above more than
the beggar which he has compassion for and shares with?
If I pay interest(usury) on my own future labor, then I will never be more than a slave to those
that issue the payment for the dogmatic societal needs of my potential production.
“Money” is NOT a commodity.
“Money, monetary denominations, should not function as a commodity as they do now.”
That was the first sentence of my previous post.
After “Bankers Conspiracy”, please do not forget the Lindbergh book.
I bought a spinach croissant and coffee at the coffee house I go to read in on the
weekends.
I earned the money that it took to pay for these with my own labor.
I payed for them in soveirgn notes(paper) that represented exchange value for my labor.
Why should I have to pay at interest for an exchange value note that I already earned with my labor
and that the owner of the coffee shop excepts as payment for the value of his own cost for product and production and labor he employs and that he can also exchange for his current business
function and production?
I traded paper that represents proven earned physical or material wealth exchange value
for commodities I desired and could afford.
That is all the invention of “money” ever was or should be.
Please also read,
“The Money Problem” and also, “Trade Fallacies; A Criticism of Existing Methods,
and Suggestions For A Reform Towards National Prosperity”, by
Arthur Kitson.
“The Money Problem” was written in 1903, and “Trade Fallacies” was written
in 1927 by the same author.
I am looking forward to your comments on these important subjects.
Brother Todd, we need to settle an issue: is money a commodity? or is money not a commodity?
What is a commodity? A commodity is anything that people buy and sell – anything that people believe to have value.
Let’s focus on a very revealing market in which people buy and sell things.
For sheer convenience I quote wikipedia, viz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market
whose first paragraph states:
“The foreign exchange market (forex, FX, or currency market) is a global decentralized market for the trading of currencies. This includes all aspects of buying, selling and exchanging currencies at current or determined prices. In terms of volume of trading, it is by far the largest market in the world.[1] The main participants in this market are the larger international banks. Financial centres around the world function as anchors of trading between a wide range of multiple types of buyers and sellers around the clock, with the exception of weekends. The foreign exchange market determines the relative values of different currencies.”
I see nothing in that paragraph that is anything but a simple accurate description of what the foreign exchange market does and is.
What is the commodity that is traded on this exchange?
Answer: currencies – money! Now I have encountered arguments that currencies are not money. Such an argument – to my mind – is as substantial as the mythical argument about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
Inference: money is – de facto – a commodity! Evidence: the largest of all markets buys money of one currency with money of another currency.
Should money be a commodity? I think we both agree that money should not be a commodity. But that does not change the fact that money is a commodity. And that fact is due to a confidence trick whose logic goes back to the false idea that money is a store of value.
Todd, you believe that your money “represents proven earned physical or material wealth exchange value”, and you use it properly to exchange for real commodities – the things you and your family need and want in order to go on living.
After you have spent your money, its “exchange value” lives on. Something of the order of half of what you spend ends up being paid as interest to banks, but the money keeps on being exchanged over and over. Eventually what’s left ends up with “the larger international banks” who manipulate the “proven earned physical or material wealth exchange value” of all the workers of every currency domain in the world.
Everything you spend pays usury to the usurers!
Beggars?! In the richest country that has ever existed?!
Compassion of employed ordinary people for beggars is a virtuous and admirable thing.
That beggars exist in the richest country that has ever existed is vicious to an extreme that should be unthinkable.
Bill Clinton – as I recall – had difficulty understanding the meaning of the word “is”.
If we cannot agree that money IS a commodity, then how can we investigate money and its manifold pathologies?
The monetary civilization we are trapped in is mad. In our mad civilization, money is not a real commodity (where real = honest or bona fide) but money is a real commodity (where real = actual or de facto).
Your money is not your money. Your money is the usurers’ money. They control the “exchange value” of your money; and they can reduce the unit of account of your money to approximately zero at any time! The only way you can cease serving Organized Usury is to cease using their money!
If we cannot settle this issue, then we will remain blocked by it, and will be unable to proceed further.
I’ll leave that ball in your court.
And I’ll respond separately to your other response.
Cheers
Brother Todd, it is sobering to think that brother Arthur lived to the age of 78 years, and has been dead for 78 years. Organized Usury gets ever stronger.
I finished reading “A Fraudulent Standard” a couple of days ago, and am well into “The Bankers’ Conspiracy”. After I finish the latter, I will post my preliminary comments to both together.
Cheers
Good evening Brother Alan.
Yes, I do have an understanding that exchange value notes do represent
proven wealth from labor and the human ingenuity of raw made into
finished products for social exchange and satisfaction.
The only actual commadity for all of this is human labor and needs and
their intellectual ability to satisfy each other with their own peculiar talents.
That was the once perfect invention of an exchange value notes and coins.
With their values only representing human production and the value of raw
or finished material to satisfy local communities fully and then exporting raw
and finished works that could create potential allies instead of enemies.
Why should indigenous labor and ingenuity not be allowed to satisfy its
own population but instead seek out compromised exchange value notes in a
foreign land with foreign labor when our own domestic and previously
productive population has been excluded nearly altogether for the exchange
Of a Fraudulant Standard?
Human physical and intellectual potential and production is the ONLY REAL VALUE
in this world.
That “value” does NOT need to be borrowed into existence.
Is that not the essence of Shariah law?
If a house is worth 150,000 when you buy it, and you put $75,000 down,
and since you have shown some ability, when you pay the other $75,000,
you get the Deed for not one penny more or less because the house was
worth $150,000 when you put a down on it.
You get to own it outright.
No 1913 unconstitutional property taxes.
The only “commodity” in this world is human labor and life.
Once upon a time, this invention represented true human labor and exchange
value.
“Money” lent at interest does not represent human value and potential.
It is the arresting of both.
Our current system is nothing more than a promise of more war,
And Israel would win. Not America and not the rest of the world.
Dear brother Todd, I understand your explanation of how you would like the civilization we are part of, to be.
And you plainly understand that the reality we live in is a long long way from how you would like it to be.
You mention “the once perfect invention of an exchange value notes and coins”.
When and where was that?
The earliest money I know of was in Sumer about 3,000 BC, did NOT involve coins or notes – just weights of silver or barley – and was already usurious, with an interest rate equivalent to about 20% per year.
Coins did not emerge until about 2,400 years later – the earliest known, according to http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/articles/oldest-coin, being sometime after 610 BC.
I simply do not understand what you mean by “Human physical and intellectual potential and production is the ONLY REAL VALUE in this world.”
We humans are part of this world’s biosphere. We are dispensable to the biosphere, but the biosphere is indispensable to us. We could not survive without a healthy biosphere. The value to us of the biosphere is REAL and immense!
Your example of purchasing a house assumes a stable standard or unit of account – a condition so painstakingly considered by brother Arthur, and revealed to be untrustworthy and wide open to fraudulent manipulation and administration. But then, I realize you were describing how you would like things to be.
I’m just having a second look at brother Arthur’s two books before commenting on them.
My heart grieves for him toiling so long and hard, and being just toyed with by corrupt traitors.
Cheers
Hello brother,
Colonial Script, the English Tally Stick,
Ancient African tribes used animal dung to reflect exchange values.
These are a few answers to your previous question.
There are many others examples.
Our biosphere is now being destroyed because of the current fraudulent
standard of exchange value our Judaic masters have forced us to employ.
Mr Kitson states openly in the beginning that he is addressing the common
people of England and writes these works in their behalf so that they could
understand the importance and machinations that were working against
their own inherent interest.
Food has inherent value for all.
Education has inherent value for all.
Gold has inherent value for at least some.
None of these can be the base standard of value for an exchange note that represents
something that it has never possessed(food, gold, clothing etc) , but only represents an independent value to one that
needs or desires them for their own use or necessity.
Human intellectual and physical and social value of production is what we
are now considering.
Under this current Judaic exchange value system, our biosphere is being destroyed.
Our social and natural fabric is being torn.
Why should Europe or America or any country have to borrow its own notes that provide
exchange value for its own citizens production and trade at interest from the Bank of London,
The Fed?
This Judaic system demands aggression and corruption and constant assault of the biosphere
of this world in which we humans are a very important and very manipulated part of.
I am pretty sure that Mr Kitson died an unhappy man in that he could not reach enough of
his countrymen with simple English to make a difference in what he saw was definitely coming.
And now, here we are.
Orwellian dystopia.
“There are two ways to conquer a nation.
One is by sword.
The other, by debt”.
Thanks brother Todd.
Please bear with me as I sweat and groan my way through a second reading of A Fraudulent Standard and The Bankers’ Conspiracy. After the first reading I found myself scratching my head in bewilderment. How could he expose and explain so much fraud and treachery without effect and without drawing obvious inferences? I guess the British laws about defamation and slander may have been a factor, and perhaps some sort of class loyalty to decent chaps, and yet again from his own point of view as an entrepreneurial and innovative producer.
The second reading is revealing to me that brother Arthur’s point of view seems to have blinded him to another point of view that could render the “fraudulent standard” irrelevant.
Anyway, I’ll write about that after finishing the second reading.
Needless to say, I accept the validity of his criticisms of the monetary system existing then and now. But the key difference is in the point of view – the world view if you like. It looks different, and is different, and should be amenable to quite different modes of management, and may be amenable to preventing the pernicious corruption and treachery that plagues our status quo.
Anyway, it could be a week or more before I write.
OK brother Todd, I’ve done my reading of Arthur Kitson’s two books, “A Fraudulent Standard” and “The Bankers’ Conspiracy” which I will henceforth denote as AFS and TBC.
Where to begin? Most of what he wrote, I strongly agree with. Mostly he wrote about the many errors made by British government officials and their private expert advisers in the administration of the institutions of money, currency and credit. That approach – seeing errors – was inappropriately generous in my view. Seeing such incorrigible errors as treason would have been far more accurate. To be fair to Kitson, I presume he would have been warned by his legal advisers of the perils of being sued for slander or defamation by rich and powerful men backed by the richest and most powerful of men.
In fact he wrote about how the institutions of money, currency and credit have been administered corruptly in every conceivable way under the pretence of errors committed by very clever men over and over and over again and again. Such is the non-accountability of the institution of money. Such is the level and pervasiveness of corruption in modern nation states.
I will not bore you with describing all the points where I agree with Kitson. Instead I will focus on points of disagreement.
Let’s get a few of these out of the way where Kitson was just plain wrong.
On AFS p 18 Kitson wrote: “Nations and societies are organisms, and are destined to progress or perish.” That is a conceptual error. Nations and societies are not organisms, but are organizations made up of organisms whose motivations may (or may not) be in harmony with the well-being of the organization they are part of. In contrast, organisms are living beings made up of specialized organs whose motivations are predetermined to be in complete harmony with the organism they are part of.
The best of organizations would try to emulate the integrity of an organism as best they could by the component organisms serving the well-being of the organization to their utmost. But such discipline is not hard-wired, and has to be voluntary. Of course, no organization comes anywhere near the integrity of a healthy organism.
Sadly, the organisms administering the monetary institutions of Britain – as so comprehensively described by Kitson – did so in flagrant neglect of the well-being of the British people they were duty bound to serve. To be fair, Kitson never tired of urging those traitors to learn from their errors, while apparently never quite admitting to himself that their errors were not errors but intentional betrayal of the British people in favour of people variously denoted as “financiers”, “gamblers”, “bullionists”, etc, often preceded by the adjective “cosmopolitan”.
Brother Todd, I have a faint recollection of reading that the original 1917 edition of AFS was published without the final Chapter XV presenting Kitson’s No-money Island fable, but I have been unable to confirm that recollection. Do you know whether or not that was the case, Todd? It makes sense that it would have been excluded because there is no lack of specificity or clarity in the fable – the ship-wrecked usurers who ended up in total ownership and abusive domination of the island and its people were Jews. And the No-money Island people’s solution to their problem was to massacre the Jews. Nothing ambiguous about that. And I find it hard to imagine that the British wartime censor – so soon after the Balfour Declaration – would have tolerated that.
Another error worth noting is Kitson’s perception of FDR. This is clear from a couple of quotes:
TBC p 44 ““We cannot allow our economic life to be controlled by that small group of men whose chief outlook upon the social welfare is tinctured by the fact that they can make huge profits from the lending of money and the marketing of securities – an outlook which deserves the adjectives ‘selfish’ and ‘opportunist’.”
This quotation from a recent work by President Roosevelt is the most hopeful outlook both for the American public and for the world at large. Will our politicians have the intelligence and the wisdom to follow the President’s lead? I doubt it.”
TBC p 101 “Fortunately for our trans-Atlantic neighbours, they have at last found a MAN as President who understands the bankers’ game, and is not afraid of their shouts and threats.”
Kitson died on 1937-10-02 at a time when banker’s man FDR was feverishly engineering a second great war in Europe.
In trying to find out more about his death, I came across https://www.polaroidblipfoto.com/entry/2718458 which includes: “By the time of his death in 1937, Arthur Kitson was the second most influential fascist in Britain, the first being Oswald Moseley. In his late years he was brought to Germany to consult with Nazi party economists. After I bought this pamphlet (in the photo) on line, the seller asked if I was interested in his other material, including a title on “Jewish ritual murder.” I did not reply.”
That is fascinating. I can only infer that Kitson’s FDR illusions must have at some stage succumbed to reality. It makes sense that Hitler, Feder and the NSDAP would have been interested in Kitson’s work, and consulted with him. It also makes sense that brother Arthur may not have died of natural causes. No point speculating about that.
Before commencing my take on Kitson’s ideas about money I want to quote his conclusion to TBC p 102:
“The post-war period, ushered in an entirely new era, unlike any former period in the world’s history; a period in which man’s inventive genius has placed within mankind’s reach boundless wealth, sufficient for every inhabitant of this planet to enjoy life without encroaching upon supplies needed by any of his fellows; a period in which Nature’s powers have been harnessed to machinery for furnishing all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life, thereby releasing man from the original curse. And yet amidst all this abundance, we are inundated with myriads of starving, ragged people all because our officials have not the intelligence to see that the old economic theories have become fallacies, the old monetary and banking systems unworkable, and that just as our productive methods to which we owe this Age of plenty have been revolutionized, so our entire economic system must be reorganized.”
Kitson was a producer and wrote about production having been “revolutionized”, so much so that “all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life” can be provided “for every inhabitant of this planet”. As a producer, he was proud of that achievement, and rightly so.
My reason for presenting this quote is because it implies a fundamental truism that should apply for all nations no matter how small or large. The raison d’être for all nations should be to meet the needs and reasonable wants of all its people. That fundamental principle needs to be kept in mind in all that follows.
On p 24 of AFS Kitson wrote: “Now the most serious feature of this world-wide money monopoly, is the power it gives a few men to alter the purchasing power of money whenever it is to their advantage to do so. The operation is extremely simple. The business of the world is conducted chiefly upon credit by means of loans, so that the mere calling in of loans and the refusal to extend credit suffices greatly to increase the purchasing power of money. A similar result can be obtained by withdrawing gold supplies from circulation, and by reversing these processes prices can be advanced and the danger from the previous operations relieved. Hence the world’s financiers have the power to acquire unlimited wealth by merely juggling with prices.”
On pp 66-7 of AFS Kitson wrote: “Next in importance to our physical units of measurements, ranks our monetary system in terms of which the values of commodities are indicated, exchanges are effected, debts are made and paid, and property and wealth of every description is estimated. During the past century, money has assumed an economic and social importance and power greater than it has ever possessed in the world’s history. It is by means of money that the annual wealth production of all industrial countries is distributed, and any serious variation in the general purchasing power of the monetary unit necessarily inflicts injustice and hardship upon nearly all classes — the producing classes more especially. The monetary unit, therefore, should be established in such a way as to prevent its being subjected to sudden variations in supply and demand which would affect its purchasing power.”
On AFS pp 74-5 Kitson asserts, in economics, “Between what should be and what is, a great gulf has hitherto been fixed, consisting of laws, privileges, customs, superstition and ignorance. The basis of every economic system should be justice, the reign of which has not yet commenced, and the meaning of which is little understood in spite of our much vaunted civilization.
It may be well to understand, however, that without justice, without fair exchange, no satisfactory system of economics can exist.
Dealing principally with human actions, economics is necessarily related to and should be considered a branch of the science of ethics.”
Throughout AFS Kitson repeatedly referred to economics as a “science”. No discipline deserving to be called a science would tolerate “a great gulf” between “what should be and what is”. That this gulf involves corrupt “laws, privileges, customs, superstition and ignorance” indicates that economics hardly even deserves to be regarded as an art; perhaps an artful racket might be an apt label.
I can agree that “without justice, without fair exchange, no satisfactory system of economics can exist”. More fundamentally, without honesty no satisfactory system of economics can exist.
Kitson also refers to ethics as a “science”. Here too I think it might be more apt to consider ethics as an “art”, with the proviso that any bona fide art should operate with the same rigour and honesty that science demands.
In any case, I agree with Kitson that economics should operate as a branch of ethics. Economics should be all about fairness and justice in human commerce. In other words, economics should be all about preventing dishonesty in human commerce. The gulf between what is and what should be is immense.
I think these few quotes are enough to get started.
So Kitson well understood the paramount importance of the needs of a society’s people. All else is – should be – subordinate. Yet, for the most part, his focus was on purchasing power. And money – as we have known it hitherto – is all about power.
Money is the power to command others to provide us with goods and services. If I have the money, I can find people willing to do whatever I want.
