Sunday, June 10, 2012

Alternate Media, Ron Paul, Gold, Austrian Economics and More!

"Democracy Now" and the "Progressive" Alternative Media: Valued Cheerleaders For Imperialism and War
By Finian Cunningham
Global Research, July 13, 2012
The major Western mainstream media outlets have been running a “shock and awe” propaganda offensive against the Syrian government of President Bashar Al Assad for nearly 16 months. The misinformation has been unrelenting, monolithic, unverified, one-sided and, frankly, increasingly preposterous.
With the suppression of mounting facts that Western governments are waging a covert war of aggression in Syria, the Western public is right to treat the conventional media sources with skepticism and outright contempt. Such media are seen as “politicized” and “unreliable”, serving a naked imperialist agenda for Western regime change. In a word, they are damaged goods.
This is where a segment of the so-called alternative media can play a valuable propaganda function for Western powers. Because such media are supposed to be independent, critical, non-corporate, the public tends to consider their reports as objective and unbiased. One such
“alternative” news service is "Democracy Now" hosted by Amy Goodman. Goodman is seen as something of a campaigning critical journalist shedding the light of truth on the depredations of the US government, corporations and the Pentagon. But a closer look at what Goodman’s "Democracy Now" is reporting on Syria shows that the purported critical broadcaster has become a purveyor of Western government propaganda. While the mainstream media’s propaganda function is obvious to the informed public, Goodman’s "Democracy Now" plays a more subtle role. Camouflaged with the trappings of critical, independent journalism, "Democracy Now" serves to sow powerful seeds of misinformation in a way that the “compromised” mainstream media cannot.
This misinformation from "Democracy Now" is valuable to the ruling elite because to many of its readers it is not seen as misinformation.
Rather, the “news” on "Democracy Now" is viewed as reliable and representing the views of the anti-war, anti-imperialist constituency. In this way, Goodman is a valuable asset to Washington and Wall Street because her broadcasts can serve to disorient and undermine a constituency that is normally opposed to Western warmongering and imperialism. Many of the subscribers to "Democracy Now" may see through the misinformation. Many, though, may not, and therefore will become embedded with the imperialist agenda. The fact that Democracy Now ratings appear to be holding up would indicate that a lot of its followers are oblivious to the insidious effect of such misinformation. As such, Democracy Now is more valuable to the powers-that-be than, say, the New York Times or the Financial Times. "Democracy Now" ensures that the agenda of the powerful becomes infiltrated in a constituency that would otherwise be opposed to that agenda.
First, let’s recap on the mainstream propaganda offensive against Syria.
Since mid-March 2011, when violence was initially reported in that country, the Western mainstream television, radio and press studiously ignored the evidence of covert foreign-backed subversion and terrorism. Instead these outlets have sought to portray the protests as part of the pro-democracy Arab Spring popular movements that were seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Bahrain. The mainstream media have run saturation coverage to demonise the government in Damascus as a “brutal, authoritarian regime” that is cracking down mercilessly on its civilian population demanding democratic reforms. The narrative is monolithic in the major media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic. Whether the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, or the Financial Times, Guardian, Independent, Le Monde, BBC, ITN, the Irish national broadcaster RTE or the Middle East’s much-vaunted Al Jazeera – the “story” on Syria is uncannily uniform. A noble, civilian mass-based movement is being savagely crushed by a tin-eared dictator, so the story goes.
Every possible smear campaign against the Assad government has been indulged in and indeed fabricated. From the alleged killing of innocent civilians by the national armed forces, to the perpetration of massacres by pro-government militias, to self-inflicted car bombs in urban centres by Assad secret services,
to the feckless shopping habits of the president’s wife. Russia Today, Press TV, Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Vatican News Service (Agenzia Fides), to name a few, have been honorable exceptions in mainstream media journalism for conveying a more accurate picture of what is really happening inside Syria – showing that “protesters” are far from peaceful civilians, and much of the violence is actually stemming from Western, Turkish and Arab-backed mercenaries that have infiltrated the country. As the facts of US and NATO-backed violence in Syria become more transparent and harder to conceal owing to the sheer volume of covert involvement, the Western public has rightly become more skeptical about what the mainstream media outlets are telling them. Indeed, the blatant misinformation and lies that are being sold as journalism is increasingly seen as contemptible.
The Houla massacre on 24 May is a case in point. The BBC and other mainstream media outlets have been shown to be outrageously wrong in their initial rush to blame the atrocity on Syrian government forces when the evidence has slowly emerged that it was most likely the grisly work of Western-backed mercenaries.
It is all the more disquieting when a supposedly informed, alternative news service, Democracy Now, peddles such blatant misinformation – more than six weeks after the massacre occurred and after evidence has been reported that points convincingly to Western-backed perpetrators. On 9 July, Goodman broadcast an interview with Rafif Jouejati, a spokesperson for a Syrian opposition group called the Syrian Local Coordination Committees, based in Washington DC. Despite the mounting evidence of Western, Turkish and Saudi/Qatari covert operations, Goodman gave her guest a free rein to regurgitate the litany of mainstream media calumnies on Syria. Without a hint of scepticism from Goodman, her guest said:
“The bottom line is that the majority of the country is engaged in a popular revolution for freedom, for democracy, for dignity... We have mountains of evidence indicating that [Assad’s] armed forces have been engaged in systematic torture, rampant detentions, massacres across the country.”
Really? The majority of the country engaged in a popular revolution for freedom, democracy and dignity? That sounds more like the fanciful imagination of someone safely based in Washington DC. By contrast, sources in Syria have confirmed that people are terrified by Western-armed gangs running amok in their communities, kidnapping, murdering, evicting families from their homes and burning down business premises. According to the leaked Arab League Observer Mission Report, which had initially been commissioned by the Arab League at Washington's request:
"In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. "
"Such incidents include the bombing of buildings, trains carrying fuel, vehicles carrying diesel oil and explosions targeting the police, members of the media and fuel pipelines. Some of those attacks have been carried out by the Free Syrian Army and some by other armed opposition groups." (League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria, Report of the Head of the League of Arab States Observer Mission to Syria for the period from 24 December 2011 to 18 January 2012, Ironically, these fact-finding observations of the AL Observer Mission , went against the interests of its Western sponsors. It was barely reported by the mainstream media)
According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ):
"Those killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to Houla’s Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houla’s population are Sunnis. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator. Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators are supposed to have filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet." (Neue Erkenntnisse zu Getöteten von Hula.Abermals Massaker in Syrien, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 7, 2012 translated from the German,
The FAZ report quoted above echoes eyewitness accounts collected from refugees from the Houla region by members of the Monastery of St. James in Qara, Syria. According to monastery sources cited by the Dutch Middle East expert Martin Janssen, armed rebels murdered “entire Alawi families” in the village of Taldo in the Houla region.
Also of significance is the report of Der Spiegel (March 29, 2012) entitled "An Executioner for Syria's Rebels Tells His Story". A system of "burial brigades" for those executed confirms an organized process of mass-murder and extra-judicial killings. This single "burial brigade", according to the executioner's testimony, was responsible for the arbitrary execution of 350-400 people including "prisoners" and "traitors". The "traitors" are Sunni civilians within the occupied urban and rural areas, who express their opposition to the rule of terror of the Free Syrian Army (FSA):
"Since last summer, we have executed slightly fewer than 150 men, which represents about 20 percent of our prisoners," says Abu Rami. ... But the executioners of Homs have been busier with traitors within their own ranks than with prisoners of war. "If we catch a Sunni spying, or if a citizen betrays the revolution, we make it quick," says the fighter. According to Abu Rami, Hussein's burial brigade has put between 200 and 250 traitors to death since the beginning of the uprising." (Der Spiegel, March 29, 2012)
The Vatican News Service Agenzia Fides largely confirms that the Western backed "opposition forces" rather than the Al Assad government were responsible for countless atrocities:
"In Homs, called the "martyred city", "opposition forces have occupied two areas, Diwan Al Bustan and Hamidieh, where there are all the churches and bishoprics," the Archimandrite told Fides. "The picture for us – he continues - is utter desolation: the church of Mar Elian is half destroyed and that of Our Lady of Peace is still occupied by the rebels. Christian homes are severely damaged due to the fighting and completely emptied of their inhabitants, who fled without taking anything. The area of Hamidieh is still shelter to armed groups independent of each other, heavily armed and bankrolled by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. All Christians (138,000) have fled to Damascus and Lebanon, while others took refuge in the surrounding countryside.
The Syrian soldiers in fact, continue to face foreign fighters, mercenaries Libyans, Lebanese militants from the Gulf, Afghans, Turks. "The Sunni Salafist militants - says the Bishop - continue to commit crimes against civilians, or to recruit fighters with force. The fanatical Sunni extremists are fighting a holy war proudly, especially against the Alawites. When terrorists seek to control the religious identity of a suspect, they ask him to cite the genealogies dating back to Moses. And they ask to recite a prayer that the Alawites removed. The Alawites have no chance to get out alive." (Agenzia Fides, Vatican News Service, 4 June 2012)
These reports were known to the alternative media. "Democracy Now" chose to ignore them.
Overblown Casualty Figures, Blamed on the Government
Goodman also indulged in the overblown casualty figures from dubious Syrian opposition sources as if they were verifiable accurate data. She even sounded like Hillary Clinton in talking up the “defection” of the hapless former Syrian Brigadier General Manaf Tlass as “significant” when informed sources discount that news as a minor irrelevance.
In the interview between Goodman and her guest (whom sources describe as belonging to a family formerly aligned with the Syrian government), Bashar Al Assad was portrayed as an unhinged leader who is in denial over massacres – massacres, as we have noted, that have most likely been carried out by Western-backed death squads as confirmed by numerous reports.
Preposterously, Assad was described as guilty of much worse crimes than former Egyptian and Libyan rulers Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gaddafi. Then the “alternative” Democracy Now broadcast this statement from the supposed opposition spokesperson as if it were normal discourse:
“I would like to think that we will proceed with full prosecution in the International Criminal Court. I think the longer this issue goes on and the more violence he [Assad] commits, the more likely he will wish to have a fate such as Gaddafi’s.”
Recall that the Libyan leader was lynched on a roadside by a NATO-directed mob, and sodomised with a knife before being shot dead. It may also be recalled that "Democracy Now" gave prominent broadcasts supporting NATO’s intervention in Libya and justifying the criminal subversion of that country. Going by the latest coverage on Syria, Democracy Now is acting once again under a "progressive" cloak as a propaganda tool for US-led imperialist intervention. Given the misplaced respect among many of the public seeking independent, alternative, accurate news and analysis, this insidious role of Democracy Now is reprehensible. May it be suggested, in the name of media transparency, that the programme be aptly renamed "Imperialism Now".
Finian Cunningham is Global Research’s Middle East and East Africa Correspondent
The Ron and Rand Paul betrayal
by Anthony Migchels
June 10, 2012
By Anthony Migchels for Henry Makow and Real Currencies
Rand Paul endorses Mitch Romney, just days after Romney was seen at Bilderberg and just a few months after his father's advisers claimed he would deliver his backers to Romney in exchange for Rand's elevation in the Romney campaign.
The backlash among the libertarian community after Rand Paul endorsed Mitch Romney last Friday is intense.