Ordinary people every day use money to command people to provide us with goods and services. And we enjoy exercising purchasing power. Just about everybody loves exercising purchasing power. And the people who love it the most are the richest of all people, those who control the issuing of purchasing power. I will refer to them as Organized Usury, the cosmopolitans in charge of international and intranational banking.
To Organized Usury, the needs of ordinary people count for nothing beyond survival of valuable livestock so that money can be issued to them, pass through their hands, and end up with Organized Usury who have used all that almost unlimited purchasing power to purchase as much of the world’s wealth as they can. To Organized Usury the ordinary people of all nations are important – but only as herds of animals from whom Organized Usury harvests purchasing power.
So the needs of ordinary people are not paramount. Purchasing power is paramount!
I’m thinking that the cosmopolitan bankers would have been content with Kitson’s focus on purchasing power rather than the needs of ordinary people.
Why does that matter?
On AFS p 125 Kitson wrote: “The essential functions of money are therefore (1) to express the exchange-values of commodities, (2) to facilitate the exchange of commodities, (3) to register debts in terms of some invariable denominator, and (4) to transfer private debts to the community, and credits from one person to another.”
Let’s rephrase Kitson’s four essential functions of money in terms of needs rather than purchasing power. (1) to measure the relative value of commodities by means of a reliable unit of account; (2) to enable easy access to necessary commodities by means of single-use tickets of entitlement which need not be paper, but could be electronically accessed via smart cards or the like; (3) to record transactions in terms of the same reliable unit of account; (4) to enable easy issue of entitlements by the society’s rigorously managed issuing institution, based on the needs of families, individuals, and providers of goods and services. Providers of goods and services would be held accountable, not by profit or loss, but by the satisfaction of customers with the goods or services provided.
Crucial differences/advantages of such a society from/over present societies would include: (1) there would be no need for banks of any kind; (2) there would be no need for private for-profit insurance corporations – such reformed societies could be organized so that recovery from disasters would be accepted as a societal responsibility, met according to needs via economic (in the ancient sense) employment of resources; (3) allocation of entitlements would be subject to societal priorities determined by recurrent plebiscites conducted on the basis of constantly upgraded information about the society’s available resources so that basic needs and reasonable wants would always be covered; (4) the provision of public services would be via delegating responsibility to elected officials and groups, subject to ongoing accountability whereby means would always be available to call such officials and groups to account and, if need be, dismissed, and new elections organized to elect replacement officials; (5) such a society would not allow any individual or group to become rich and powerful; (6) which leaves the society with an important problem – what to do with the residual riches and the power enabled by such wealth remaining from the old unreformed society?
One would hope that the process of reformation would have already resolved that problem as peacefully as possible. Undoubtedly, such a process of reformation would involve a multitude of specific issues needing to be resolved. No attempt will be made here to exhaustively determine what they might be. The fundamental changes listed above are sufficient to gauge what the quality of life might be like in such a reformed society. Some may argue that such reforms might stifle personal and group initiative. In my opinion, the opposite would be the case. Practical people with good ideas would be regarded as one of society’s most valuable resources, and would be provided with resources to develop their ideas – not for profit in wealth and power – but to serve the common good of their society, and to be honoured for so doing. Aristotle warned us that profit was an unhealthy form of motivation because it engenders in some people an insatiable wish for ever greater wealth, and the quality of goods or services provided by such people suffers accordingly. And price competition forces other providers to also lower the quality of the goods and services they provide. Aristotle chose the military and medical arts to exemplify the point. The parallel in our times with corruption in the military and medical industrial complexes is striking. The alternative to profit as a motive to work would be interest and aptitude for such work, and desire to serve the common good of the society one belongs to.
OK, we have just argued that money should cease functioning as transferable purchasing power, and should be replaced by single-use-only tickets of entitlement to goods and services.
What about the unit of account issue?
Kitson repeatedly advocated the need for a stable, reliable unit of account, but wavered and showed inconsistency mainly caused by the “store of value” factor.
On AFS p 100, Kitson wrote: “The logical conclusion to which we are inevitably driven is one that will no doubt arouse considerable astonishment. In order that it may satisfactorily perform its necessary functions — particularly that of a value denominator and accurately register the variations in the exchange values of commodities — money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket. The one pound Treasury note, of course, meets this definition, provided its issue is not restricted by such absurdities as gold-redemption, and so long as the supply is sufficient to meet all the demands of trade, industry and commerce.”
He contradicts himself even in this particular quotation. A railway or theatre ticket loses its value the instant it is used. “The one pound Treasury note” does not meet “this definition” because it retains its value after the first and every subsequent use. Money which stores value is the answer to Organized Usury’s prayer. Single use tickets of entitlement would put an end to Organized Usury’s racket.
On TBC p 63 Kitson wrote: “The modern and generally accepted theory of monetary science is known as the quantitative theory, which asserts that the value of the money unit is determined by the number of units in circulation multiplied by their velocity of circulation. This theory is in direct opposition to the old barter or commodity-money theory. For it claims that quantity and not quality controls the value of money. Hence it is absolutely immaterial so far as value is concerned, whether a nation employs paper money or gold and silver coins so long as the number of units in circulation is the same in both cases.”
TBC was published in 1933. In the 16 years since AFS was published in 1917, Kitson abandoned the idea that “money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket”. Thank you not, Irving Fisher for the “generally accepted” “quantitative theory” of “monetary science” “which asserts that the value of the money unit is determined by the number of units in circulation multiplied by their velocity of circulation.”
What is hidden in all that gobbledygook? What is hidden is the false belief that value can be stored in the monetary unit of account. That false belief is the beating heart of Organized Usury.
Arthur Kitson was right in 1917 when he said that “money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket”! Must! How was he seduced away from the realization that value cannot be stored? Who seduced him?
What is stored value? It is a reservoir of power – purchasing power – the power to command people to provide goods and services – the power to purchase the service of politicians, administrators, legislators, judicial officials, practitioners of any art – the power to punish or attack any person or group who is disobedient. Power!
Suddenly, just now, a childhood memory came to mind. There was no TV then, but there was radio. And a scene from a radio presentation of a children’s story came through my mind’s ear. A girl laments: “Here I sit at my spinning wheel; no one knows how sad I feel; …” A scene from the story of Rumpelstiltskin.
The story can be read at http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Rum.shtml.
The sad girl was a miller’s daughter whose father had lied to the king that his daughter could spin straw into gold. The king summoned the poor girl and commanded her to spin straw into gold, on pain of death if she didn’t. Enter Rumpelstiltskin, a devilish imp who rescued the girl by doing the job for her, and …
Well, weaving straw into gold is quite a trick.
Weaving a unit of account into a store of value is no less a trick. In fact of the two, the more impressive is the latter because it has been achieved in the real world, while the former is merely a fantasy.
The good thing about fantasies is that, no matter how bad things get, it all ends happily – the Shylockian Rumpelstiltskin gets his just deserts, although that very nasty King avoided getting his just deserts.
The bad thing about the real world is that, no matter how bad things get, they always seem able to get even worse. The King now serves Rumpelstiltskin.
But what about a stable unit of account providing reliable measurements of the relative value of goods and services? Do we need such a scale? I think we do, so long as entitlements are issued according to need and reasonable wants, and nobody is in a position to profit from manipulating either prices or the unit of account.
Kitson does describe in principle how a reliable scale for measuring the value of goods and services could be devised. Keep in mind, he was thinking in terms of money as purchasing power, having “exchange-value” that is transferable. That is important because it means that the unit of account stores the value that it measures which – frankly! – is impossible. Nonetheless, the procedure he describes would be possible if money were issued as single-use-only entitlements to goods and services, so that interested parties could not manipulate prices in their own favour.
Kitson’s description is something like a dog’s breakfast, so I will try to paraphrase and clarify simultaneously.
The rationale is to set up a vast database of relative values. For example, the value of commodity A relative to commodity B is estimated by a group of impartial people which might include producers of A, producers of B, consumers of A, consumers of B, and consumers of A and B. Each person estimates separately, the results tabulated, and discussion then takes place among all estimators to arrive at a consensus or majority final evaluation, say xA = yB, or A = (y/x)B. The same procedure takes place for all possible pairs of commodities.
The resultant huge database would then be processed mathematically to arrive at a practically convenient unit of account, and a final database in which the relative value of all commodities are expressed in that unit of account. Actually Kitson used the term “denominator” instead of “unit of account”, and I imagine the mathematical task would be to determine the most convenient level of denomination – not necessarily the lowest common denominator, but the most practically convenient denominator, and to express the relative value of all commodities in that denominator or unit.
I think the above description is consistent with what Kitson intended, although I don’t think he described it so clearly in either AFS or TBC, nor in as much detail. His method of determining relative values may have been more or less rigorous than described by me.
Since the denominator would no longer function as a store of value, it would no longer function as power, and entitlement tickets would expire once spent. The opportunity of becoming rich and powerful would be denied to all, but access to needed goods and services and to reasonable wants would be guaranteed to all. Such wishes on my part were not aspirations of Kitson, although please recall Kitson’s conclusion to TBC on p 102 where he advocated with quiet passion that “all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life” could be provided “for every inhabitant of this planet”. But I think he never quite escaped the intoxication of money-as-power, so that money-as-entitlement in his mind never quite got to the stage of pushing money-as-power off its throne.
Of course, Organized Usury would resist the dethroning of money-as-power with all the force it could muster, whatever it takes. History shows that Organized Usury would not stop short of murder and genocide.
They would see the prospect of money-as-entitlement administered for the long-term common good on an economical not-for-profit basis as an attack on their existence. Actually their existence as Organized Usury would be destroyed, but they would still have the option of living an ordinary life as ordinary persons. And, of course, the issue of odious wealth and the odious power that goes with odious wealth would need to be resolved in favour of the common good. So the come down for the Organized Usury people would be very great. But surely entitlement to goods and services meeting basic needs and reasonable wants would not be such a heavy cross for them to bear.
I think I should stop there, and see what – if any – responses you have brother Todd. To go further would be to push my own barrow along the extensive ramifications of the money-as-entitlement path rather than responding to brother Arthur’s ideas about the money-as-power path.
I should thank you for inducing me to read these two books of Arthur Kitson because in so doing I saw clearly the choice which Kitson was aware of to some extent but shied away from – based on these two books alone. Maybe in the remaining 4 years of his life he may have moved closer to money-as-entitlement as opposed to money-as-power. Those options really are opposed. That is clear to me now.
And money-as-power still rules – run by Organized Usury!
Alan,
You are arguing in elegant circles.
The railroad ticket purchased with a soveign exchange
value note still holds equivilant value to the one that sold
the ticket.
Same as it does today.
The railroad and the hardware store and the supermarket
will today, like then, deposit them into the bank as earned
and stored value.
You are making this difficult to follow. The whole point of
Arthur Kitson’s works were as he stated. To make it easy
for the average to understand.
Money does NOT have to be borrowed into existence.
Soveign national monies can be loaned into existence,
but there is no reasonable need to loan it at usurious and
harmful to the populations interest.
If you, Alan, want to argue these intellectual interest after
acknowledging AK’s most simple points, then this is above
my own intellect and concern.
When I give a $5 bill to a store, that bill represents stored
value.
When that store deposits that same $5 dollar bill into a bank
account, it represents $5 of earned and stored value.
It’s that simple.
That $5 dollar note never had to be borrowed into existence.
It represents production and trade value only.
Keep it simple Alan.
No need for you to prove your intellectual prowess.
This is for the simple folk like me that need to understand the
fraud that is their undoing.
Kitson stated this aim for his writings in the beginning.
He wrote it for the workers, the ones that labored.
In the hope that he would help them to understand the Judaic monetary
system that was leaving them into want and their country at war.
Remember, Britain was at one time a manufacturing “Superpower”
also.
As for the other story about gold and Jews landing on the island.
I have 3 copies of Fraudulent Standard.
All of them are different.
You are resourceful Alan.
If you really want to, you could find it.
I say throw all the world’s gold into the ocean.
We would be no worse for it.
Gold is just silly stupidstition.
Brother Todd, plainly my communicative skill is very weak.
I thought I had clearly distinguished between:
money issued as entitlement to goods and services to be used once only; and
money issued as purchasing power to be used over and over, maintaining its purchasing power until eventually it falls again into the hands of the bankers who created it as interest bearing debt.
Let’s just deal with one specific detail at a time.
Is that assertion now clear? That there is a fundamental difference between these two options – entitlement to a definite amount of goods and services (which expires immediately it is used) and purchasing power which maintains its value until it returns to the private banks in unlimited amounts.
How the bankers’ accountants handle all that power, I have no idea, but the fact is that extremely rich individuals have come to own a very large proportion of the productive resources of the world.
Can you see that difference? Do you think that difference could make a difference to the well-being of ordinary people in every nation?
If you can’t see the difference, I simply don’t have the ability to simplify it any further.
Peace be upon you, brother Todd.
Brother,
Eliminate interest bearing debt (private issue of public currency and credit).
There is nothing wrong with a $1,$5,$10 or $20 bill.
They simply represent earned and exchange value.
Banks should be nothing more than an individual and social adult version
of a piggy bank. A place to store the value you have earned.
The value that I have earned with my own sweat and ingenuity is not an entitlement
that I or anyone had to borrow at compounding interest.
The offense is a banking system that gets rich on my labor when they do nothing
but extend me invisible money with interest.
Arthur Kitson made this exact point.
Nationalized banks are not there to profit.
Banks should not be a for profit business.
Nationalized banks are there only to safely store the publics earned value.
They are only a place for my neighbors and myself to store all of the
$1’s, $5’s, $10’s and $20’s we have earned.
And if I want to buy a house for $150,000 and have $30,000 to put down, the state
can extend the $120,000 credit to me itself(maybe include a small fee for services)
and when I pay off the $120,000, I gain the deed to the house.
I believe that is the essence of shariah law.
If for some reason I become unable to make the payment for the house,
the state may retake possession of the house and resell it to another.
The state has lost nothing because it extended nothing but credit to me.
Private banks under our Judaic system extend credit to the public and
confiscate public resources and labor for their private profit.
Peace brother.
A bug seems to have got the better of me these last few.
Feeling a bit trampled under foot.
Zero private banks is all I’m sayin.
I believe Mr Jefferson said the same thing.
Brother Todd: sentence by sentence:
1. “Eliminate interest bearing debt (private issue of public currency and credit).”
I agree absolutely.
2. “There is nothing wrong with a $1,$5,$10 or $20 bill.”
I DISAGREE absolutely!
3. “They simply represent earned and exchange value.”
Todd, that is your belief; and the God you believe in is a false God.
This false God is Purchasing Power, and your belief that the money you earn is simply earned value is false. If that were true, that value would be extinguished when you spent it. That does not happen! Its value lives on as Purchasing Power, passing through who knows how many hands until all the earnings of all earners everywhere ends up in the hands of those who run the monetary racket as immense sums of Purchasing Power. They are the people who have purchased everything purchasable in every country, including governments and heads of state.
There’s a challenge for you Todd. Justify your belief in the false God of Purchasing Power.
I am assuming that you can see the immense harm that Purchasing Power has wreaked on the lives of ordinary people everywhere. That Purchasing Power is simply earned value is a lie inflicted on well-meaning workers. The money racketeers operate by means of deception.
Please address this challenge brother Todd. Not while you are ill, but when you have recovered.
Uggh,
The drachma, lira, pound, peso, we could go on and on.
All of them represent earned and stored value of labor and
material wealth.
This “false god I believe in” is an earned and tangible relation
to actual earned wealth.
If I work 8 hours a day, as a farmer, in Spain.
That does indeed have an inherent value for me and for
those that profit from my labor(homes and families, stores that sell
my works etc).
I do NOT have a false god in purchasing power.
The $20 bill is only a false god because it is now borrowed into
existence at usurious interest.
The $20 bill is NOT the problem.
The fact that it is now loaned at interest is the problem.
We use fiat currency everyday. All except that it represents exchange
values.
The thing is, those notes never had to be borrowed into existence.
Because those notes were in fact borrowed(illegally) into existence,
the “lenders” of those notes have captured the actual wealth of nearly
every country.
Material and social wealth they have captured with this scam.
Gold and silver, same as oranges and wheat and beef, are represented
in monetary denominations.
Capture control of the issue of currency.
The Jews saw this long ago.
You want gold?
I hope you gain all of it.
I would much rather gain control of the Jewish issue of currency
and credit.
I believe I would then have sufficient advantage over you and your
golden possessions.
If you work for an amount of time for your own and
even another’s interest, did you not earn wages that
give you purchasing power?
Or does your labor have no cost or exchange value?
Brother Todd, I am not arguing that labour has no value, nor that it has no cost.
Cost? Time and effort.
“Exchange value”? That term is dear to your heart. “Exchange value” = “purchasing power” = “entitlement to goods and services”. Can you see that these conceptions/expressions are equal in the reality they represent?
Plain facts: you work, you command provision of the goods and services you and your dependents need to go on living, and the power your labour earned changes hands over and over again and ends up as power, along with the power that every other worker has earned, in the hands of our masters. That is “the problem”!
That is the reason our masters lend money at interest which WE BOTH AGREE is also “the problem” – opposite end of the same problem.
The reason why our rulers allow you to exist is that you work for them!