Libertarian leaders all over the place are denouncing him. Adam Kokesh is clearly hurting badly in this video. On Prison Planet, arguably the most influential pro Paul outlet, the headlines are all about Rand Paul's betrayal. Mike Adams still cannot believe it and wonders if Paul Jr. is getting in to demolish the system from the inside. This YouTube video asks its viewers to vote to show how they feel and 90% dislike the news. Rand Paul's Facebook page is being inundated with messages of thousands of disgruntled supporters.
It's so bad one wonders whether the Pauls have miscalculated. And let there be no doubt, they have been calculating. Even to an outsider like myself, who never cared for either Paul, it looks like the most cynical, blatant and utterly ruthless sell out in quite some time.
Consider this.
In March Time Magazine quoted an adviser of Ron Paul saying 'If you're talking about putting Rand on the ticket, of course that would be worth delivering our people to Romney'. (go to 3:40 for the quote).
Lew Rockwell is now on record saying the whole Ron Paul campaign was never about winning. I wonder how the millions of his followers think about that. According to Rockwell, it was all about educating people on the wonders of Austrian Economics, not about winning elections. This probably explains why Paul Sr. never ran as an independent, but preferred losing primaries.
After working for years on Paul's campaign as a republican candidate Rockwell is now saying one shouldn't vote and shouldn't be involved in partisan politics. Now, how disingenuous is that?
And of course all this is just days after it transpired that Romney was at Bilderberg, incidentally upping his credentials as a real threat to Obama big time. The same Bilderbergers, that started financing Ron Paul with millions a few months ago.
So what does it all mean?
Well it's obvious. Ron Paul exists to lead the opposition into a blind alley. He doesn't run as an independent, which he would, were he for real. To him it's more important a GOP candidate wins and he's undoubtedly worried he would split the vote of the right.
Ron Paul exists, according to his buddy Rockwell, to educate the masses, not to change politics. He 'touched the hearts of billions of people' with his love of gold and Austrian Economics.
In the typical Hegelian way his 'antithesis' of a 'free currency market' dominated by gold vs the 'thesis' of government/central bank controlled currency will lead to the classic gold standard the Money Power wanted always. The Daily Bell's Anthony Wile seems to think so, anyway. Romney is not on board yet, but on the right the momentum for a gold standard is clearly gaining traction and the next crisis, expected anytime, will not be let go to waste.
The GOP will be happy. Ron Paul will probably retire now and is out of the way as the minor hassle that he was. Rand Paul has been completely incorporated and is no problem at all to the GOP establishment. He's got the charisma of a dead fish and the war mongering program of the traitorous sell out that he is and being cut loose from the support of his father's backing he will whither away quickly as a real force.
I think it's fair to say everything has gone more or less as expected. The Money Power has co-opted the opposition in its classical fashion. The millions gasping for truthful change are left holding the bag.
After this election a new change agent will be quickly conjured up out of nowhere, perhaps to establish a Hamiltonian banking system, which, to me, seems to be the next frontier for controlled opposition.
What I find interesting is that both Rand Paul and Lew Rockwell look rather depressed in the linked videos. At least we can see that evil is not a pleasant place.
The Ron Paul Challenge: 10 reasons why the Alternative Media is failing this test
Anthony Migchels
January 15, 2012
We can consider ourselves lucky Ron Paul is not likely to win the elections. His economics are a disaster and the Alternative Media’s credibility would suffer a horrible blow from bringing him to power. Just think of the field day the Main Stream Media would have explaining they warned us of Paul when millions take to the street to resist his destruction of the economy with his 1 trillion austerity drive.
How could our best and brightest be suckered in to supporting a Freemason wanting a Gold Standard with an austerity program the IMF would tout as an example?
In many respects it’s heartwarming, the momentum that he creates. It does show how deeply felt the desire for ‘change’ really is. But on the other hand it’s sobering to realize how easy it still is to fool people with a promise of change. Even if it’s just four short years ago that millions were led to continuing disaster with that other change agent. How is it possible that after all these years of exposing Illuminati change agents it is still so hard for people to understand that ‘change’ can be a real threat and that it is not ‘change’ in general we want, but a very specific kind of change?
How is it possible that after all those years of digging in real history, exposing the Money Power and the Illuminati’s control of the money supply that we still can be sold a candidate like Paul?
How is it possible that when I write Ken Adachi about Ron Paul’s Austrian Economics and how he will maintain the Illuminati’s control of the money supply with a new Gold Standard, I get this reply:
“You are mixing apples and oranges. I have no quarrel with Paul if he favors a gold backed US currency. That’s what we used to have until Roosevelt ended the fixing of gold at $35 per ounce and took us off the gold standard……
…….. We have a congress filled with NWO traitors who are working day and night to bring about the destruction of this once great land. The only one addressing the real issues of the shredding of the US constitution and the insane fiscal and war policies that are destroying America is Ron Paul.“
Please understand I greatly respect Ken Adachi. I’ve been following his work for almost ten years. He was already exposing Chemtrailing when I was still explaining to people how wonderful our free market democracy really is.
But how can a man of his brilliance NOT understand that the NWO rules through their control of our money supply while using this control to destroy us with interest and the boom/bust cycle?
The fact is that of all the major outlets only Jeff Rense consistently provided links to Ron Paul’s real opposition within the Alternative Media. Most notably through the writings of Henry Makow and Dick Eastman.
And this shows that the Alternative Media is prone to the same myopia the MSM suffers from when it comes to ‘their own’.
All this is incredibly annoying. Ron Paul singlehandedly disabled the entire blogosphere as a source of opposition. He’s hijacked the voice of reason and we need to clean up our act.
So here’s a top ten of what went wrong.
1. Not understanding economics, not knowing of Interest Free Economics
How can we support a candidate offering a Gold Standard? What’s wrong with us? What does it matter whether the Government pays 700 billion in debt service for paper based credit or for gold based credit?
While it can print interest free money itself?
The choice is not to pay interest for Gold or for Paper.
The choice is to pay interest or NOT pay interest.
How can all the pundits miss that we had a Gold Standard up to the thirties (and via Bretton Woods actually up to 1971)? How can we forget the Rothschilds got rich from lending Gold to Sovereigns in the 18th, 19th AND 20th century?
How can all the commentators denounce the deflationary policies of the IMF and Brussels in Europe and next hail a man calling for a 1 Trillion austerity drive as the new Messiah?
We are falling for just another dialectic: Mainstream Economics vs Austrian Economics, or Inflation vs. Deflation.
It’s worrying that these dialectics still fool us so easily. Whereas they can be easily recognized: they always offer a choice between a rock and a hard place. Evil and lesser evil. When facing such a choice we should realize we’re being played.
I was lucky, I read Lietaer first and only then Rothbard. But it’s not too late: read up on Ellen Brown, Margrit Kennedy, Eisenstein, Greco, Dick Eastman, C.H. Douglas. These people are for real, because they show the way to end interest slavery. And the Money Power cannot be defeated without defeating Usury.
How are we going to end Usurious Usurpation with a Gold Standard?
2. The childish affection for ‘Capitalism’
That’s what made this country great, right? REAL Capitalism, not the socialized semi communist ‘capitalism’ we have now. Or so we say.
Why do we call it Capitalism? Because in this system Capital rules over Labor. That’s why.
Are the 99% of the Capitalist class? I don’t think so.
Why don’t we understand Capitalism is a Monopoly? Just like Communism? That Capitalism vs. Communism is just another dialectic?
Capital wants returns on its investment and it’s just another example of humanity’s severe case of Stockholm Syndrome that we are so enthralled by it.
Capital invented and financed Communism, because in Communism they can exploit their coveted Monopoly unhindered. Communism is Capitalism showing its true face.
Capitalism didn’t bring us prosperity. It brought us the despicable horrors of the Industrial Revolution, with forced urbanization and the hellish 80 hour work weeks in sweatshops for our forefathers.
What brought us prosperity was uncompromising resistance against these horrible conditions.
Capitalism has nothing to do with free markets. If there is one thing a capitalist despises, it’s a free market. He hates competition. That’s why he buys politicians to make laws excluding competition. That’s why all major industries are controlled by cartels of Transnationals.
Capitalism is a system where the few control Capital as a factor of production. Like it was said back in 1862:
“I and my European friends are in favor of for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages… It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we can not control that. But we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues.”
That is Capitalism’s real face. Not some nice little fuzzy cozy all American kind of thing.
3. Lack of Historical Awareness
Yes, historical awareness in the Alternative Media is much superior to that of the MSM. But the first two points show it’s far from sufficient. History shows that humanity has been at war with the Money Power for ever. When reading the history of the Roman Republic, the recurring theme is the ongoing struggle for emancipation by the plebs. Continuously looking for ways to limit the power of the patricians and ending their own disenfranchisement from the political process.
The Plebs lost. The Empire was a consolidation of Patrician power. It is not for nothing that when Caesar ended the republic he also ended fiat money. Up to then, the Romans payed with copper coins, but from then on scarce Gold chained them until they were liberated by the Huns. They were ‘compensated’ with free grains and ever more bloodthirsty ‘games’ in the Colosseum. All payed for by the Empire’s plundering of the provinces, of course.
And what to think of Jesus Christ: we all know he physically attacked the Money Changers.
We must come to terms with these lessons.
4. Settling for Ron Paul’s 9/11 story
Of course Ron Paul knows Israel and the Bush clan did 9/11. But he supposedly avoids this because it would be ‘unacceptable’ to the Media and the wider public.
What utter nonsense!
Most Americans these days understand the truth or at any rate understand the official narrative is a lie. We don’t need a candidate spouting the Noam Chomsky nonsense that ‘Arabs attack us because we are so mean against them’.
Arabs didn’t attack the US!
Everybody saying they did is lying and setting us up for war with them.
Ron Paul is a coward for not speaking out about 9/11. We are cowards for not daring to wait for a candidate who WILL expose what really transpired that day.
How can a peace candidate be for real by coming to power with a campaign based on such a lie?
We need a Real Candidate that will blow the lies out of the water and thus destroy everybody who perpetrated this lie. We don’t need a candidate who is afraid of the truth or the Media spin doctors.
We need a man with the balls, the brains and rhetoric to completely wipe away these nasty lackeys of power.
5. Not noticing the risk of Ron Paul as a War Candidate
The Money Power, through its agents in the CIA, MI6 and the Mossad is well capable of creating ‘facts on the ground’ that would ‘force’ Ron Paul into war.
A ‘Gulf of Hormuz’ incident is easily created. It is hot at the moment too.
What is Ron Paul going to say then?
How is he going to explain to the American People that he is not going to strike in revenge, because he believes it’s a set up? After explaining to them Arabs attacked us 10 years ago?
The fact is, Americans would rally behind Ron Paul if he is ‘forced’ to go to war. And this is a real danger. We saw what happened with our previous ‘Peace Candidate’.
6. He’s a special interest candidate
So we are happy to point out our current ‘leaders’ have stocks in the Oil, Pharma and Banking industries whose policies they implement for them in Congress.
And what kind of portfolio does Paul, owning 5 million in assets, have?
Gold, Gold, Gold.
Seems to me he stands to gain a great deal when he is allowed to force a new Gold Standard upon us.
It would amount to an unprecedented wealth transfer from those holding paper to those holding Gold.
Now tell me: is it the 99% that have Gold, or is it the 1%?
7. His ties with Freemasonry
Flashing all sorts of hand signs all the time. Masonic handshakes with Bill Maher.
Why is he not being confronted on this issue?