Your work ends up as power in their hands.
They make sure that the goods and services you need will be just within your power to command.
Whether you like it or not, you are their slave. So am I. So are all workers and consumers.
I think we both agree that Arthur Kitson’s work was valuable – although it made no difference at all to the progress of the monetary juggernaut. No difference at all.
He even confronted the ‘store-of-value’-versus-‘single-use-ticket-of-entitlement’ issue back in 1917 (or even earlier perhaps) but (why, we can only guess) backed away from it, never to develop this idea further in the remaining two decades of his life.
I sympathize with your “Uggh” – I stomped all over your cherished belief in “Purchasing Power” = “Exchange Value”.
I can assure you, our masters cherish your belief in “Purchasing Power” = “Exchange Value” even more than you do. Their immense power depends on those beliefs.
Now please explain what’s wrong with our servants issuing us with single-use tickets of entitlement instead of our masters issuing interest-bearing debt. I do not understand why that alternative is so repulsive.
Let us concentrate on your last two sentences.
First, the issue of money provides a service for labour and
production exchange value.
The laborer is a sevant under the current monetary system.
Even if the servant issued the currency at interest, he would make others
and himself a slave under the same system if it had to be borrowed into
existence.
This should not be the case. Exchange value does not have to be borrowed into
existence by kings nor serfs.
It represents only the value of the saw, hammer, plow, seed, etc.
It is human value and ingenuity and labor and the benefit these have to
family and society that has the only true value.
These do not have to be borrowed into existence at usurious rates.
That is not exchange value. That is slavery.
I told you long before, gold may feed a rich man. But what use is this
to society and social order if the rest are left wanting because of a
Faith in something so superstitious?
Consider an exchange value within a single village and/or country and
not an international oligarchy.
Please consider this.
Peace and good will all day every day, brother Todd.
I really am an ineffective communicator.
The “servant” issuing entitlements was meant to be a government answerable at all times to the people it exists to serve.
I did not make that clear so, there’s no way you could have understood what I meant.
We agree that the status quo “is slavery”.
Can we postpone dealing with the exchange value versus entitlements impasse until after we discuss the next crucial issue which might actually influence dealing with the impasse?
Those dominating the status quo have accumulated ownership of an immense proportion of the productive resources of the world over centuries. I regard such wealth as odious in the same sense that abusive financiers seducing people, organizations and nations into a trap of unpayable debt is odious debt.
A social order based on fairness would write off all odious debt. If such an approach is just, then, in my opinion, so too would be writing off odious wealth.
Now I could go on and on and on about that issue, but I won’t.
Would you please share your thoughts on what should be done about odious debt and odious wealth?
Where do you begin your criticism when the article is a load of shit, from the first word to the last. The holocaust has already been disproven many times over already, notably when they tore down the sign at Auschwitz in 1993 after almost fifty years that claimed four million people were murdered there and changed the official figure to one million people, still without a shred of proof. The same thing can be said about every aspect of the holocaust story – the Jews and their allies lied about everything. This is all out in the open now. That is why historians and scientists in Europe are jailed for revealing the truth. Germany’s former enemies have been exposed as the biggest liars in human history.
Ah, Peter, if only it were “all out in the open now”. Nothing is out in the open if the mainstream media totally excludes it.
If we ordinary people don’t get organized and clean up our governments and our mainstream media, the biggest liars in human history will write human history and will thereby become the greatest truth tellers in all of human history.
I have to admit… I didn’t even read the article. But, the picture with A. Wyatt Mann’s caricature cracked me up!
The Jews absolutely need the legend of the ” Holocaust ” .
That term itself ,” burnt offerings ,to Yahweh “.
Holocaust is is shield ,and sword they use to control the world .
The story has changed over,and over…The methods,motivations, logistics. .Some morons still use the 11 million sum !
My local paper still does !
The Gentiles just love the higher figure,thinking they can derive some ” victimhood” from it ….of course to keep nailing Germany to the cross too.
Guess what religious nuts Tea Party, and assorted ignoramuses in the Liberal /Conservative matrix?
Only Jews allowed .. Ok ?
Field trips for the children students.
Remember how excited you were then.
Soaking up every minute you had there
and the impressions that were made on
you?
Mine were always hiking into mountains
and nature and ranches.
It made quite an impression on me.
I still remember moments of those times
when I am 50.
I would guess that this is a devious way to
embed another childhood impression for a
generation for another 50 years.
The Jews know that this is the one utter
left on an old and tired cow.
It’s all they have had for a while now.
And they will milk it for every drop.
The thing is,
The milk is sour, and the meat is too old
and rotten to eat.
The “Holocaust” is pure Jewish/Soviet lies & propaganda to a) Have a solid excuse to steal Palestine and b) distract from the REAL HOLOCAUST by the Red Commie Jews’ slaughter of 60,000,000 gentiles between 1917 & 1945. If you want to see what life is like under the heel of the Jew, just study the Soviet Union from 1917-1945 and also the Weimar Republic which mirrors the USA today.
#5 Todd Raine: Yes, our belief in The Holocaust is important to them.
But that ain’t the most important of our false beliefs. The holiest of our false beliefs is not The Holocaust – not by a long way.
The most important of our false beliefs is the belief that money stores (= has!) value.
That is not just another udder; that is The Milk Corporation LLC.
Just about every person on the planet is dependent for survival on their money.
Money don’t need a memorial tour to keep that false belief going.
It just needs people spending their money for the essentials of life.
Nonetheless, as Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, The Holocaust industry is itself quite a good earner for them – a nice little cherry on top of a dish bigger than Mount Everest.
Hi Alan. I understand what you are saying and I agree. But the only thing holding up the big lie is the omission of the truth by the mainstream media and the repetition of already disproven lies. I am comfortable saying 95% of what they say are lies. I didn’t know this ten years ago. The revisionist historians have uncovered damning evidence uncovering the Jews lies.
@Alan Krernes,
I agree with you on this also.
I have before spoken here of this most important
subject and provided references for any that would
care to/dare to read them.
This is a most important subject. One that in our
situation voids maybe the most important part of
Our constitution.(Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5).
Money cannot add more value or volume or demand for itself
any more than water or any other resource can.
“Money” represents only exchange value and must be
independent of artificial values and fluctuating demands of material
markets.
America’s revolutionary war was principally fought against the
confiscation of our debt free continental currency in which
we, the soveirgn citizens of the colonies, controlled the
value of our own currency without having to borrow the
Usury debt based Judaic scheme from the Judaic
Bank of London in order to do business and trade with
our neighbors and partners.
The Judaic Bank of London sent British ships and armies
to stop this “rebellion”.
Now we just send planes, and drones, and mercinary thugs
to squash any similar “rebellion”.
So, back to point Alan.
I agree wholly with you.
Thank you again for the work you are doing here.
#9 Todd Raine: Thanks for the kind thoughts, Todd.
Article 1, Section 1 states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 states that the Congress “shall have Power” (see Clause 1) “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”.
Clause 2 gives Congress the “Power” to “borrow Money on the credit of the United States”.
BIG QUESTION: What is money?
The Constitution does not define what money is! Organized Usury would have been delighted with that. It is my understanding that at least one of the “Founding Fathers” could be regarded as an agent of Organized Usury, and would therefore have had a direct say in what the Constitution says. I am thinking of Alexander Hamilton, but my knowledge of the history is only sketchy, so I invite correction and elaboration.
We can infer from Clause 5 that money is:
1. something that can be coined; and
2. something that has value.
We can also infer that “foreign Coin” also has value which may differ from the value of American Coin.
And I think it is important to note that the Power to “fix the Standard of Weights and Measures” is included alongside of the Power to “coin Money”.
NOTE VERY CAREFULLY:
1. reliable standards of measurement are utterly essential for trade and commerce to be conducted fairly/honestly;
2. money has only one honest function – as a standard of measurement of value (usually referred to as the “unit of account”);
3. the self-proclaimed “science” of economics teaches us that money has two other basic functions in addition to the “unit of account”; these teachings are learned and applied WITHOUT QUESTION by economists and almost all ordinary people;
4. the first of these two additional functions (“medium of exchange”) derives from the second (“store of value”).
Now I want you to consider an assertion:
value can only be stored in real things which have real value.
If you accept that assertion as necessarily true, it follows that a measurement of value expressed as a number of units of account can itself have no value.
You might have a thousand dollars worth of timber.
The timber has a value of $1,000; but
a thousand dollars has zero value.
It’s the same logic as having a thousand metres of a certain grade of timber.
The timber has a length of 1,000 metres; but
a thousand metres has zero length.
Measurements are abstractions. They do not, and cannot, possess the concrete dimensions that they measure.
At this stage you are probably feeling irritated, and possibly even thinking that the writer (yours truly) is nuts. That’s OK. You are experiencing the discomfort of what is called cognitive dissonance.
I am telling you that money cannot store value, and therefore has zero value.
Your whole life experience is telling you that money can store value. You can save money in a bank account, and withdraw money later on, and spend it, and its value has been saved.
My response to that is. You have been tricked by the most successful tricksters ever – the people who run Organized Usury.
Once upon a time, people had to be forced to accept and use money as we know it. The Legal Tender laws make it compulsory to accept and use money as payment for goods and services, settlement of debts, payment of taxes, etc. The coercive element is downplayed, even suppressed. I don’t recall it ever mentioned in my schooling.
If you want clear brief evidence of the coercive element, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hut_Tax_War_of_1898 which describes how the British Empire coerced the people of Sierra Leone to use British money. It must be said that the British Empire was a faithful servant of Organized Usury, and present day Great Britain and the nations comprising the British Commonwealth continue that tradition of service.
The most cunning aspect of the money trick is that Organized Usury allows the unit of account to be fairly stable most of the time. People love the convenience of money, and they love exercising what is called “purchasing power”.
Economists dress up the fluctuations of money as if such fluctuations were as natural as the weather. They talk of the business cycle of booms and busts like meteorologists explaining the dynamics of air pressure and other natural variables. All of this allows Organized Usury to manage the business cycle by varying the money supply and varying the prices of things, both of which they are in a position to control. This also means they are in a position to gamble on changes that they are in control of. That’s not gambling. That’s farming.
Money is created when people or organizations borrow money from a bank. The money is typed into the borrower’s account after the borrower has contracted to repay the amount borrowed plus a compounding annual rate of interest. Thus are the people and organizations (including governments) of societies made bonded servants of Organized Usury.
All money is debt repayable at compounding interest. There is far more money (debt!) in existence in the form of derivatives of all sorts, than can ever be repaid.
Do ordinary people have to accept this situation?
Can ordinary people demand that the principle of “Odious Debt” be applied?
Should ordinary people demand that the principle of “Odious Debt” be applied?
If we do that, should we also demand that the principle of “Odious Assets” be applied?
What is odious debt? Look it up and – guess what? – you’ll find explanations not unsympathetic to Organized Usury.
I would define it as all usurious loans.
What are odious assets? Look it up and – guess what? – you’ll find nothing.
I would define it as all assets acquired by usurious or other dishonest means.
What value is the US Constitution to ordinary people with regard to money?
Zero!
What value is the US Constitution to Organized Usury?
World Domination!
Who does the buck stop with?
@Alan,
I agree with you on Hamilton, and with the
rest of your summation.
The constitution will not protect anyone without
knowledge of it and how and who it has been
usurped by.
There are other books and authors I have and
do recommend on this subject.
On the money question, I have referenced these
books by Arthur Kitson here before.
1-The Money Problem
2-Trade Fallacies; A Criticism of Existing Methods,
And Suggestions for Reform Towards National Prosperity
3-A Fraudulent Standard
4-The Bankers Conspiracy! Which Started The World Crises
Of course, there are other great books to read on this subject.
These are by far not the least important, and well worth the
time spent.
Resources(material and human resources) are all that
actually produces individual and common wealth.
Human energy and need is the only thing that can production
value.
“Money” merely represents an exchange rate of the actual value
and must remain independent of any artificial(man made)
fluctuation.
As you said, it is unnatural(impossible) for “money” by itself to be
able to reproduce itself in a reliable system.
I very much appreciated reading your summary of this most
important subject the whole world is being forced to learn quickly.
I hope that we discuss this subject more here.
Thank you for your work.
Todd: and thank you for your work too.
I agree: there is no more important topic.
I want us to have a wrestling match on what money is. Friendly wrestling match of course.
You wrote: ““Money” merely represents an exchange rate of the actual value and must remain independent of any artificial (man made) fluctuation.”
It certainly needs to be stable and reliable. But money is a man-made thing. It should do only one thing, and do it well – measure the value of things which have value.
I want to put it to you, Todd, that units of measurement should be regarded as sacred. They allow people to check that people they are dealing with are being honest and are worthy of trust. Physical units of measurement are defined precisely and give highly reliable measurements. It’s impossible for money to be that reliable. To have a reliable unit of measurement of value would require a huge amount of honest work to set up a scale, and would need to be amenable to occasional adjustments because the value of things can vary. There would need to be price control to maximise stability.
Now comes the question: why should the monetary unit of account store the value that it measures?
I can think of no bona fide reason.
Ordinary people by and large spend the money they receive. There is no benefit to them from money storing value. A single use ticket of entitlement would serve them just as well.
Affluent people – those whose income exceeds their basic needs and wants – can invest the excess so as to “earn” more income. They certainly benefit from money storing value.
But the greatest beneficiaries by far are those who control the money supply. All money is lent into existence to borrowers who have to sign up to pay it back plus annually compounding interest. All money! They do no more than type the numbers into an account. For that minuscule service they get to collect tax on everything that happens in a society that involves money. They even have governments borrowing money from them to finance government activities – and the governments pay tax to them! Interest is a tax – a burden! Using their enormous “earnings”, Organized Usury has come to own or control most of the wealth producing resources of the world. They use and abuse their enormous wealth and power with utter selfishness. They seem to regard the well-being of ordinary people as infringing on their (Organized Usury’s) rights.
Is not the illness of such a system beyond doubt?
And it all hinges on the magical idea that money can store value. That idea is magical, and it is nonsense! When you allow the monetary unit of account to store the value it measures, you make money a de facto commodity. That is a confidence trick!
We even have currency markets where investors gamble on the value of different units of account. Nations can be harmed by manipulation of currency markets by the extremely rich.
Todd, I’ve been ill the last couple of days, and I’m running out of puff. I hope this has not been too incoherent.
I look forward to your response.
@Alan,
I hope you are now, or will feel better soon brother.
The invention of money and “monetary value” was a wonderful
human invention.
But like nearly all other things in this life, Jews have attacked this
invention and have made themselves masters of this invention.
There are such things as natural business cycles.
Any business cycles we are experiencing now are a long way from
made by nature.
Our whole banking system is a fraud. Banks should merely be a
storing house for the acquired wealth of those that have labored.
A nationalized system that stores accumulated “monetary value”
held at 0% interest or charges to its depositors which are
from its local citizens and that could only give loans to local citizens
and community infrastructure.
A small federal tax could be taken from taxes to provide for this minimal
bit of accounting and personnel needed for it.
Banks, should not be allowed to invest and make any money from the
depositors own monies.
And, if I have $100,000 of my own earned money in that bank, and
then I seek a loan of $200,000 for a house, business idea, or whatever,
where would this bank get the money to lend to me?
Because the bank is not national or constitutional, they have to lend
me the deposits of my neighbor for that loan.
Or, because of the fractional reserve Judaic system, the bank is able to
turn my $100,000 of proven worth, into $1,000,000 of their own weath
ability to “lend” at interest.
The system is a lie and a fraud.
Banks should NOT be allowed to make a profit from its own depositors
monies. As the system is now, “local banks” must invest in outside
areas and corporations to profit, when it is not banks that should
profit all all. It is the people and the communities they live in and the ideals
and ingenuity that they posses that should lead them to a shared and earned
higher standard of living.
And yet, this Judaic system as we accept as progress, promotes nothing
but fear and division, and war.
$5.00 could have bought me 5 boxes of cereal when I was a boy.
The same bought me more than 5 gallons of gas as well.
$5.00 would not give me even close to 2 of either now.
There are many other examples. Any of them are not “natural cycles”.
These are Judaic inflationary and deflationary cycles.
And with their “artificial” markets, they then acquire the people’s “real” wealth.
Not least was our collective loss to think critically.
That was a hell of a price to pay,
Thanks Todd for your thoughtful reply, most of which I agree with. I’ll focus on bones of contention.
You wrote: “Banks should merely be a storing house for the acquired wealth of those that have labored.”
Here we have a head-on collision. You agree that banks can store wealth. I don’t. I say banks cannot store wealth. They can store valuable things, e.g. the commodity gold. They do store money, mostly as numbers in accounts, and they do have reserves of cash to hand over to customers who make withdrawals.
Do labourers acquire wealth? I say they don’t. They acquire money which enables them to command the provision of basic goods and services they need for living. That is what “money” is: the power to command other people to give you goods and services.
Labourers produce wealth, but that wealth is stored in whatever they produce. Labour is not storable. It’s an evanescent thing; like experience – as expressed so beautifully by Omar Khayyam,
“The moving hand writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”
In Germany, “In 1921 a family with 100,000 marks in savings would have been considered wealthy – but within two years it would not be enough for a cup of coffee. – See more at: http://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/1923-hyperinflation/#sthash.KFIOnlLv.dpuf”
From http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar_hyperinflation.htm, the price of bread in Berlin was:
December 1918 0.5 mark
December 1921 4 marks
December 1922 163 marks
January 1923 250 marks
March 1923 463 marks
June 1923 1,465 marks
July 1923 3,465 marks
August 1923 69,000 marks
September 1923 1,512,000 marks
October 1923 1,743,000,000 marks
November 1923 201,000,000,000 marks
Question: how reliable is money as a store of value?