8. The idea that he may not be ideal, but at any rate not worse than the others.
This only seems an attractive idea. The problem with it is, that by supporting the lesser evil we are basically saying we accept this system.
We don’t. Or at any rate we shouldn’t.
We don’t accept this system and we will only work with it if it brings a President that will reform it beyond recognition.
By going along with the lesser evil we are maintaining the illusion of choice.
We are empowering people to keep voting, and thus propping up this utterly discredited ‘system’ of ours.
We are hindering the advent of a real candidate.
Boycotting elections, like boycotting their Banks and Transnationals, is real opposition.
Not supporting the lesser evil.
9. He’s a Republican!
Come on!
True, party membership does not mean towing the party line and Paul certainly voted his own way.
But he did serve the party loyally for decades. The party that sprung the Bush Dynasty on us and all those maniacs in Congress and the Senate.
Evidently Paul does not mind being associated with them.
And of course we would make the same argument had he been a Democrat. Isn’t that what it’s all about? Yet another Dialectic: Democrat vs. Republican, Left vs. Right.
We are way beyond that so why are we so happy with a candidate who clearly is not?
We need an independent candidate.
10. Our own lack of a clear program
This is what haunts the Occupy movement too. We need to develop a clear cut set of goals.
Occupy tried to solve this in the same way the anarchists tried it during the Spanish Civil War: discuss everything endlessly and try to find common ground everybody can agree with.
Forget about that. It’s not going to happen. It’s never going to work. We can never agree on everything. These discussions are incredibly wearying and they are usually dominated by ego and won by those most determined, not those most intelligent. It usually ends up with the lowest common denominator.
What we should do is have everybody say what they want. Be on the lookout for people doing what they are saying. Decide for yourself whether they are for real or not. And when they are real, support them.
Don’t weary them down with discussions about how you see things yourself, although we should never be afraid to speak our mind. Just understand that when somebody is taking the initiative and you support him, he’s in charge.
Or start your own initiative, of course.
If we just support people and groups we believe are for real, we would automatically gravitate towards centers of progress.
And it’s not difficult to create a basic program. It looks something like this:
1. Interest Free Economics.
Based on an interest free money supply.
Nationalizing or preferably closing the Federal Reserve Bank. The immediate end of bailouts. Ending interest payments. Comprehensive investigation of ALL the culprits, including the absolute top of banking, politics, media and academics. Disowning all profits from collusion, conspiracies and fraud. Reclaiming all interest payments over fraudulent fractional reserve banking based credit from the plutocracy. Closing of all banks convicted of serious fraud. Trial by Jury.
Providing interest free credit (or debt free money) to both the Government and individuals.
2. Truth about 9/11
Actively investigating the real culprits, including those in Israel.
Prosecution of all war criminals, including Bush and Blair. But also exposure of what happened with all the false flags in history, including Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, The Main in Havana, Fukushima and Deep Horizon.
3. Ending the bribing of politicians
By making it a felony.
4. Ending the ‘rights’ of Corporations to ‘free speech’ and being a ‘person’ with associated rights.
Including making them fully liable for damages they do.
5. The End of Empire
Decimating the budget for aggressive war (‘defense’). The US spends a trillion per year on its army. All this money ends up in the coffers of the Plutocracy, while the weapons are maiming and killing millions.
The incredible fact is, that the US spends more on ‘defense’ than all other nations combined.
The army should exist only to defend the American People. A decent navy and air force, a few thousand nukes and a well armed militia is more than sufficient for this. A 100 billion defense budget would do just fine.
Whether he is aware of it himself or not, Ron Paul is a candidate absolutely typical of the Money Power. An agenda for ‘change’, because ‘change’ has been their battle cry for centuries. It is an absolute wake up call for us all that they can still be so effective with this strategy.
Apparently we still have not learned that ‘change’ comes in two varieties. The kind we like and the kind they like.
It is high time we get a better view of what we want, so that we can evaluate candidates according to our own standards, instead of being mind controlled with ‘Austrian Economics’ or ‘Capitalism’.
We are lucky the Diebold computers seem to favor Romney.
We’d had been hard pressed to explain how wonderful a ‘Free Press’ is, had we been responsible for getting Paul the White House.
The Satanic Core of Libertarianism
by Memehunter for Henry and Real Currencies
February 25, 2012
As we can see from de Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is at the core of Libertarian doctrine and Austrian Economics.
In Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati ploy, we covered the Jewish Money Power’s ongoing involvement in Libertarianism.
In The “Catholic” Wing of Libertarianism, we explored the Jesuit a.k.a. Illuminati connections with Libertarianism.
In this article, we delve into another creed which is at the root of Austrian economics and modern Libertarianism: Satanism.
The obscure hero of Libertarianism: Bernard de Mandeville
Born in Rotterdam in 1670, Bernard de Mandeville came to England in the wake of William of Orange’s accession to the throne. A doctor by profession, Mandeville became better-known as a satirist. More importantly, Mandeville was also a Satanist, linked with the Blasters and Hell-Fire Clubs of 18th-century England.
Although Mandeville’s name has been all but erased from contemporary mainstream economical discourse, many free-market thinkers lavish glowing praise on his insights.
In a lecture delivered at the British Academy in 1966, Friedrich von Hayek extolled Mandeville as a “master mind” and “great psychologist” whose theories anticipated those of David Hume, Adam Smith, and Charles
Darwin, and praised his poem The Fable of the Bees as a “remarkable” work. See link. 
According to Hayek, it is through the work of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, that Mandeville’s ideas “returned to economic theory” by way of 19th-century German historian Friedrich von Savigny.
Ludwig von Mises also paid tribute to Mandeville in his Theory and History, observing that
“He [Mandeville] pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.”
Even John Maynard Keynes, surely not an Austrian, recognized Mandeville as one of his foremost precursors in The General Theory of Employment and Money.
These days, Austrian economist Gary North introduces The Fable of the Bees on his website as “the most important poem in the last 300 years”.
But what is so special about the Fable of the Bees that this fairly obscure poem, and his author, could have inspired such eulogies from Hayek, Mises, and Keynes?
Good comes from evil, and other perversions
Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits was initially published in 1705, but was reworked and supplemented with abundant commentary over the next 25 years.
In his writings, Mandeville argues that liberty represents man’s uninhibited pursuit of his natural, evil instincts, and that, rather than being evil, selfishness and licentiousness lead to prosperity.
According to Mandeville, evil is “the grand principle that makes us social creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trade and employment without exception”.
Adam Smith, influenced by Mandeville, came to the conclusion that individual self-interest is the pillar of a prosperous society. Hayek and Mises went further and railed against altruism and solidarity as hindrances to a society’s economic success.
Of course, Smith is right to identify the added value brought by the division of labor and to point out that producers and sellers are primarily motivated by self-interest. But that does not mean that self-interest should be hailed as the most fundamental principle of civilization. To assert this is plain evil.
Mandeville also claimed that inequality generated talent and art, and that a nation’s wealth was predicated on the maintenance of an underclass of poorly educated laborers.
Following in Mandeville’s hoof steps, Mises defended inequality, emphasizing that “men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization.”
The “right to allow your child to die”
To his credit, anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard distanced himself from Mandeville’s ideology. However, the same Rothbard advocated for parents to have “a legal right not to feed [their] child, i.e., to allow it to die”, and for the emergence of a “free market in children”.
Since Rothbard’s system denies that humans may have moral obligations to each other, he ends up with a philosophy that rejects outright aggression (the “non-aggression principle”) but allows outright neglect, even to the point of causing death.
This is the evil outcome of taking the libertarian ethics to their logical extreme. Clearly, the “non-aggression principle” is necessary but not sufficient to design a just and humane society.
Satanic ideologies in modern Libertarianism
Below are three well-known quotes, one from a famous Satanist, one from a prominent Libertarian author, and one from a leading Austrian economist.
Alastair Crowley’s Law of Thelema reads thusly:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”.
Ayn Rand’s literary character Howard Roark proclaims in The Fountainhead:
“Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men.”
Finally, a passage from Mises, who admired Rand’s elitist stance:
“The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people’s aims and volitions.” (Human Action)
Beyond differences in wording, and even though Mises’s version is more nuanced than Crowley’s or Rand’s in-your-face statements, these three extracts are essentially saying the same thing.
Let that sink in for a while.
Now, it is one thing to point to similarities between Satanism and Libertarianism. But, as we have seen with the Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is actually at the core of the Libertarian doctrine and of Austrian economics.
The Satanic-Libertarian connection is very much alive today. Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, a self-avowed Rand admirer, may strike the right chord on many topics, but he has been linked to the Illuminati and has been seen displaying Satanic hand signs.
The Satanic dialectic
The Austrian School is not the only economic school infected with Satanism, far from it. Like Hayek, Keynes was a member of the infamous Fabian Society. He was also known as a child molester. Karl Marx was himself a Satanist.
In fact, Socialism, Zionism, and Satanism were originally joined at the hip: 19th-century Jewish activist Moses Hess, an influential precursor of modern Zionism, was also an early proponent of socialism and a collaborator of Marx. It was Hess who initiated Marx and Engels into Satanism.
The end goal of all these ideologies is domination by a transnational, oligarchic, Satanic, Illuminati elite. Marxism and Austrianism both oppose nationalism and support free trade.
Mises’ collaborator, the arch-Zionist, Jesuit-trained, high-ranking Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi summarized the Illuminati dialectic thusly:
“The fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian spirit.
The general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe’s spiritual leader race [Führerrasse] the Jews.”
Rising above the Illuminati dialectic
To be sure, Austrian economics and Libertarianism have introduced useful concepts in both ethics and modern economic theory. The same can be said about Keynes and Marx. Illuminati ideologies always contain some savory morsels of truth, in order to make the Satanic deception more palatable.
Our challenge, in rising above this Illuminati dialectic, is to chew on these nuggets of wisdom, and to spit out the evil lies and half-truths that defile them.
In the end, the real war waged by the Illuminati is a spiritual one. It is not merely about which monetary system is conducive to prosperity or which economic model is optimal. It is not solely about which political system is superior. It is, at heart, a battle for our souls.
Alex Jones, Disinformationist
Anthony Migchels
February 11, 2010
Now, the Truth community has behaved really very reasonably in many respects, considering the enormous breadth of viewpoints that circulate within the non MSM real media.
It is noteworthy that very few character assassinations take place, clearly indicating the awareness of the people involved how damaging it is to your own reputation to slander others, even if you feel they are wrong.
There is a very thin line between slander and necessary questions and I think people like Rense, Makow, Stirling and and a few others have been really great examples of avoiding unnecessary name calling etc.
For quite some time I have been contemplating of writing about my major doubts that my heart senses regarding Alex Jones.
Jones certainly has had a positive impact on the awareness of people both in and outside the US about the true nature of our plight here on planet Earth.
I’m pretty sure many people are grateful to Jones for showing them things are not quite what they seem.
Lately however, a few more notable voices than my own have been starting to shed some light on Jones. Brother Nathanael Kapner, for instance, delved up some interesting links between Jones and a famous Illuminati Powerhouse, the Bronfmans.
Now, you shouldn’t believe everything Kapner says, his infatuation with Putin for instance is rather bizarre, but this is a sore point. You can understand Jones not having anybody piss on his wife, but he should also understand that connections like these are creating some very serious questions, knowing how things work in the world.