Amazingly – after all the grievous losses and suffering by most, and huge profits by some – the ordinary people of Germany allowed themselves to be rescued by Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht after some months of struggle against what Schacht referred to as “sharks”. Schacht set up the Rentenmark to replace the old Mark, and then established a new Mark at the pre-hyperinflation level of the old Mark. What an opportunity lost! But what could ordinary Germans do? They would have been grateful for the trauma to end.
You wrote: “The system is a lie and a fraud.”
I absolutely agree because the claim that money can store value is a lie and a fraud.
You wrote: “It is the people and the communities they live in and the ideals and ingenuity that they posses that should lead them to a shared and earned higher standard of living.”
A beautiful sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. But we would need to discuss the nature of a “higher standard of living” in a society where money does not store value.
The existing system can be considered as Judaic or Jewish because it seems quite clear that the dominant Usurers are Jewish. I’m somewhat uncomfortable with that. I think it’s wiser to focus on the crime rather than the ethnicity of the criminals. Let them accuse us of anti-Sematism when we are talking only about usury and its ill consequences and fraudulent bases. The usurers are not short of gentile collaborators.
When you refer to “our collective loss to think critically” are you referring to gentiles as a whole or just ordinary gentiles?
If the latter, I agree that’s a tragic thing.
But I think it is imperative for ordinary gentiles to understand that the usurers rose to power in gentile countries serving gentile elites by tax farming and other abuses. That ongoing collaboration has long since become gentile elites serving the usurers.
Had gentile elites been loyal to their ordinary people …, but they weren’t.
Mental fatigue is setting in again, so I’ll leave it at that for now, and await your response. If anyone is following our dialogue and wants to contribute, that would be OK with me.
Thanks brother,
Again, I hope you are feeling better.
Money does indeed “store value”. I would even suggest that this
is one of its two vital functions. The other would be to represent
exchange value with any other commodity or function ones life must
eventually find themselves in need of seeking.
A rate of exchange.
Money only represents an exchange value that can be easily stored
with a with a proper banking system with proper accounting of what
and who earned and owns the wealth.
If I earned by my labour $1000 every week as an employee, my employer
is not going to give me 10-$100 dollar bills or the equivalent of any other
denominations of “legal tender” to pay me.
He will print out a check for me that represents $1000 from deposits he has
put into this bank account from the receipts(checks) he has received from
his own labor. These are checks that represent the value of his own work
as the employer of himself and the others which he has employed.
Gold, silver, wheat, oranges etc etc, they do indeed store an inherent value.
But why would any rational people base the value of their money on any of
these?
The value of all of these are subject to supply vs demand, harmful vs healthy
weather, selling of naked shorts on metals and speculative markets.
And yet still, all of their “inherent value” is reflected only in their exchange rate
value, i.e. the value of any fiat representative currency.
The myth of the inherent value of gold is as sad as the inherent value of diamonds.
Shiny metal and shiny stone. They are nothing more than that.
And neither of these have any cause or right to back or control the value of
exchange between neighbors and partners.
It was with their control of the fiat credit system that the Rothchilds (Jews)bought up the
gold and diamond mines of Africa, the copper in Peru, the armies of the British and
then American empires and all the booty that we could loot for them.
With Judaic control of the issue of “credit”, they have been able to control
Britain and American empires to invade and control the real natural wealth
in this world of ours. Social, cultural, mineral, and human wealth is in their
hands, because of their control of the medium of exchange between neighbors
and other partners by their control of fiat currency(exchange value).
My point is, “money” obviously Does represent and store value.
The point is also, let the Jews and fools that believe in this unstable system,
keep all of the gold and all of the silver and all of the diamonds.
If we just keep the rest, including and especially our constitutional right to issue
a legal tender that facilitates exchange between ourselves and our partners in
this world.
Money does store value.
It was the inspiration and reason and need for its invention.
That is exactly why the Jews sought control of its issue.
And they got it. And look at us now.
Thank you brother Todd. I’m feeling less bad which I guess means better, but the minor illness might take a week or more to burn itself out (be conquered by my immune system) according to the sweet young Sri Lankan medico I consulted the other day. I was delighted to find her unfaithful to Big Pharma by advising me not to use antibiotics unless the likely secondary infection did not clear up within a week.
I’ve already stated the case against money storing value, so I won’t harangue you more about that at present.
Instead I’ll do my best to play the role of that nuisance Socrates, by asking thoughtful questions.
That will take a little while, perhaps broken by a sleep, so I’ll sign off now, and get back to you.
Cheers
Let’s get to it, Todd.
Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that money has “two vital functions”:
1. it really does “store value”; and
2. “A rate of exchange”.
I can understand the first one, but I’m finding the second elusive. You seem to be combining what conventional economics refers to as “medium of exchange” and “unit of account”.
The unit of account is the unit on a scale which measures the value of different things.
The medium of exchange may be notes or coins denominated in the unit of account which is paid in exchange for some real good or service which has real inherent value.
What do you mean by “Money only represents an exchange value …”?
Are you saying it does not have inherent value, but only represents such value?
So the mark which could buy two whole loaves of bread in December 1918 stored its value?
Even though in November 1923 a mark would buy only one two hundred and one billionth of a loaf of bread?
What that means is that the mark’s representation of value failed completely.
Many millions of ordinary people were terribly harmed by that failure.
Many people made huge profits by knowing how to exploit this failure. They could, e.g., borrow money to purchase a luxury house, and a few months later take ownership of the house by repaying the balance owing with money amounting to the price of a cup of coffee.
That sort of obscenity can be brought about at any time with any currency if the unit of account stores value by law.
I have to challenge you, brother Todd, to prove that money has inherent value.
During the German hyperinflation, many productive companies ceased using money to pay their labourers, and instead issued them with vouchers for a specified amount of coal or electricity or any needed commodity which ACTUALLY DID STORE VALUE and which their workers could use to barter in exchange for the things they needed. Can you see the absolute contrast between money (which has zero inherent value, and therefore CANNOT store value) and vouchers for real commodities (which have real inherent value, and therefore CAN store value)?
Proof, Todd, backed by argument and facts is needed. Assertion by itself proves nothing.
Later you wrote: “Gold, silver, wheat, oranges etc etc, they do indeed store an inherent value. But why would any rational people base the value of their money on any of these?”
I suggest that you answered your own question. Real commodities have inherent value, and therefore store that value. Money is not a real commodity.
You went on to write: “The value of all of these are subject to supply vs demand, harmful vs healthy
weather, selling of naked shorts on metals and speculative markets.”
I concede that is a problem that society needs to deal with.
You wrote about being paid $1,000 by cheque or cash for a week’s work.
What if by the time you went to the bank to deposit the cheque there had been a sudden 1,000% inflation of prices (which equates to a 1,000% deflation of the unit of account)?
Wouldn’t you be motivated to go back to your boss and ask him to rip up that cheque and give you instead a voucher for whatever commodity the company produces, to the value of your work, knowing that that commodity will store its value?
Please explain your reference to “selling of naked shorts on metals and speculative markets”. Are you suggesting something about the value of their labour?
You mention Rothschilds, etc, purchasing natural resources of immense monetary value in exchange for fiat money. And you write of “Judaic control” of usury. Yes it does seem that Jews do dominate our usurious civilization.
Are you arguing that gentile control of usury would be a good thing?
I need you to explain how and why that would be a good thing.
You finish off with: “It was the inspiration and reason and need for its invention.
That is exactly why the Jews sought control of its issue.
And they got it. And look at us now.”
You’re implying here that gentiles invented money, and it was a good and necessary invention, but the Jews got hold of it and made it bad.
That’s an assertion, Todd. You need to back that up with facts and argument.
The earliest historical records of money that I have come across go back to Sumer about 3,000 BC, and they charged interest equivalent to 20% p.a.
That already qualifies as usury in my mind.
I’m getting fatigued. I’ll just do a quick check for typos, and post it.
As you can see, a Socrates I am not.
Cheers, bother Todd.
@Alan,
I am happy you are feeling better brother.
I am not saying that Gentiles invented “money”.
I am also not saying that money has inherent value
in itself. I am saying that a National money system that represents exchange
value of commodities and services to its citizens and trade partners without usury
is completely valid and possible. It has been done before. The British “tally stick”
that built the British empire before the Bank of London and “colonial scrip”
of the American colonies are two examples that worked perfectly well to
facilitate production and trade of commodities of various labor and ingenuities
within its communities and trading partners.
I am only saying a National money does represent inherent value in commodities
and services and labour and production cost and value among its own citizens.
Any abundance that could be produced after the comfort and satisfaction of our
own citizens is achieved, could be traded with any other community(state,country)
that desires our over abundance with any raw or refined product they posses and
that our communities could make good use of. Quid pro quo. Whether that product
is raw of finished material, or strategically motivated, as long as our own citizens
have been taken care first, all could profit from these exchanges.
You mentioned Hamilton early on, which advocated a “privately owned”
central bank. Private parties owning and loaning “credit” at interest to
to the government, and therefore it’s people of the US.
Jefferson rightly argued against this potential tyranny.
And what a horrible tyranny it has become.
It is not that the fiat system itself is bad. The original design is rational and lucid and
functional. It is how the system has been hijacked and perverted and exploited for the
worldly gain by the same group of people that have perverted everything else in this
world for their own gain.
The destruction of the Mark was because it was in the international market that the
enemies of mankind created and control.
Hitler changed that. He Nationalised it. Germany prospered. He became enemy
numuro uno. Others did and others tried. All died before or after because of it.
Was not the Mark itself a National fiat system that facilitated production and trade and
actual wealth for Germany and her great people?
Paul Craig Roberts, who I am happy to read here and have 3 of his should read books
has also said that Putin should immediately pull ALL of the treasonous traders out
of the bank of Moscow. I have watched him say, that anytime you put your national
money out into the international system, the Americans (Judaic monetary system)
can do whatever they want to it, i.e., raise or SQUASH it.
Everyone trades amongst themselves in fiat currency. America, Britain, France, and even Syria, Iran, and Russia. That is not the problem.
The first 3 are borrowing their own countries wealth and credit at interest and injury to their
own country and citizens. The next 2 refuse this slavery and Russia is quickly building roads
to eliminate this sort of demonic international kosher slavery.
You can say that these BRICS monies will be backed by gold. But that is not the real wealth
in the currencies. Gold is a fraudulent standard of measure. It is nothing but an attractive
and limited metal with no actual value outside of any human scientific and artistic value
that is created from it (I say this with the utmost respect and honor I have for
Sheikh Imran Hosein, who I think disagrees with me).
The real wealth backing these roads now being built by Putin and company, is not gold.
The real wealth is human respect and collaboration to make their own people’s lives
better in this life while not making it the expense and tragedy of other people.
Everything I bought today I payed for in fiat currency. It was recognized as proper
exchange value.
I saw nobody today that took this currency thought my $20.00 bill was borrowed and cost
more than its face value.
Under our own constitution, we could have printed and issued that bill for nearly free.
I don’t have a problem with fiat currency.
I have a HUGE problem with the people that have voided our constitution and taken
control of its issue and have stolen the real wealth of this and so many other nations.
They have stolen our freedom with this Simple Little Scheme.
As I said last time, that is one hell of a price to pay.
If you think about it, a Nationalised fiat currency is the cheapest and most cost effective
way to facilitate ingenuity and production and trade.
But enemies and outsiders now control all of these because they control the issue of our
currency with compounding interest.
Let them keep their gold. I have no use for it.
Let me only have control of the issue of my countries currency, and all those with only
gold in their hands will find their hearts and stomachs wanting.
Todd, we are arguing at cross purposes. I agree that an usurious money system CAN serve the common good well if administered by honest and honourable people. The NSDAP government under Hitler did just that. They funded their amazingly effective program by offering government bonds for German people to invest in at a return of 4% p.a. I think it was.
I do not understand how a monetary system that is “rational and lucid and functional” can be “hijacked and perverted and exploited for the worldly gain by” dishonest and dishonourable people. Doesn’t that amount to a profound flaw in the system?
What did these dishonest and dishonourable people do with their “worldly gain”?
I want you to answer that extremely important question.
You wrote: “Everyone trades amongst themselves in fiat currency. America, Britain, France, and even Syria, Iran, and Russia. That is not the problem.”
Do you mean by that: that it is not a problem at all?
So you are happy with the extreme income and wealth disparity in America and elsewhere?
How much of the money you spent today goes to paying producers’ interest to be paid on the money they needed to borrow in order to produce the products they sell?
@Alan,
Sorry for the late response brother.
To answer your 2nd to last question, of course I am not happy with the extreme income and
wealth disparity here and anywhere. How could any human with an ounce of compassion
consider this acceptable? I certainly do not find this acceptable at all for anyone in any country.
What I am saying is that Nationalised fiat currency issued at Zero interest facilitates trade within
a country/culture and promotes prosperity and ingenuity from a country’s own human and material resources.
What I am saying is that “currency” from whatever region represents nothing more than an
equivalent exchange value.
Instead of 3 bushels of wheat are equal to 9 casks of wine, each are represented by an equal
exchange value denomination in a common currency that represents equivalent and inherent
value and worth.
There is no rational need to issue a currency at interest if it seeks only to promote trade from
one neighbor or regions labor and production to another’s.
As soon as that happens, the issuer of that usurious exchange value becomes the master of
both productive labors. And neither race or culture or producer matters to that master of
exchange value.
And how is it that the one that labors’ not is the master of the ones that produce?
Why should the one that produces, pay injurious (fines) fees to the ones that do not produce,
and not hope for the same comfort and luxury for their own labor and production?
Why should the ones that produce borrow from those that do not?
I did write that, “Everyone trades amongst itself with fiat currency”.
My heart never thought that this was not a problem.
My heart only wishes for ALL countries to have control over the issue of its own value of exchanges
between its own citizens production at no interest and to be able to trade with partner countries
with their surplus production for any material or intellectual product that might be of service to their
own people without compromising any partner they are trading with.
The two or more trade partners can by themselves negotiate (haggle) about the details.
No need for a Jewish war-room and international kosher court to decide the righteousness
of two or more independents that have decided to exchange values and resources.
All that they have is the material and intellectual property of the respective traders and
partners.
And the physical and intellectual value of these properties is a value they can decide
amongst themselves.
This is not a speculative or arbitrary value that needs to be borrowed from the Jewish
money press at interest.
This is just barter.
This is just understanding your own country’s interest while respecting the sovereignty
of the other country’s people and interest.
This is just real trade and exchange value.
And for the 4% interest on the mark, wouldn’t that be a nice thing now.
And it seems the Germans received the surplus for this little tax that funded
their independent government.
Cheers brother.
I appreciate so much your work here.
Again, sorry for the late response.
You are allowed to live your life, brother Todd, without worrying about when to fit in discussions such as we are having. Work and family should always come first.
You wrote: “What I am saying is that Nationalised fiat currency issued at Zero interest facilitates trade within a country/culture and promotes prosperity and ingenuity from a country’s own human and material resources.”
I agree. The only worry for me is that it involves pretending that something which is a fantasy is real. That leaves a path to corruption that is perpetually open. Have it run by honest and honourable people, and a good life can be had by all.
The example of the NSDAP government under Hitler provides brilliant proof of your assertion. The colonial scrip days in the American colonies probably provides further evidence in support, if we turn a blind eye to slavery, etc. You probably know much more about pre-Independence America than I.
You wrote: “What I am saying is that “currency” from whatever region represents nothing more than an equivalent exchange value.
Instead of 3 bushels of wheat are equal to 9 casks of wine, each are represented by an equal
exchange value denomination in a common currency that represents equivalent and inherent
value and worth.
There is no rational need to issue a currency at interest if it seeks only to promote trade from
one neighbor or regions labor and production to another’s.”
OK. But do we need a currency at all?
I suspect your answer would be “Yes we do”.
My answer is “No we don’t need a currency. What we need is unit of account that is as stable and reliable as possible.”
I think we should change our modus operandi during our extended discussion. Instead of long responses dealing with multiple issues, I think we should restrict ourselves to one issue at a time, and argue intensively about that issue until a clear resolution is reached. Of course, a clear resolution may well be respectful disagreement. That’s fine.
Perhaps we need to ask our moderator whether we are unnecessarily imposing on him, in which case I could start up a new thread which would get us off our patient moderator’s back.
Cheers
@Alan,
Happy you did not mention your illness this time.
It is my only hope that this is because you are feeling well.
Look, “money” represents exchange value only.
That is its only service.
All material things have inherent value.
An once of mined gold has value.
A cob of corn has value.
A finished wooden bed shelf has value.
None of these many values could not have been realized without human
labour and ingenuity.
Without human effort, they all would have stayed in the ground, or wild fields
left to rot, or would have never been invented by human desire and need
for comfort and rest.
Not all of us desire or need gold to live.
At the same time, everyone of us must have corn(food) and comfort(rest).
This is our human condition.