And lately none other than Paul Drockton has started some serious complaining about both Jones’ attitude
AND his message. Showing Jones flashing ‘the sign’ for instance, which is really bad taste on Jones’ part to say the least, although his buddy Ron Paul has been known to flash the said sign on several occasions as well.
I can’t just sit here and say nothing, when these gentlemen are doing a nasty and painful job: telling the truth about someone we would rather enlist as a powerful ally. However, they are right to do so.
There are two reasons. Content and communication.
Jones communicates in a most unpleasant manner, especially when faced with people he doesn’t like or even just disagrees with. Basically he is a bully. He yells and likes to tear apart callers in his show who put forward things he is not in to. Especially healthful Anti Semites, people who are hated by a certain category of Jews because they see that organized Jewish Supremacy is intricately linked to the Banker’s Satanic Empire.
Now, you can let that bit go, saying it is passion and you need to have a lot of testosterone to do what Jones does. But is it passion, or is it bullying? The more I’ve seen of it, the more I call it bullying.
Another little thing is his eyes. Just look at them, blinking all the time! Now, more enhanced disinformationists like Obama know very well what message blinking sends: a lack of belief in what you are saying. Obama is a master of hypnosis and NLP and he is not blinking his eyes all the time. He is too well groomed for that.
Non-trained people, who make a habit of speaking truth, don’t blink their eyes either. This is well known, scientifically established fact. It is easily quantitatively analyzed. And it has been. There is a clear link between blinking and lying.
I think it would be very interesting to reverse speech Alex Jones. I fear we will not like what we hear.
The only thing that speaks for Jones’ blinking is that he is not such a psychopath that he can lie without it. These are the really nasty types and Jones is clearly not one of them. He is probably just a sucker for fame and wealth.
Then there is content.
The number one reason why I stopped trusting him is simple: he pushes the Gold Standard.
Now, in this day and age of Truth, is it really feasible that an honest man sitting on the info that Jones is sitting on, can still be for a goldstandard?
Is it really credible that Jones would not know that the bankers are pushing for gold (probably among other commodities they control) in their Phoenix World Currency?
Is it really true, that Jones is unable to sift through the various monetary schools of thinking and NOT notice, that the Gold Standard of earlier days was Bankers domination?
Isn’t it absolutely clear, that interest bearing gold as money will be scarce and manipulable just as the paper? Not to mention the enormous cost to Labor of this usury?
Doesn’t Jones know about GATA and Morgan Stanley going long on gold on an unimaginable scale?
Isn’t this issue of paramount importance when we realize that our not so illumined self declared ‘masters’ are central bankers who run this show by controlling the supply of money?
Is it really true, that civilized and understanding people can support a barbarous relic like gold?
No. And this issue is so important that it is very clear that the powers that be would invest in someone like Jones to gain credibility with a somewhat enlightening narrative, just to lead the opposition in a blind alley concerning the monetary heart of the matter, which is so important that it is only transcended by the spiritual battle between good and evil that is ultimately what is going on here.
This point is seriously worsened by the fact that Jones ONLY features monetary analysis based on gold. He mostly ignores the interest free money community.
Therefore it is clear that he is pushing an agenda and not enhancing debate.
Now, being married to a wealthy Jewess, lying about money and withholding more plausible points of view on monetary issues from his public, ignoring Organized Jewry in his narrative AND his not trustworthy way of communicating……..
Can we really afford to trust him?
There is an other famous case in point. Antony Sutton.
His reputation is quite unbelievable, I will not list his astounding volume of works, one even more unbelievably informing than the other.
But there also is his ‘War on Gold’. A fantastic book, a must read for all students of gold and money, and the best case for Gold ever put forward.
I believe this book might be the reason why Eustace Mullins commented once: ‘I always considered Tony to be MI6′.
It is too bad I can’t check it with him any longer…………………..
Phoenix Rising, the Return of the Gold Standard
Anthony Migchels
January 28, 2012
This article was written for Henry Makow
What has been in the cards for decades is now fully on the agenda: the returning Gold Standard. Gold as currency is a weapon. It is a wealth transfer to those holding Gold and will precipitate a massive deflation. The ensuing chaos will help usher in their coveted New World Order and World Currency.
The number of stories pertaining Gold as currency has seen a major peak recently. This week alone it was reported that India will pay Iran in Gold for their oil imports. In another development, China, Japan, Russia, France and a number of Arab states will pay each other with a basket of currencies, including Gold.
Yet another story was Robert Zoellick, who has been promoting a Gold Standard for years, ‘admitting’ the demise of the dollar reflects ‘a changing balance of power’ in the world.
These stories are framed as resistance against the dollar hegemony and of course that is a part of the story. Another dialectic, US against the Rest of the World.
But were these Nations really acting independently, they would barter amongst each other, based on current account bookkeeping and basically crossing off all mutually outstanding debt. That would save them massive sums of currency and associated capital costs. They would need ‘hard currency’ only to settle negative balances.
Of course, when these developments run their course it could have a devastating effect on the dollar, as it would mean trillions of dollars would be repatriated from overseas as they are no longer used to finance international trade.
It helps the Money Power in her plan to bring the US down a few notches, indispensable in her drive to World Government.
But the loss of the importance of the dollar is only part of the story. Because the dollar is only the current vehicle the Money Power uses to rule international finance. It doesn’t care for the vehicle itself, as long as it has a suitable successor.
And in the US itself there also is a strong drive towards Gold as currency. The onslaught by Austrian Economics in the Alternative Media comes to mind. And Ron Paul of course. He openly calls for Gold as currency. In this respect he clearly is the ultimate internationalist candidate. This contrasts sharply with his patriotic ‘constitutionalism’. But when he must chose between constitution and the monetary, it is clear what his priorities are. Ron Paul lies about ‘contitutional money‘, saying the constitution says we should have Gold (and/or Silver) as currency. But it doesn’t, it says we may have Gold as currency. But other units are also allowed.