You are missing the point. Money (dollars, pounds, pesos, or whatever), is
not wealth. These are only exchange values made amongst local
communities and any of their partners they choose to produce and exchange
raw or finished material with.
“Money” does not have to be borrowed into existence.
“Money” only represents exchange value of the raw or human and intellectual property to those that
agree it has a value.
The issue of credit to our nation, or any other we have attacked and conquered,
is nothing more than a promise for the citizens of America and/or all the countries we
have destroyed because of this hubris to pay for.
It is a promise that our labour would pay with interest the extension of our own
labor and resources and ingenuity.
That makes us ALL slaves.
They only thing that has ever backed a regions, or a nations money, has been its
human and material resources and needs.
It never had to be borrowed into existence by a usurious rate of exchange.
Because we have accepted this lie, the issuers of “our credit” have made themselves
masters of all labour and ingenuity and resources.
Dollars that represent exchange value cost very little to print.
The digital credit is even less a cost.
The usurious compounding interest that is created “for the benefit” of ours or any
other nation at the expense of our labor and any other resources they confiscate
seems a price too high. An agreement that only a sucker would make.
If you still defend gold brother, I will recommend reading,
“A Fraudulent Standard” by Arthur Kitson.
I also agree, I do hope I am not imposing on the moderator.
Please do more on the “money question”.
It’s a partner in crime with the “Jewish question”.
Glad you are feeling better.
Cheers
Ah, brother Todd. You floored me with: “If you still defend gold brother, …”.
So you’ve been thinking that I have been defending gold as the standard of value?
Gold is one commodity; no more than that. There are many who argue that gold is “real money”. It drives me mad listening to such nonsense. Others jokingly refer to “The Golden Rule”, viz: “He who has the gold rules!” There is some truth to that. We agree about gold. OK?
The reality we live in is that people of extreme wealth have gained ownership and/or control over most of the accessible wealth producing resources of the planet. Please tell me if you don’t agree with that.
And they purchased a lot of that ownership/control in exchange for money. Money is so much cleaner than conquest.
Please do me a favour, brother Todd, of explaining the gist of what brother Arthur Kitson has to say in “A Fraudulent Standard”. The title has me drooling in anticipation.
I need you to define “exchange value”.
How do you think money should come into existence?
How does a metre come into existence? Or do you think such a question is irrelevant? It is highly relevant in my mind.
Let’s try to keep it short and manageable each time.
I will know when the minor illness is over, when I feel in the late afternoon fit enough to take the dog – His Highness, Shorty the First – for our daily walk. The tropical spring of coastal far north Queensland is stoking up towards another sweltering summer.
Moderator you are a saint.
Cheers
@Alan,
The complete title of the book reference is,
“A Fraudulent Standard,
An Exposure of the Fraudulent Character
of Our Monetary Standard with Suggestions
for the Establishment of an Invariable Unit
of Value”.
By-Arthur Kitson
London
P. S. King & Son, LTD
Orchard House
Westminster
1917
“In the place of a “store of value,” all one requires
of money nowadays, is an assurance that one will
be able to pay one’s debts with it or exchange it for
what one needs, at any future time at its face value,
which should represent a certain fraction of all
exchangeable wealth at the time the money is paid.
“The American greenbacks up until the time they
were dishonoured by their own Government, and our
present Treasury notes, would represent such units
provided their supply was made contingent upon
legitimate trade demand.
“Those who have been taught to regard value as
something material and tangible, may have some
difficulty in understanding how an immaterial and
intangible unit can function as the bases of a
monetary system. Such units would be ideal. It is not
necessary that these units should correspond to any
fixed amount of any given commodity. On the contrary
since they must express the values of all other
commodities, they must be free from such association.”
–Page 107, of the referenced book,
Chapter VIII, The Functions of Money
In a nutshell, the work of this book establishes the fact
that private banks have no rational need to exist and to
loan value at interest to Goverments and productive labor
and that labor and resources(human and material), are
the actual value and potential for wealth.
Money represents exchange value only.
There is no need for it to be borrowed into existence.
It only facilitates a rate of exchange value for production and trade
and is backed by the material and ingenuity and labor of
a regions citizens. And as Edmund Burke quipped, I rejoiced
in the prosperity of foreign States, believing that such prosperity
would materially assist our own.
But this cannot be realized under our current system.
I think you will enjoy this book brother.
Thanks again to the moderator.
Peace
OK brother Todd, I’ve downloaded the book in txt and pdf formats, the latter to help me correct the scanning errors in the former.
In the meantime, Todd, please define what you mean by “exchange value only”. Full rigorous definition please.
Second: please address the issue of what is to be done about Organized Usury’s ill-gotten (odious) wealth.
Cheers
Alan,
In one sentence,
America should default on this (odious) false debt, and nationalize its
issue of currency and credit and take back control and ownership of
the human and material wealth that under our own constitution belongs
to the citizens of this country.
America is not materially poor, anymore than the resource rich
continent of Africa and
the oil rich countries of Arabia are poor.
But the actual and potential wealth has been confiscated be this Judaic
fraudulent standard.
And yes, I know, there are many gentile collaboraters.
Aside from the Jews ability to worship themselves, organization,and to tell lies, they have
very few other other talents other than this one.
They can sniff out a Judas as well as any hunting dog can sniff out a fox
or a pheasant.
And as these Pharisees have always done, they buy these Judas’ with the silver of
the laborer that actually earned it. (Buying things, people with the earnings of
other people’s labour with Judaic control of exchange value and with it, all labour,
because of silly superstition they project as truth, and threats of worldly harm
and eternal punishment if this fictitious law is not followed to the letter they wrote).
I would also recommend that you read(besides other works of Mr Kitson),
Louis T. McFaddens’s speech In The House of Representatives, 10 June 1932.
He was killed shortly after this.
These are good and important and easy reads.
I am sure you will appreciate the lucidity of these works.
Cheers
Brother Todd, in response to my request for you to address “Organized Usury’s ill-gotten (odious) wealth”, you addressed America’s “(odious) false debt”.
I dare say your reference to Pharisees “buy(ing) these Judas’ with the silver of the laborer that actually earned it” does obliquely address “odious wealth”. And your elaboration about the Pharisees practice of “Buying things, people with the earnings of other people’s labour with Judaic control of exchange value and with it, all labour” actually takes the issue into the concrete world of reality.
I take it that your “Pharisees” = my “Organized Usury”.
Well, the modern Pharisees now own/control most of the valuable (or should that be exchange-valuable?) resources of our planetary speck in the cosmos! And they have purchased all of their wealth-power with “the earnings of other people’s labour”.
Please note: “other people’s labour” = the Pharisees’ property!
So the issue I asked you to address is what to do about the Pharisees’ property and its value.
Please keep in mind that the principles involved in dealing with the Pharisees’ property MUST also apply to the property of us all!
So please have another go at addressing it.
Re Louis T. McFadden: a great and honourable man, extinguished as vermin by those entrenched in power in your already foully corrupt country. I vaguely recall reading that he may have been poisoned. Wikipedia this morning tells me “He was in New York City visiting with his wife and son in late September 1936, when he was taken ill at his hotel and died of coronary thrombosis”. What’s your take? Under the Presidency of a greatly dishonourable man. Imagine what a President Huey Long might have been like. Was he another great and honourable man extinguished as vermin?
Anyway, I haven’t finished Chapter 1 of brother Arthur’s book yet. I have been heartened to read his correct classification of the monetary unit of account as belonging with Science’s physical standards of measurement, and deserving of equal rigour in definition and application.
I have been disheartened by his British wartime illusions and transference of long-standing British vices onto the German imperial newcomer. His repeated odious references to “the Hun” are, frankly, sickening.
Nonetheless, I’ll read it through, hoping to learn worthwhile things along the way. I am hoping that it does not all boil down to value = exchange value.
At the speed I read, that will take several weeks.
I almost forgot: I’m glad you know that “there are many gentile collaboraters”. I hope you accord them the importance they deserve.
Cheers
Alan,
I disregard his sentiments about the Germans(Huns).
It is the control of the issuance of a proper and invariable
standard of value and exchange and who and what controls
the issuance of this exchange value that has the real power
that is the point.
A country can issue its own currency for education, science,
engineering. arts, and every function for its own production
or potential production through research at virtually zero cost.
Any misplaced loans at zero interest to its citizens can much
more easily be written off and covered by the expanded production
and ingenuity and freedom than is the system they are providing for us now.
Look at what we have now. We are paying, as we always have
under this system, for Judaic Bankster speculation.
In a National Socialist sense, all material and intellectual potential
and profit should belong to those that have labored for and earned it.
If one finds a house he would like to live in that cost $200,000,
the bank does not give you $200,000 loan in cash.
They issue a credit of debt.
This becomes a bank asset that can facilitate further loans at interest.
You pay for this invented debt at interest.
Why should a house worth $200,000 cost the payer $350,000
when he is done paying for it?
And if the buyer loses his income, the un-nationalized bank gets
the house back to sell to another with the same credit of debt scam.
And the guy that just lost his $200,000 house that would have cost
him $350,000, doesn’t have a job now, because the job he once had
that paid him $20.00+ an hour, just got sent to China or Indonesia
or Mexico because the same kosher banksters that “loaned” him the money
for the house he just lost, shipped his former job off to one of these
countries for workers at 10 cents on the dollar and no bathroom breaks
after they eliminated tariffs that protected the labor of this country and
the purchasing power of its own citizens.
Look brother, this whole read, and I recommend others from the same
author, is not about his propagandized self opinions of the (Huns).
It is about his reasonable solution for rational and equitable and
debt free and stable exchange value of currency.
Brother Alan,
As for the gentile collaborators, I blame
them most of all.
The current clouds would not have become this thick
and dark with storm without their help.
But we will all get through this storm brother.
Cheers
Thanks brother Todd.
Respectful agreement is a joy; but respectful disagreement is an even greater joy.
I think we agree on almost everything except for a little detail right down at the foundation level of the monetary system – the actual core of usury.
You wrote: “A country can issue its own currency for education, science, engineering. arts, and every function for its own production or potential production through research at virtually zero cost.”
I agree with that. But I ask: Is that the only possibility?
I ask you to consider this possibility:
A country can issue entitlements to many different kinds for goods and services to specified values – i.e. values specified in terms of a stable and reliable unit of account. There is no need for such entitlements to store the specified value beyond a single use. They can be – and I would argue – should be single-use-only tickets.
Regarding “loans at zero interest to its citizens”, this was successfully practised until recently in one nation. That same nation also provided free of charge, education, medical treatment, and electricity; and regarded as a right for all its citizens to dwell in their own home. Which nation?
Regarding “misplaced loans” you raise an extremely important issue. On what basis should loans (or tickets of entitlement) be issued?
That’s 3 substantial issues to be further explored. That’s plenty to go on with.
Cheers, brother Todd.
Brother Todd, I will forget this memorable titbit unless I share it now. Brother Arthur Kitson – in chapter 2 – talking about banks, as if British banks were British, and German banks were German.
Such naivete in such an astute thinker.
Brother Alan,
The answer to your question in post #31 is Germany.
Beside the previously mentioned work from Arthur Kitson,
I would also recommend “The Money Problem” and
“Trade Fallacies; A Criticism of Existing Methods, and
Suggestions for a Reform Towards National Prosperity”
by the same author, (and his other works).
Even as much as this, I recommend,
“Your Country at War, And What Happens to You
After the War”, by Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr.
He wrote it in 1917, and our own government came and
destroyed his press plates in 1918. The book was not published
until after his death in 1934 (I have an original copy),
which was after his mortal death.
In this book, Mr Lindbergh did NOT disagree with a National Socialism.
He said it cannot be disregarded outright.
He also spoke of the subversive nature of our two party system
and who stands to gain through this division of the people of our
countries and the actual corporate aims of this war (WW I).
He also suggested the Nationalization of our freight transportation
(railroad and shipping then), communication (telephone then), and
our countries mineral and human potential and actual wealth,
as well as the Nationalization of the Issue of our Currency.
I kinda think that after Mr Fords Dearborn Independant, the
Chancellor from Germany might have also read this, because of the
date of its publication and humanist lucidity.
A “ticket system” is perfectly acceptable and pragmatic.
We use this everyday all over the world.
Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a ticket.
The only problem is, is that we are now borrowing our own tickets at
Interest without knowledge of why or the reason we do this.
And by “borrowing” this “ticket”, we have allowed the Issuers of these
“tickets” at interest, to become owners and controllers of our own
material and human potential.
Whether or not the ticket reads 1 penny, or $100.00 exchange value,
It does not have to be borrowed.
It is backed (same as it is now), by material and human physical and
intellectual resource potential.
It represents exchange value only.
It does NOT need to be borrowed at interest(usury).
All could be issued a living wage at ZERO cost.
There have always been the lazy, as well as zealots (ambitious).
All could have a basic standard of living.
Anything the “ambitious” achieve above that can be their reward
in this lifetime.
Human potential is an asset, same as good soil.
These are not commodities to be borrowed, or controlled, by a
self elected few at interest and disastrous consequences to the rest of us.
Human potential should be carefully cultivated and nurtured.
There is no “borrowed or real” cost in this.
Not one penny more than the cost should be for a disabled human
individual soul that is already suffering for in this lifetime.
They are the same as us, “but for the grace of God”.
“Wealth” is just a trick. An illusion.
What we have now is a “Fraudulent Standard”.
Cheers Brother Alan,
I do so much enjoy talking with you.
You have been good for my heart, and I thank you for this.
You are more than welcome, brother Todd.
The answer to that question was not Germany. That nation which recently successfully practised loans at zero interest to its citizens, as well as providing free of charge, education, medical treatment, and electricity; and regarded as a right for all its citizens to dwell in their own home, was Libya. Was! Now no more! Zero tolerance for serving the common good of ordinary people. If that’s not genocide, then nothing is genocide.
Please (!!!!!) scan that Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. book and convert it to pdf and make it readily available for download; and do it urgently before someone steals it!
Thank you for agreeing that “A “ticket system” is perfectly acceptable and pragmatic. We use this everyday all over the world.”
And please forgive me for disagreeing that the “Federal Reserve Note is nothing more than a ticket.”
It is “just a trick”, “an illusion”, and a “Fraudulent Standard”.
But by means of that mere “trick”, Organized Usury owns or controls most of the ownable/controllable resources of the world.
The power that comes with such wealth is real!
Evidence? The destroyed nation of Libya, for a start. I won’t go through the obvious list of other grievously harmed nations. Here’s a less obvious example. A reformist Labour government was elected in Australia in December 1972, and set to reforming with alacrity. In May 1974 that government resorted to a double dissolution of both federal houses, and survived that election with a reduced majority. A senior American diplomat was posted to Australia – his previous mission having been in Chile! In November 1975 (11/11) Australia’s Governor General dismissed the reformist government which had appointed him – acting for our head of state, the monarch of England. In December 1975 the reformist government was swept from office in an electoral landslide. Since that time, any reforms in Australia have been welcomed by Organized Usury. Australia’s mainstream media played their part in all this, including a young Rupert Murdoch.
So the wealth/power of Organized Usury has been attained by trickery – aided and abetted by gentile elites at every step – but that wealth/power is not illusory. It is real – deadly real! It will deploy all its assets to defend its wealth/power. Its assets include the usurious gentile nations of Europe, North America, the south Pacific, the middle east, etc.
Back to the point: the Federal Reserve Note IS MORE THAN a ticket. A ticket is NOT a commodity. A Federal Reserve Note IS a de facto commodity – a fraudulent commodity, for sure. Do you think that matters to Organized Usury? You bet it matters to them. They will defend their fraudulent commodity to the death of us all!
I agree wholeheartedly with all you wrote about “human potential” in service of the common good of ordinary people. The example of the peacetime NSDAP government substantiates optimism about that. To some extent, the example of Gaddafi’s Libya also substantiates optimism.
What Organized Usury did in response to those good examples – is the stuff of horrific nightmares.
My plodding through brother Arthur’s book continues. Further to my previous comments, it is worth noting that he would have had to contend with his “British” publisher in getting the book published at all at that time.
Brother Todd: just had to send this quote:
“The logical conclusion to which we are inevitably driven is one that will no doubt arouse considerable astonishment. In order that it may satisfactorily perform its necessary functions — particularly that of a value denominator and accurately register the variations in the exchange values of commodities — money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket. The one pound Treasury note, of course, meets this definition, provided its issue is not restricted by such absurdities as gold-redemption, and so long as the supply is sufficient to meet all the demands of trade, industry and commerce.”
from p 100 (the last few sentences of Chapter VII) of brother Arthur’s book.
Brother Alan,
I agree with you about the considerations and even alterations
he might have needed to make to get this book published.
I also considered Lybia, and should have added them.
I also took into account the gold backed dinar that
brother Gaddafi was going to back the currency with.
But considering the limited availability and socially progressive
function of this shiny metal that has no functional value to the
average human, it seems worth even less than compared to an
oil backed currency.
Both are still fraudulent exchange value standards.
He tried to beat the Jews at their own game while playing by the
same rules that they made.
Lybia was fine before then(but our masters were going to force us
to invade and destroy Lybia anyway).
Commodity values fluctuate. It is their nature in a natural world.
Supply vs demand.
Why is gold worth more than wheat?
If it is human effort that brings them both into the world, why is gold
worth more than wheat?
Both obviously have an inherent value.
Why should any of these commodity values that fluctuate in value back a
common and independent exchange value between productive
citizens of any region or county?
All production is backed by human labor.
This is the most valuable exchange commodity.
This does not have to be borrowed at compounding interest and social debt.
“Money” is nothing more than a ticket that represents agreed upon
exchange value between two or more that have labored and produced
or desire a raw or finished commodity.
I will do some research on the Lindbergh Sr book I recommend to you.
I am sure that you will both love and be disappointed that our own
government kept it out of print before WWI, and that it maybe was not
more widely read before WWII.
It is close to the best and most lucid premonitions I have in my collection.
I do hope you read it brother.
My copy is original complete with original cover jacket.
I have a re-print from the same author on the Fed.
Also brother, you are obviously much better read than I am.
If you have any books that you would recommend I give some time to,
I would very much appreciate it.
Peace to you brother.
Peace for all of us.
Thank you for your time you share with me.
Brother Alan,
I just googled the title of “Your Country At War” and Lindbergh came up.
My first choice was the “pdf” and looked like an exact duplicate of the
original that I have.
I hope that all of our family here will read it.
You and I and maybe Sabba and MG are maybe the only ones that are aware
of our current conversations.
If you read the book, and agree with its subject and thesis, maybe you can
do an article or form a discussion about its content in the future.
At this point, the “Jewish question” and the “money question” must both be the
focus of the same debate, I think.
So, anyway brother, I found a pdf re-print of the same book on-line.
Complete with pictures of Sr and Jr and table of contents and introduction.
It appears to be a complete reproduction.
I will look into it further and let you know if what I found is lacking.
Todd, I have been following your dialogue and was waiting for the last chapter to step in and thank you both for this highly, highly educational conversation.
Few things I disagree with but learned so many other things
So thank you both for this lively intellectual exchange you have have offered me/us.
Thanks for your kind thoughts, brother Todd. And Sabba, thanks for your saintly forbearance.
Both the Hitler and Gaddafi regimes should be revered as sacred examples of what was and could yet be.
Both administered the existing usurious monetary system to serve the common good of their people.
Both regimes were destroyed by Organized Usury.
Words fail me to describe the significance of that tragic reality.
You wrote:
“All production is backed by human labor.
This is the most valuable exchange commodity.
This does not have to be borrowed at compounding interest and social debt.”
I need to challenge you here. And I will use Arthur Kitson’s words to emphasise what is an absolutely fundamental point. On page 100 he wrote:
“In order that it may satisfactorily perform its necessary functions — particularly that of a value denominator and accurately register the variations in the exchange values of commodities — money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket.”
The absolutely fundamental point?
Money must NOT function as a commodity! To do so corrupts money’s only bona fide function: that of a value denominator!
The reality is that money – as it really exists – has been allowed to be a de facto (fraudulent) commodity. Because of that, “human labor” has also been made a commodity which is plainly subordinate to money. Evidence? The vast majority of people now living have been made dependent on money in order to obtain their survival needs. And all the money they need and ever use has been “borrowed at compounding interest and social debt”.
When it comes to fundamental points like that, pondering is more important than reading. I’m looking forward to reading the fruits of brother Arthur’s pondering on that issue.
Re the Lindbergh book, it is available in pdf format (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Your_Country_At_War.pdf) which I have downloaded and will read. So no need for you to scan your copy, etc.
With regard to references, I’ll just mention a couple for now.
“Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt; The Solution of the Economic Paradox”, by Frederick Soddy, 1926. Interestingly, Soddy dedicated his book to “Arthur Kitson, the British pioneer of the new economics, to whose writings the author owes his initial interest in the fascinating problems of wealth and currency”. Soddy convinced me that what he called “virtual wealth” was an abomination that no healthy society should tolerate; but he argued that “virtual wealth” was necessary but needed to be managed with great care and discipline, blah blah blah. He dodged biting the bullet! I’m hoping that brother Arthur did not dodge biting that bullet. I’m going to hold Arthur to that quote from page 100. He’s going to have to contradict himself in order not to bite that bullet.
“The Lost Science of Money, The Mythology of Money – The Story of Power” by Stephen A Zarlenga, 2002, American Monetary Institute. Lots of valuable information in this book. Zarlenga doesn’t bite that bullet either.
We need to note that our entire monetary civilization is based on that fundamental issue. In order to face that issue, the civilization we live in will have to be dismantled and rebuilt from scratch. No wonder Organized Usury is hell-bent on destroying anyone who tries to interfere with the confidence trick at the core of our civilization.
I don’t want to invest more time and energy at the moment, racking my memory for other references. I want to see where brother Arthur took that fundamental insight.
Cheers
Alan,
That is indeed the key point. Human labor and ingenuity is a commodity in that it
possesses in itself inherent personal and social potential uses and beneficial functions.
Consider an orange tree and a cord of wood.
Both have beneficial functions and uses that cannot be realized without human
need and effort.
Labor must therefore have potential if not inherent personal and social value.
“Money”, that does not labor and has been made master of all that do labor and
produce personal and social comforts is the evil of this system.
Yes, this current system needs to be entirely scrapped and set ablaze.
Thank you for the book references. I will seek them out and am looking forward to
these reads. I think you will appreciate also the work of Mr Lindbergh.
Other works from Kitson are also particularly relevant and easy to read.
As you have just read, he tried to make it relevant and interesting and easy to
understand for the average curious citizens like me.
I do also have an original copy of
“The Bankers’ Conspiracy!
Which Started The World War” by Mr Kitson, 1933.
Maybe you can pdf that one also. I have never checked myself.
The booklet reads like today’s world.
And to Sabba, thank you so much for your patience with us.
And also for your email I received. I did not even consider this.
Thank you for your edit and I should have been more conscientious
in my post. Sorry about that.
Good catch, and thank you for all you do here for us in this fight.
And Alan, same to you brother. Thanks for all you do here for us and
our common cause.
Cheers
Brother Todd: I accept that “Human labor and ingenuity is a commodity”; and actually the most valuable of all commodities.
But if money is allowed to function as a commodity – and that is the purpose of the false belief that money is a store of value – all other commodities (including “Human labor and ingenuity”) are relegated to levels subordinate to money. Money as a commodity currency can be defined as ‘the power to command the provision of goods and services.’
That’s why the income of the majority of ordinary people MUST be restricted to supplying basic needs. We have the power to command other people to provide us with the basic goods and services we need to carry on living. For us, money is no more than tickets. Neither should it be – for us, and everybody.
For those who receive significantly more than required for supplying basic needs, money IS power to command whatever takes your fancy. Money ain’t got no scruples – if you know what I mean. I think I have raised the issue of freedom/liberty on TUT in the past. It is a very mischievous concept – inherently oxymoronic. Are you familiar with this issue? It, too, is of fundamental importance. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion repeatedly refer to liberty as one of their primary weapons in their ongoing conquest of gentile societies. Let me know if you want to explore the problematic issue of freedom/liberty.
In any case, money as the power to command others to supply goods and services – in my opinion – lies at the core of all of the ills of our civilization.
I have downloaded a pdf of Kitson’s “The Bankers’ Conspiracy! Which Started The World Crisis” – Crisis, not War.
Anyway, I’ll get back to Chapter VIII of Fraudulent Standard.
Cheers
We will discuss cahapter VIII tomorrow brother. I am
painfully tired and have current obligations on the morrow.
I just read your thread. I apologize for the late reply.
Privatized and borrowed issue of exchange value at interest for all that
labor and produce personal and social value is the topic
and problem we have inherited.
And what and who’s interest does the representstion ( issuance of currency)
defend?
And what and whom will it affect adversely?
This(our) current system of accounting does
guarantee war for us, and the Jews will remain the effende (ruler),
If we allow it all to continue.
Todd and Sabba: I have just posted a comment to Sabba’s post “GERMANY – We must hit climate target to avoid refugee waves: Angela Merkel” that is pertinent to our dialogue on this thread.
Seen it! Gentiles are not naturally inferior, quite the contrary. Someone once wrote as a comment on a post: “we are all capable of being a joo, lacking in mercy, grace and forgiveness. While that is a weakness in human character for most of us, they took it and made a religion out of it. That’s the difference.”
Brother Alan,
Money, monetary denominations, should not function as a commodity
as they do now.
Still, they are fully capable of representing “stored value” whether it is
from physical labor or material exchange between trading partners.
That is its most simple and brilliant function.
The paycheck I receive every week is a piece of paper that represents
the value of my labor to my employer.
The problem with “our” banks, under this current system, is that when
I deposit the check for the exchange value of MY labor, that value then
becomes the property of the bank, which they can then fractionalize (multiply)
the wealth of my labor 9 times (Fed Res is much higher), and lend this
newly acquired “asset” of my labor to me or someone else at interest(usury).
Why should I have to borrow at interest on my own labor for paper denominations
that cost little to make and only represent my labor exchange value and the cost
of labor exchange value for any other goods or services I or my family
need or desire?
All non-nationalized central banks must be boarded up or bulldozed.
Banks should be nothing more than an accounting houses.
It should be a safe place to store the exchange value of your labor.
In this digital age, there is very little cost in this.
Yet, with this current system, as money being a commodity with a fraudulent
inherent value, natural resources from many lands have been captured and
“privatized” and sent to be refined by cheap(slave) labor, and returned finished
at full price to a labor force that cannot fully satisfy itself because the jobs and the raw
materials they once owned were sent to a foreign country for its production.
Under this current global system, the needs of this international scheme sacrifice
the needs of all communities and cultures.
China should not manufacture my refrigerator or my lawnmower or my television.
Mexico and Indonesia should not manufacture my pants and shirts and shoes
since I must still pay full price for all of them so that CEO’s and “shareholders”
and “banksters” that suck raw blood can profit and congratulate themselves
at a job “well done”.
The bulk (80+% I would say) of raw material manufactured into finished product
for water and sewage infrastructure in the US comes from
1-China
2-India
3-Mexico
Money is NOT a commodity. Or at least it should not be one as it is now.
What it was originally was a brilliant and efficient way to “represent”
stored and exchange value.
A truly nationalized bank that would cost next to nothing to pay for and
account for all stored value is the answer.
No more BofA, Wells Fargo, Chase, Citibank, Fed, BofLondon, IMF etc.
Get rid of this speculation and slavery, for a system of honest accounting
of labor their needs, and material and production and trade value.
Cheers brother.
I hope you read the Lindbergh book also.
It’s just a ticket that makes trade production and exchange easier for productive partners
for both the labor and partners that their labor and partners agree have an inherent service and value
to their own society.
I have some “bills” in my pocket.
I paid for it in labor.
Why should it cost me anything more?
Thanks Todd. I want to begin by focusing on one sentence that you wrote:
“Under this current global system, the needs of this international scheme sacrifice the needs of all communities and cultures.”
That describes in a nutshell why the “current global system” is ill.
That system needs to sacrifice the needs of all ordinary people everywhere in order for the system itself to survive.
That is profoundly pathological.
Before that quote, you had written:
“… when I deposit the check for the exchange value of MY labor, that value then becomes the property of the bank, which they can then fractionalize (multiply) the wealth of my labor 9 times (Fed Res is much higher), and lend this newly acquired “asset” of my labor to me or someone else at interest (usury).”
I am keeping in mind comments you made later. Do you think that the idea of “the exchange value of MY labor” is a sacred cow confidence trick to sell you the fraudulent idea (perhaps subconscious) that money is a commodity? As you pointed out, you are not the beneficiary of money as a commodity; the bankers – Organized Usury – are! As an ordinary person, do you think that seductive idea diverts you from what should be your proper focus: the basic needs and reasonable wants of yourself, your family, and the local and regional communities that you are a part of?
Please sweat a little, pondering, before answering that question.
I want to use the concept you introduced – of “sacrifice”.
Our monetary civilization sacrifices all ordinary people everywhere – USA, Australia, China, India, Mexico, and all nations – to what Aristotle [The Politics, Book 1, Chapter 9] correctly described as an “insatiable wish” for ever greater wealth by those who practice chrematistics (the art of getting money). Pity the poor bankers? Hardly! But in a sense they are pitiable – hopelessly addicted to monetary wealth which is not limited by overdose, as addictive drugs are. So we are all stuck in a bizarre predicament where the bankers are perpetually sacrificing the needs of ordinary people everywhere to the God of Monetary Wealth – a fantasy whose demands are insatiable.
Todd, I have to challenge your following assertion:
“It’s just a ticket that makes trade production and exchange easier for productive partners for both the labor and partners that their labor and partners agree have an inherent service and value to their own society.”
A ticket is a single-use-only thing whose value expires immediately it is used.
Money is a magic-fraudulent-commodity whose value is stored and that ends up with Organized Usury who exchange it for ownership/control over the world’s resources. That is pure, utter, absolute power!
And you finished with: “I have some “bills” in my pocket. I paid for it in labor. Why should it cost me anything more?”
It shouldn’t, but it does cost more, much much more. It costs you, your family, and the communities you are part of, and your children, and their children, the prospect of a life worth living, in a civilization worth living in.
I finished A Fraudulent Standard yesterday, and am well into The Bankers’ Conspiracy. I’ll comment on those when I finish the latter.
Cheers
Brother Alan,
Because you have not mentioned your illness, I am happy to assume that
you are feeling well, and it does my heart good to believe this.
You quoted a portion of my previous post that read, “Do you think that the idea of “the exchange
value of MY labor” to sell you the sacred cow confidence trick to sell you the idea
(perhaps subconscious) that money is a commodity?”
The first sentence of my last post stated clearly, I thought, that “money” in and of itself is not
a commodity that fluctuates in values as all actual commodities will.
Money must be independent and still reflect true and fluctuating values of real commodities.
You are writing to me as if I am the one sucker that could not find the pea under the one of the 3
cups in a slight of hand trick in Chicago or Jersey street scam and that I that did not have the sense
to not bet my hard earned monies on a scam that cannot be won by travelers and suckers.
The way I win is to recognize the game(scam), and to not wager my honest earnings for a
potential or promised profit with a dishonest man and his system of so called equity and
potential “personal profit”.
That is a bet against the house that owns the chips and the odds.
I now quote you,
“A ticket is a single-use-only thing whose value expires immediately(when) it is used.”
True. That is its beauty and its singular function.
And it does not matter to the seller of goods (economically) whether it was worked for, or begged for.
It still represents “exchange value” and “stored value” for him and all.
The one that labors can buy a loaf of bread, a gallon of milk, and a steak for $20.00
exchange value notes and/or change.
The beggar can buy the same thing with the same amount.
The beggar was given the monies free of charge from only compassion from his fellow
man.
Why should not the man that labors be allowed to have this same compassion and utility with
the exchange value he has been fortunate enough to labor for and earn?
Why should he pay interest on the the exchange value of his own labor above more than
the beggar which he has compassion for and shares with?
If I pay interest(usury) on my own future labor, then I will never be more than a slave to those
that issue the payment for the dogmatic societal needs of my potential production.
“Money” is NOT a commodity.
“Money, monetary denominations, should not function as a commodity as they do now.”
That was the first sentence of my previous post.
After “Bankers Conspiracy”, please do not forget the Lindbergh book.
I bought a spinach croissant and coffee at the coffee house I go to read in on the
weekends.
I earned the money that it took to pay for these with my own labor.
I payed for them in soveirgn notes(paper) that represented exchange value for my labor.
Why should I have to pay at interest for an exchange value note that I already earned with my labor
and that the owner of the coffee shop excepts as payment for the value of his own cost for product and production and labor he employs and that he can also exchange for his current business
function and production?
I traded paper that represents proven earned physical or material wealth exchange value
for commodities I desired and could afford.
That is all the invention of “money” ever was or should be.
Please also read,
“The Money Problem” and also, “Trade Fallacies; A Criticism of Existing Methods,
and Suggestions For A Reform Towards National Prosperity”, by
Arthur Kitson.
“The Money Problem” was written in 1903, and “Trade Fallacies” was written
in 1927 by the same author.
I am looking forward to your comments on these important subjects.
Brother Todd, we need to settle an issue: is money a commodity? or is money not a commodity?
What is a commodity? A commodity is anything that people buy and sell – anything that people believe to have value.
Let’s focus on a very revealing market in which people buy and sell things.
For sheer convenience I quote wikipedia, viz:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_exchange_market
whose first paragraph states:
“The foreign exchange market (forex, FX, or currency market) is a global decentralized market for the trading of currencies. This includes all aspects of buying, selling and exchanging currencies at current or determined prices. In terms of volume of trading, it is by far the largest market in the world.[1] The main participants in this market are the larger international banks. Financial centres around the world function as anchors of trading between a wide range of multiple types of buyers and sellers around the clock, with the exception of weekends. The foreign exchange market determines the relative values of different currencies.”
I see nothing in that paragraph that is anything but a simple accurate description of what the foreign exchange market does and is.
What is the commodity that is traded on this exchange?
Answer: currencies – money! Now I have encountered arguments that currencies are not money. Such an argument – to my mind – is as substantial as the mythical argument about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin.
Inference: money is – de facto – a commodity! Evidence: the largest of all markets buys money of one currency with money of another currency.
Should money be a commodity? I think we both agree that money should not be a commodity. But that does not change the fact that money is a commodity. And that fact is due to a confidence trick whose logic goes back to the false idea that money is a store of value.
Todd, you believe that your money “represents proven earned physical or material wealth exchange value”, and you use it properly to exchange for real commodities – the things you and your family need and want in order to go on living.
After you have spent your money, its “exchange value” lives on. Something of the order of half of what you spend ends up being paid as interest to banks, but the money keeps on being exchanged over and over. Eventually what’s left ends up with “the larger international banks” who manipulate the “proven earned physical or material wealth exchange value” of all the workers of every currency domain in the world.
Everything you spend pays usury to the usurers!
Beggars?! In the richest country that has ever existed?!
Compassion of employed ordinary people for beggars is a virtuous and admirable thing.
That beggars exist in the richest country that has ever existed is vicious to an extreme that should be unthinkable.
Bill Clinton – as I recall – had difficulty understanding the meaning of the word “is”.
If we cannot agree that money IS a commodity, then how can we investigate money and its manifold pathologies?
The monetary civilization we are trapped in is mad. In our mad civilization, money is not a real commodity (where real = honest or bona fide) but money is a real commodity (where real = actual or de facto).
Your money is not your money. Your money is the usurers’ money. They control the “exchange value” of your money; and they can reduce the unit of account of your money to approximately zero at any time! The only way you can cease serving Organized Usury is to cease using their money!
If we cannot settle this issue, then we will remain blocked by it, and will be unable to proceed further.
I’ll leave that ball in your court.
And I’ll respond separately to your other response.
Cheers
Brother Todd, it is sobering to think that brother Arthur lived to the age of 78 years, and has been dead for 78 years. Organized Usury gets ever stronger.
I finished reading “A Fraudulent Standard” a couple of days ago, and am well into “The Bankers’ Conspiracy”. After I finish the latter, I will post my preliminary comments to both together.
Cheers
Good evening Brother Alan.
Yes, I do have an understanding that exchange value notes do represent
proven wealth from labor and the human ingenuity of raw made into
finished products for social exchange and satisfaction.
The only actual commadity for all of this is human labor and needs and
their intellectual ability to satisfy each other with their own peculiar talents.
That was the once perfect invention of an exchange value notes and coins.
With their values only representing human production and the value of raw
or finished material to satisfy local communities fully and then exporting raw
and finished works that could create potential allies instead of enemies.
Why should indigenous labor and ingenuity not be allowed to satisfy its
own population but instead seek out compromised exchange value notes in a
foreign land with foreign labor when our own domestic and previously
productive population has been excluded nearly altogether for the exchange
Of a Fraudulant Standard?
Human physical and intellectual potential and production is the ONLY REAL VALUE
in this world.
That “value” does NOT need to be borrowed into existence.
Is that not the essence of Shariah law?
If a house is worth 150,000 when you buy it, and you put $75,000 down,
and since you have shown some ability, when you pay the other $75,000,
you get the Deed for not one penny more or less because the house was
worth $150,000 when you put a down on it.
You get to own it outright.
No 1913 unconstitutional property taxes.
The only “commodity” in this world is human labor and life.
Once upon a time, this invention represented true human labor and exchange
value.
“Money” lent at interest does not represent human value and potential.
It is the arresting of both.
Our current system is nothing more than a promise of more war,
And Israel would win. Not America and not the rest of the world.
Dear brother Todd, I understand your explanation of how you would like the civilization we are part of, to be.
And you plainly understand that the reality we live in is a long long way from how you would like it to be.
You mention “the once perfect invention of an exchange value notes and coins”.
When and where was that?
The earliest money I know of was in Sumer about 3,000 BC, did NOT involve coins or notes – just weights of silver or barley – and was already usurious, with an interest rate equivalent to about 20% per year.
Coins did not emerge until about 2,400 years later – the earliest known, according to http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/articles/oldest-coin, being sometime after 610 BC.
I simply do not understand what you mean by “Human physical and intellectual potential and production is the ONLY REAL VALUE in this world.”
We humans are part of this world’s biosphere. We are dispensable to the biosphere, but the biosphere is indispensable to us. We could not survive without a healthy biosphere. The value to us of the biosphere is REAL and immense!
Your example of purchasing a house assumes a stable standard or unit of account – a condition so painstakingly considered by brother Arthur, and revealed to be untrustworthy and wide open to fraudulent manipulation and administration. But then, I realize you were describing how you would like things to be.
I’m just having a second look at brother Arthur’s two books before commenting on them.
My heart grieves for him toiling so long and hard, and being just toyed with by corrupt traitors.
Cheers
Hello brother,
Colonial Script, the English Tally Stick,
Ancient African tribes used animal dung to reflect exchange values.
These are a few answers to your previous question.
There are many others examples.
Our biosphere is now being destroyed because of the current fraudulent
standard of exchange value our Judaic masters have forced us to employ.
Mr Kitson states openly in the beginning that he is addressing the common
people of England and writes these works in their behalf so that they could
understand the importance and machinations that were working against
their own inherent interest.
Food has inherent value for all.
Education has inherent value for all.
Gold has inherent value for at least some.
None of these can be the base standard of value for an exchange note that represents
something that it has never possessed(food, gold, clothing etc) , but only represents an independent value to one that
needs or desires them for their own use or necessity.
Human intellectual and physical and social value of production is what we
are now considering.
Under this current Judaic exchange value system, our biosphere is being destroyed.
Our social and natural fabric is being torn.
Why should Europe or America or any country have to borrow its own notes that provide
exchange value for its own citizens production and trade at interest from the Bank of London,
The Fed?
This Judaic system demands aggression and corruption and constant assault of the biosphere
of this world in which we humans are a very important and very manipulated part of.
I am pretty sure that Mr Kitson died an unhappy man in that he could not reach enough of
his countrymen with simple English to make a difference in what he saw was definitely coming.
And now, here we are.
Orwellian dystopia.
“There are two ways to conquer a nation.
One is by sword.
The other, by debt”.
Thanks brother Todd.
Please bear with me as I sweat and groan my way through a second reading of A Fraudulent Standard and The Bankers’ Conspiracy. After the first reading I found myself scratching my head in bewilderment. How could he expose and explain so much fraud and treachery without effect and without drawing obvious inferences? I guess the British laws about defamation and slander may have been a factor, and perhaps some sort of class loyalty to decent chaps, and yet again from his own point of view as an entrepreneurial and innovative producer.
The second reading is revealing to me that brother Arthur’s point of view seems to have blinded him to another point of view that could render the “fraudulent standard” irrelevant.
Anyway, I’ll write about that after finishing the second reading.
Needless to say, I accept the validity of his criticisms of the monetary system existing then and now. But the key difference is in the point of view – the world view if you like. It looks different, and is different, and should be amenable to quite different modes of management, and may be amenable to preventing the pernicious corruption and treachery that plagues our status quo.
Anyway, it could be a week or more before I write.
OK brother Todd, I’ve done my reading of Arthur Kitson’s two books, “A Fraudulent Standard” and “The Bankers’ Conspiracy” which I will henceforth denote as AFS and TBC.
Where to begin? Most of what he wrote, I strongly agree with. Mostly he wrote about the many errors made by British government officials and their private expert advisers in the administration of the institutions of money, currency and credit. That approach – seeing errors – was inappropriately generous in my view. Seeing such incorrigible errors as treason would have been far more accurate. To be fair to Kitson, I presume he would have been warned by his legal advisers of the perils of being sued for slander or defamation by rich and powerful men backed by the richest and most powerful of men.
In fact he wrote about how the institutions of money, currency and credit have been administered corruptly in every conceivable way under the pretence of errors committed by very clever men over and over and over again and again. Such is the non-accountability of the institution of money. Such is the level and pervasiveness of corruption in modern nation states.
I will not bore you with describing all the points where I agree with Kitson. Instead I will focus on points of disagreement.
Let’s get a few of these out of the way where Kitson was just plain wrong.
On AFS p 18 Kitson wrote: “Nations and societies are organisms, and are destined to progress or perish.” That is a conceptual error. Nations and societies are not organisms, but are organizations made up of organisms whose motivations may (or may not) be in harmony with the well-being of the organization they are part of. In contrast, organisms are living beings made up of specialized organs whose motivations are predetermined to be in complete harmony with the organism they are part of.
The best of organizations would try to emulate the integrity of an organism as best they could by the component organisms serving the well-being of the organization to their utmost. But such discipline is not hard-wired, and has to be voluntary. Of course, no organization comes anywhere near the integrity of a healthy organism.
Sadly, the organisms administering the monetary institutions of Britain – as so comprehensively described by Kitson – did so in flagrant neglect of the well-being of the British people they were duty bound to serve. To be fair, Kitson never tired of urging those traitors to learn from their errors, while apparently never quite admitting to himself that their errors were not errors but intentional betrayal of the British people in favour of people variously denoted as “financiers”, “gamblers”, “bullionists”, etc, often preceded by the adjective “cosmopolitan”.
Brother Todd, I have a faint recollection of reading that the original 1917 edition of AFS was published without the final Chapter XV presenting Kitson’s No-money Island fable, but I have been unable to confirm that recollection. Do you know whether or not that was the case, Todd? It makes sense that it would have been excluded because there is no lack of specificity or clarity in the fable – the ship-wrecked usurers who ended up in total ownership and abusive domination of the island and its people were Jews. And the No-money Island people’s solution to their problem was to massacre the Jews. Nothing ambiguous about that. And I find it hard to imagine that the British wartime censor – so soon after the Balfour Declaration – would have tolerated that.
Another error worth noting is Kitson’s perception of FDR. This is clear from a couple of quotes:
TBC p 44 ““We cannot allow our economic life to be controlled by that small group of men whose chief outlook upon the social welfare is tinctured by the fact that they can make huge profits from the lending of money and the marketing of securities – an outlook which deserves the adjectives ‘selfish’ and ‘opportunist’.”
This quotation from a recent work by President Roosevelt is the most hopeful outlook both for the American public and for the world at large. Will our politicians have the intelligence and the wisdom to follow the President’s lead? I doubt it.”
TBC p 101 “Fortunately for our trans-Atlantic neighbours, they have at last found a MAN as President who understands the bankers’ game, and is not afraid of their shouts and threats.”
Kitson died on 1937-10-02 at a time when banker’s man FDR was feverishly engineering a second great war in Europe.
In trying to find out more about his death, I came across https://www.polaroidblipfoto.com/entry/2718458 which includes: “By the time of his death in 1937, Arthur Kitson was the second most influential fascist in Britain, the first being Oswald Moseley. In his late years he was brought to Germany to consult with Nazi party economists. After I bought this pamphlet (in the photo) on line, the seller asked if I was interested in his other material, including a title on “Jewish ritual murder.” I did not reply.”
That is fascinating. I can only infer that Kitson’s FDR illusions must have at some stage succumbed to reality. It makes sense that Hitler, Feder and the NSDAP would have been interested in Kitson’s work, and consulted with him. It also makes sense that brother Arthur may not have died of natural causes. No point speculating about that.
Before commencing my take on Kitson’s ideas about money I want to quote his conclusion to TBC p 102:
“The post-war period, ushered in an entirely new era, unlike any former period in the world’s history; a period in which man’s inventive genius has placed within mankind’s reach boundless wealth, sufficient for every inhabitant of this planet to enjoy life without encroaching upon supplies needed by any of his fellows; a period in which Nature’s powers have been harnessed to machinery for furnishing all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life, thereby releasing man from the original curse. And yet amidst all this abundance, we are inundated with myriads of starving, ragged people all because our officials have not the intelligence to see that the old economic theories have become fallacies, the old monetary and banking systems unworkable, and that just as our productive methods to which we owe this Age of plenty have been revolutionized, so our entire economic system must be reorganized.”
Kitson was a producer and wrote about production having been “revolutionized”, so much so that “all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life” can be provided “for every inhabitant of this planet”. As a producer, he was proud of that achievement, and rightly so.
My reason for presenting this quote is because it implies a fundamental truism that should apply for all nations no matter how small or large. The raison d’être for all nations should be to meet the needs and reasonable wants of all its people. That fundamental principle needs to be kept in mind in all that follows.
On p 24 of AFS Kitson wrote: “Now the most serious feature of this world-wide money monopoly, is the power it gives a few men to alter the purchasing power of money whenever it is to their advantage to do so. The operation is extremely simple. The business of the world is conducted chiefly upon credit by means of loans, so that the mere calling in of loans and the refusal to extend credit suffices greatly to increase the purchasing power of money. A similar result can be obtained by withdrawing gold supplies from circulation, and by reversing these processes prices can be advanced and the danger from the previous operations relieved. Hence the world’s financiers have the power to acquire unlimited wealth by merely juggling with prices.”
On pp 66-7 of AFS Kitson wrote: “Next in importance to our physical units of measurements, ranks our monetary system in terms of which the values of commodities are indicated, exchanges are effected, debts are made and paid, and property and wealth of every description is estimated. During the past century, money has assumed an economic and social importance and power greater than it has ever possessed in the world’s history. It is by means of money that the annual wealth production of all industrial countries is distributed, and any serious variation in the general purchasing power of the monetary unit necessarily inflicts injustice and hardship upon nearly all classes — the producing classes more especially. The monetary unit, therefore, should be established in such a way as to prevent its being subjected to sudden variations in supply and demand which would affect its purchasing power.”
On AFS pp 74-5 Kitson asserts, in economics, “Between what should be and what is, a great gulf has hitherto been fixed, consisting of laws, privileges, customs, superstition and ignorance. The basis of every economic system should be justice, the reign of which has not yet commenced, and the meaning of which is little understood in spite of our much vaunted civilization.
It may be well to understand, however, that without justice, without fair exchange, no satisfactory system of economics can exist.
Dealing principally with human actions, economics is necessarily related to and should be considered a branch of the science of ethics.”
Throughout AFS Kitson repeatedly referred to economics as a “science”. No discipline deserving to be called a science would tolerate “a great gulf” between “what should be and what is”. That this gulf involves corrupt “laws, privileges, customs, superstition and ignorance” indicates that economics hardly even deserves to be regarded as an art; perhaps an artful racket might be an apt label.
I can agree that “without justice, without fair exchange, no satisfactory system of economics can exist”. More fundamentally, without honesty no satisfactory system of economics can exist.
Kitson also refers to ethics as a “science”. Here too I think it might be more apt to consider ethics as an “art”, with the proviso that any bona fide art should operate with the same rigour and honesty that science demands.
In any case, I agree with Kitson that economics should operate as a branch of ethics. Economics should be all about fairness and justice in human commerce. In other words, economics should be all about preventing dishonesty in human commerce. The gulf between what is and what should be is immense.
I think these few quotes are enough to get started.
So Kitson well understood the paramount importance of the needs of a society’s people. All else is – should be – subordinate. Yet, for the most part, his focus was on purchasing power. And money – as we have known it hitherto – is all about power.
Money is the power to command others to provide us with goods and services. If I have the money, I can find people willing to do whatever I want.
Ordinary people every day use money to command people to provide us with goods and services. And we enjoy exercising purchasing power. Just about everybody loves exercising purchasing power. And the people who love it the most are the richest of all people, those who control the issuing of purchasing power. I will refer to them as Organized Usury, the cosmopolitans in charge of international and intranational banking.
To Organized Usury, the needs of ordinary people count for nothing beyond survival of valuable livestock so that money can be issued to them, pass through their hands, and end up with Organized Usury who have used all that almost unlimited purchasing power to purchase as much of the world’s wealth as they can. To Organized Usury the ordinary people of all nations are important – but only as herds of animals from whom Organized Usury harvests purchasing power.
So the needs of ordinary people are not paramount. Purchasing power is paramount!
I’m thinking that the cosmopolitan bankers would have been content with Kitson’s focus on purchasing power rather than the needs of ordinary people.
Why does that matter?
On AFS p 125 Kitson wrote: “The essential functions of money are therefore (1) to express the exchange-values of commodities, (2) to facilitate the exchange of commodities, (3) to register debts in terms of some invariable denominator, and (4) to transfer private debts to the community, and credits from one person to another.”
Let’s rephrase Kitson’s four essential functions of money in terms of needs rather than purchasing power. (1) to measure the relative value of commodities by means of a reliable unit of account; (2) to enable easy access to necessary commodities by means of single-use tickets of entitlement which need not be paper, but could be electronically accessed via smart cards or the like; (3) to record transactions in terms of the same reliable unit of account; (4) to enable easy issue of entitlements by the society’s rigorously managed issuing institution, based on the needs of families, individuals, and providers of goods and services. Providers of goods and services would be held accountable, not by profit or loss, but by the satisfaction of customers with the goods or services provided.
Crucial differences/advantages of such a society from/over present societies would include: (1) there would be no need for banks of any kind; (2) there would be no need for private for-profit insurance corporations – such reformed societies could be organized so that recovery from disasters would be accepted as a societal responsibility, met according to needs via economic (in the ancient sense) employment of resources; (3) allocation of entitlements would be subject to societal priorities determined by recurrent plebiscites conducted on the basis of constantly upgraded information about the society’s available resources so that basic needs and reasonable wants would always be covered; (4) the provision of public services would be via delegating responsibility to elected officials and groups, subject to ongoing accountability whereby means would always be available to call such officials and groups to account and, if need be, dismissed, and new elections organized to elect replacement officials; (5) such a society would not allow any individual or group to become rich and powerful; (6) which leaves the society with an important problem – what to do with the residual riches and the power enabled by such wealth remaining from the old unreformed society?
One would hope that the process of reformation would have already resolved that problem as peacefully as possible. Undoubtedly, such a process of reformation would involve a multitude of specific issues needing to be resolved. No attempt will be made here to exhaustively determine what they might be. The fundamental changes listed above are sufficient to gauge what the quality of life might be like in such a reformed society. Some may argue that such reforms might stifle personal and group initiative. In my opinion, the opposite would be the case. Practical people with good ideas would be regarded as one of society’s most valuable resources, and would be provided with resources to develop their ideas – not for profit in wealth and power – but to serve the common good of their society, and to be honoured for so doing. Aristotle warned us that profit was an unhealthy form of motivation because it engenders in some people an insatiable wish for ever greater wealth, and the quality of goods or services provided by such people suffers accordingly. And price competition forces other providers to also lower the quality of the goods and services they provide. Aristotle chose the military and medical arts to exemplify the point. The parallel in our times with corruption in the military and medical industrial complexes is striking. The alternative to profit as a motive to work would be interest and aptitude for such work, and desire to serve the common good of the society one belongs to.
OK, we have just argued that money should cease functioning as transferable purchasing power, and should be replaced by single-use-only tickets of entitlement to goods and services.
What about the unit of account issue?
Kitson repeatedly advocated the need for a stable, reliable unit of account, but wavered and showed inconsistency mainly caused by the “store of value” factor.
On AFS p 100, Kitson wrote: “The logical conclusion to which we are inevitably driven is one that will no doubt arouse considerable astonishment. In order that it may satisfactorily perform its necessary functions — particularly that of a value denominator and accurately register the variations in the exchange values of commodities — money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket. The one pound Treasury note, of course, meets this definition, provided its issue is not restricted by such absurdities as gold-redemption, and so long as the supply is sufficient to meet all the demands of trade, industry and commerce.”
He contradicts himself even in this particular quotation. A railway or theatre ticket loses its value the instant it is used. “The one pound Treasury note” does not meet “this definition” because it retains its value after the first and every subsequent use. Money which stores value is the answer to Organized Usury’s prayer. Single use tickets of entitlement would put an end to Organized Usury’s racket.
On TBC p 63 Kitson wrote: “The modern and generally accepted theory of monetary science is known as the quantitative theory, which asserts that the value of the money unit is determined by the number of units in circulation multiplied by their velocity of circulation. This theory is in direct opposition to the old barter or commodity-money theory. For it claims that quantity and not quality controls the value of money. Hence it is absolutely immaterial so far as value is concerned, whether a nation employs paper money or gold and silver coins so long as the number of units in circulation is the same in both cases.”
TBC was published in 1933. In the 16 years since AFS was published in 1917, Kitson abandoned the idea that “money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket”. Thank you not, Irving Fisher for the “generally accepted” “quantitative theory” of “monetary science” “which asserts that the value of the money unit is determined by the number of units in circulation multiplied by their velocity of circulation.”
What is hidden in all that gobbledygook? What is hidden is the false belief that value can be stored in the monetary unit of account. That false belief is the beating heart of Organized Usury.
Arthur Kitson was right in 1917 when he said that “money must be essentially a valueless token, similar to a railway or theatre ticket”! Must! How was he seduced away from the realization that value cannot be stored? Who seduced him?
What is stored value? It is a reservoir of power – purchasing power – the power to command people to provide goods and services – the power to purchase the service of politicians, administrators, legislators, judicial officials, practitioners of any art – the power to punish or attack any person or group who is disobedient. Power!
Suddenly, just now, a childhood memory came to mind. There was no TV then, but there was radio. And a scene from a radio presentation of a children’s story came through my mind’s ear. A girl laments: “Here I sit at my spinning wheel; no one knows how sad I feel; …” A scene from the story of Rumpelstiltskin.
The story can be read at http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Rum.shtml.
The sad girl was a miller’s daughter whose father had lied to the king that his daughter could spin straw into gold. The king summoned the poor girl and commanded her to spin straw into gold, on pain of death if she didn’t. Enter Rumpelstiltskin, a devilish imp who rescued the girl by doing the job for her, and …
Well, weaving straw into gold is quite a trick.
Weaving a unit of account into a store of value is no less a trick. In fact of the two, the more impressive is the latter because it has been achieved in the real world, while the former is merely a fantasy.
The good thing about fantasies is that, no matter how bad things get, it all ends happily – the Shylockian Rumpelstiltskin gets his just deserts, although that very nasty King avoided getting his just deserts.
The bad thing about the real world is that, no matter how bad things get, they always seem able to get even worse. The King now serves Rumpelstiltskin.
But what about a stable unit of account providing reliable measurements of the relative value of goods and services? Do we need such a scale? I think we do, so long as entitlements are issued according to need and reasonable wants, and nobody is in a position to profit from manipulating either prices or the unit of account.
Kitson does describe in principle how a reliable scale for measuring the value of goods and services could be devised. Keep in mind, he was thinking in terms of money as purchasing power, having “exchange-value” that is transferable. That is important because it means that the unit of account stores the value that it measures which – frankly! – is impossible. Nonetheless, the procedure he describes would be possible if money were issued as single-use-only entitlements to goods and services, so that interested parties could not manipulate prices in their own favour.
Kitson’s description is something like a dog’s breakfast, so I will try to paraphrase and clarify simultaneously.
The rationale is to set up a vast database of relative values. For example, the value of commodity A relative to commodity B is estimated by a group of impartial people which might include producers of A, producers of B, consumers of A, consumers of B, and consumers of A and B. Each person estimates separately, the results tabulated, and discussion then takes place among all estimators to arrive at a consensus or majority final evaluation, say xA = yB, or A = (y/x)B. The same procedure takes place for all possible pairs of commodities.
The resultant huge database would then be processed mathematically to arrive at a practically convenient unit of account, and a final database in which the relative value of all commodities are expressed in that unit of account. Actually Kitson used the term “denominator” instead of “unit of account”, and I imagine the mathematical task would be to determine the most convenient level of denomination – not necessarily the lowest common denominator, but the most practically convenient denominator, and to express the relative value of all commodities in that denominator or unit.
I think the above description is consistent with what Kitson intended, although I don’t think he described it so clearly in either AFS or TBC, nor in as much detail. His method of determining relative values may have been more or less rigorous than described by me.
Since the denominator would no longer function as a store of value, it would no longer function as power, and entitlement tickets would expire once spent. The opportunity of becoming rich and powerful would be denied to all, but access to needed goods and services and to reasonable wants would be guaranteed to all. Such wishes on my part were not aspirations of Kitson, although please recall Kitson’s conclusion to TBC on p 102 where he advocated with quiet passion that “all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life” could be provided “for every inhabitant of this planet”. But I think he never quite escaped the intoxication of money-as-power, so that money-as-entitlement in his mind never quite got to the stage of pushing money-as-power off its throne.
Of course, Organized Usury would resist the dethroning of money-as-power with all the force it could muster, whatever it takes. History shows that Organized Usury would not stop short of murder and genocide.
They would see the prospect of money-as-entitlement administered for the long-term common good on an economical not-for-profit basis as an attack on their existence. Actually their existence as Organized Usury would be destroyed, but they would still have the option of living an ordinary life as ordinary persons. And, of course, the issue of odious wealth and the odious power that goes with odious wealth would need to be resolved in favour of the common good. So the come down for the Organized Usury people would be very great. But surely entitlement to goods and services meeting basic needs and reasonable wants would not be such a heavy cross for them to bear.
I think I should stop there, and see what – if any – responses you have brother Todd. To go further would be to push my own barrow along the extensive ramifications of the money-as-entitlement path rather than responding to brother Arthur’s ideas about the money-as-power path.
I should thank you for inducing me to read these two books of Arthur Kitson because in so doing I saw clearly the choice which Kitson was aware of to some extent but shied away from – based on these two books alone. Maybe in the remaining 4 years of his life he may have moved closer to money-as-entitlement as opposed to money-as-power. Those options really are opposed. That is clear to me now.
And money-as-power still rules – run by Organized Usury!
Alan,
You are arguing in elegant circles.
The railroad ticket purchased with a soveign exchange
value note still holds equivilant value to the one that sold
the ticket.
Same as it does today.
The railroad and the hardware store and the supermarket
will today, like then, deposit them into the bank as earned
and stored value.
You are making this difficult to follow. The whole point of
Arthur Kitson’s works were as he stated. To make it easy
for the average to understand.
Money does NOT have to be borrowed into existence.
Soveign national monies can be loaned into existence,
but there is no reasonable need to loan it at usurious and
harmful to the populations interest.
If you, Alan, want to argue these intellectual interest after
acknowledging AK’s most simple points, then this is above
my own intellect and concern.
When I give a $5 bill to a store, that bill represents stored
value.
When that store deposits that same $5 dollar bill into a bank
account, it represents $5 of earned and stored value.
It’s that simple.
That $5 dollar note never had to be borrowed into existence.
It represents production and trade value only.
Keep it simple Alan.
No need for you to prove your intellectual prowess.
This is for the simple folk like me that need to understand the
fraud that is their undoing.
Kitson stated this aim for his writings in the beginning.
He wrote it for the workers, the ones that labored.
In the hope that he would help them to understand the Judaic monetary
system that was leaving them into want and their country at war.
Remember, Britain was at one time a manufacturing “Superpower”
also.
As for the other story about gold and Jews landing on the island.
I have 3 copies of Fraudulent Standard.
All of them are different.
You are resourceful Alan.
If you really want to, you could find it.
I say throw all the world’s gold into the ocean.
We would be no worse for it.
Gold is just silly stupidstition.
Brother Todd, plainly my communicative skill is very weak.
I thought I had clearly distinguished between:
money issued as entitlement to goods and services to be used once only; and
money issued as purchasing power to be used over and over, maintaining its purchasing power until eventually it falls again into the hands of the bankers who created it as interest bearing debt.
Let’s just deal with one specific detail at a time.
Is that assertion now clear? That there is a fundamental difference between these two options – entitlement to a definite amount of goods and services (which expires immediately it is used) and purchasing power which maintains its value until it returns to the private banks in unlimited amounts.
How the bankers’ accountants handle all that power, I have no idea, but the fact is that extremely rich individuals have come to own a very large proportion of the productive resources of the world.
Can you see that difference? Do you think that difference could make a difference to the well-being of ordinary people in every nation?
If you can’t see the difference, I simply don’t have the ability to simplify it any further.
Peace be upon you, brother Todd.
Brother,
Eliminate interest bearing debt (private issue of public currency and credit).
There is nothing wrong with a $1,$5,$10 or $20 bill.
They simply represent earned and exchange value.
Banks should be nothing more than an individual and social adult version
of a piggy bank. A place to store the value you have earned.
The value that I have earned with my own sweat and ingenuity is not an entitlement
that I or anyone had to borrow at compounding interest.
The offense is a banking system that gets rich on my labor when they do nothing
but extend me invisible money with interest.
Arthur Kitson made this exact point.
Nationalized banks are not there to profit.
Banks should not be a for profit business.
Nationalized banks are there only to safely store the publics earned value.
They are only a place for my neighbors and myself to store all of the
$1’s, $5’s, $10’s and $20’s we have earned.
And if I want to buy a house for $150,000 and have $30,000 to put down, the state
can extend the $120,000 credit to me itself(maybe include a small fee for services)
and when I pay off the $120,000, I gain the deed to the house.
I believe that is the essence of shariah law.
If for some reason I become unable to make the payment for the house,
the state may retake possession of the house and resell it to another.
The state has lost nothing because it extended nothing but credit to me.
Private banks under our Judaic system extend credit to the public and
confiscate public resources and labor for their private profit.
Peace brother.
A bug seems to have got the better of me these last few.
Feeling a bit trampled under foot.
Zero private banks is all I’m sayin.
I believe Mr Jefferson said the same thing.
Brother Todd: sentence by sentence:
1. “Eliminate interest bearing debt (private issue of public currency and credit).”
I agree absolutely.
2. “There is nothing wrong with a $1,$5,$10 or $20 bill.”
I DISAGREE absolutely!
3. “They simply represent earned and exchange value.”
Todd, that is your belief; and the God you believe in is a false God.
This false God is Purchasing Power, and your belief that the money you earn is simply earned value is false. If that were true, that value would be extinguished when you spent it. That does not happen! Its value lives on as Purchasing Power, passing through who knows how many hands until all the earnings of all earners everywhere ends up in the hands of those who run the monetary racket as immense sums of Purchasing Power. They are the people who have purchased everything purchasable in every country, including governments and heads of state.
There’s a challenge for you Todd. Justify your belief in the false God of Purchasing Power.
I am assuming that you can see the immense harm that Purchasing Power has wreaked on the lives of ordinary people everywhere. That Purchasing Power is simply earned value is a lie inflicted on well-meaning workers. The money racketeers operate by means of deception.
Please address this challenge brother Todd. Not while you are ill, but when you have recovered.
Uggh,
The drachma, lira, pound, peso, we could go on and on.
All of them represent earned and stored value of labor and
material wealth.
This “false god I believe in” is an earned and tangible relation
to actual earned wealth.
If I work 8 hours a day, as a farmer, in Spain.
That does indeed have an inherent value for me and for
those that profit from my labor(homes and families, stores that sell
my works etc).
I do NOT have a false god in purchasing power.
The $20 bill is only a false god because it is now borrowed into
existence at usurious interest.
The $20 bill is NOT the problem.
The fact that it is now loaned at interest is the problem.
We use fiat currency everyday. All except that it represents exchange
values.
The thing is, those notes never had to be borrowed into existence.
Because those notes were in fact borrowed(illegally) into existence,
the “lenders” of those notes have captured the actual wealth of nearly
every country.
Material and social wealth they have captured with this scam.
Gold and silver, same as oranges and wheat and beef, are represented
in monetary denominations.
Capture control of the issue of currency.
The Jews saw this long ago.
You want gold?
I hope you gain all of it.
I would much rather gain control of the Jewish issue of currency
and credit.
I believe I would then have sufficient advantage over you and your
golden possessions.
If you work for an amount of time for your own and
even another’s interest, did you not earn wages that
give you purchasing power?
Or does your labor have no cost or exchange value?
Brother Todd, I am not arguing that labour has no value, nor that it has no cost.
Cost? Time and effort.
“Exchange value”? That term is dear to your heart. “Exchange value” = “purchasing power” = “entitlement to goods and services”. Can you see that these conceptions/expressions are equal in the reality they represent?
Plain facts: you work, you command provision of the goods and services you and your dependents need to go on living, and the power your labour earned changes hands over and over again and ends up as power, along with the power that every other worker has earned, in the hands of our masters. That is “the problem”!
That is the reason our masters lend money at interest which WE BOTH AGREE is also “the problem” – opposite end of the same problem.
The reason why our rulers allow you to exist is that you work for them!
Your work ends up as power in their hands.
They make sure that the goods and services you need will be just within your power to command.
Whether you like it or not, you are their slave. So am I. So are all workers and consumers.
I think we both agree that Arthur Kitson’s work was valuable – although it made no difference at all to the progress of the monetary juggernaut. No difference at all.
He even confronted the ‘store-of-value’-versus-‘single-use-ticket-of-entitlement’ issue back in 1917 (or even earlier perhaps) but (why, we can only guess) backed away from it, never to develop this idea further in the remaining two decades of his life.
I sympathize with your “Uggh” – I stomped all over your cherished belief in “Purchasing Power” = “Exchange Value”.
I can assure you, our masters cherish your belief in “Purchasing Power” = “Exchange Value” even more than you do. Their immense power depends on those beliefs.
Now please explain what’s wrong with our servants issuing us with single-use tickets of entitlement instead of our masters issuing interest-bearing debt. I do not understand why that alternative is so repulsive.
Let us concentrate on your last two sentences.
First, the issue of money provides a service for labour and
production exchange value.
The laborer is a sevant under the current monetary system.
Even if the servant issued the currency at interest, he would make others
and himself a slave under the same system if it had to be borrowed into
existence.
This should not be the case. Exchange value does not have to be borrowed into
existence by kings nor serfs.
It represents only the value of the saw, hammer, plow, seed, etc.
It is human value and ingenuity and labor and the benefit these have to
family and society that has the only true value.
These do not have to be borrowed into existence at usurious rates.
That is not exchange value. That is slavery.
I told you long before, gold may feed a rich man. But what use is this
to society and social order if the rest are left wanting because of a
Faith in something so superstitious?
Consider an exchange value within a single village and/or country and
not an international oligarchy.
Please consider this.
Peace and good will all day every day, brother Todd.
I really am an ineffective communicator.
The “servant” issuing entitlements was meant to be a government answerable at all times to the people it exists to serve.
I did not make that clear so, there’s no way you could have understood what I meant.
We agree that the status quo “is slavery”.
Can we postpone dealing with the exchange value versus entitlements impasse until after we discuss the next crucial issue which might actually influence dealing with the impasse?
Those dominating the status quo have accumulated ownership of an immense proportion of the productive resources of the world over centuries. I regard such wealth as odious in the same sense that abusive financiers seducing people, organizations and nations into a trap of unpayable debt is odious debt.
A social order based on fairness would write off all odious debt. If such an approach is just, then, in my opinion, so too would be writing off odious wealth.
Now I could go on and on and on about that issue, but I won’t.
Would you please share your thoughts on what should be done about odious debt and odious wealth?