This ‘little detail’ is really very telling. It is typical of Money Power change agents. They hide behind a sympathetic and credible theme, meanwhile actively supporting the implementation of a worse and more important agenda.
And control of the money supply is all important. To the Money Power, anyway.
It also reminds us of how internationally the Money Power operates. We must not allow our national priorities to obscure the international context.
Austerity and Deflation
A Gold Standard would be an unmitigated disaster. It will lead to an excruciating deflation. Deflation is a horror for debtors, who see their debts and the interest they pay over them grow worse in real terms. And since everybody is complaining of debt so much, we might reconsider making it worse with deflation.
Winston Churchill, who was involved in the reinstatement of the Gold Standard in Britain in the twenties testified to the House of Commons in 1935, when the deflation of the Great Depression had made Gold untenable:
“Look at the enormously increased volume of commodities which have to be created in order to pay off the same mortgage debt or loan. Minor fluctuation might well be ignored, but I say quite seriously that this monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch where I am persuaded that the producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression. . . . I therefore point to this evil, and to the search for the method’s of remedying it as the first, second and third of all the problems which should command and rivet our thoughts.”
Deflation destroys the economy, because people have an incentive to hoard cash, instead of using it for production and consumption.
The Banking Fraternity is well aware of the disastrous deflation that Gold promotes. For instance, the Protocols say in their financial program (Protocol 20): ‘You are aware that the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so that we have removed gold from circulation as far as possible.‘
This quote also confirms that they are able, willing and known to withhold vast amounts of Gold from the market. So the idea that Gold is a safe bet because ‘it cannot be printed’ does not stand: the volume can be manipulated, because most of it is in the hand of the Money Power, who can inflate and deflate at will.
The social and economic havoc it created through the Great Depression led to the rise of fascism. It is quite likely that weaponized Gold is being used for similar purposes this time.
And of course we should also consider the one off wealth transfer that reinstating Gold as currency brings: it’s price would have to go up maybe 10 or 20 fold to replace all the fiat currency in the world. The 99% having no Gold will as usually be holding the bag.
Far from a ‘solution’, the coming Gold Standard is the logical next step in the Money Power plan of destabilization and order out of chaos. We will have a long and painful depression and although it is not certain that Gold will completely replace paper, it is obvious that we will know scarce money and contraction for years to come. The austerity and deflation that the Money Power’s agents in the IMF, Bank of International Settlements and (Central) Banks are promoting will set the stage for major upheaval and the usual problem-reaction-solution, dialectically driven march to World Government.
Our answer must be to have the Government reclaim the monopoly it has surrendered to a private Central Banking Cartel. But the goal is not to ‘end the Fed’. The goal is better money.
Government must print debt free money, preferably Social Credit. Since this is not going to happen any time soon, we should build free market currencies, which can actively compete with national currencies. Ellen Brown’s Public Banking is another approach in the Populist spirit.
And we should take our money out the banks of course. Why would we patronize a business that is enslaving us with credit by bookkeeping, slapping interest on it, creating booms and busts and trillions worth of bail outs?
Top Ten Lies and Mistakes of Austrian Economics
Anthony Migchels
January 25, 2012
In the face of Austrian Economics’ ongoing onslaught through Ron Paul, the Mises Institute and Gold Dealers parading as the ‘Alternative Media’, we present the next installment in our series of articles exposing it for what it really is: just another Banker Mind Control Operation.
1. Bankers hate Gold
Nowadays everybody knows that the 19th century was called ‘the Age of Rothschild’. They controlled the Gold Market and became incredibly rich by lending the stuff to Governments.
The Money Power came to power through Gold.
They love it because it is deflationary, they can tax it with interest, they can create the boom/bust cycle with it and they control it completely.
Clearly Bankers don’t hate gold. Europe was on a Gold Standard for the entire 19th century and left it only in the thirties, due to the horrible deflation that was the Great Depression. Populists at the time finally managed to force their Governments to get rid of it. They had been warning about its deflationary tendencies for ever.
Gold is de facto World Currency.
Ron Paul: “Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation.” — Ron Paul, Congressional Record, March 13, 2001
In older days Austrian Economists would say Governments hate the Gold Standard. Alan Greenspan, one of the more famous Austrian Gold loving Bankers, wrote in 1966: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions.“
Government, of course, is Austrian Economics’s classic enemy, but the adversary du jour in the ‘Truth Movement’ are the Bankers. So to sell something we say Bankers hate it.
They did face the little problem that the American Populists would be very hard to convince of this. Not in the least because of the book ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’ by Eustace Mullins, who famously described who owns the FED and how it came about. Mullins of course was quite explicit in his analysis of Gold as the Banker’s favorite currency.
But Ed Griffin solved this for them. He wrote an even more famous book: ‘the Creature from Jekyll Island’. This is basically a rip off of Mullins’s book, with one difference: it proposes a Gold Standard to get rid of the FED.
In this way Griffin obscured the truth for millions of people, who assumed he was basically saying the same thing as Mullins.
2. Government is the main problem
This is the red herring that Austrian Economics is famous for. Just like the mainstream it completely ignores the Money Power.
Austrian Economics is also incredibly ‘naive’ when it comes to private interests controlling markets. Austrian Economics will always explain Governments shouldn’t mess with the economy, while ignoring the monopolistic inclination of Capital.
As a result Austrian Economics is the wet dream of the Trillionaires, as they will resist any Government action against them and their Transnationals.
Austrian Economics will actually blame Government for the fact that markets now are controlled by Transnational Cartels. Why they don’t seem to consider the shareholders and controllers responsible remains an open question.
To be fair, the analysis of Austrian Economics about the negative implications of many regulations is spot on and very enlightening.
However, to ignore the power struggle that is inevitable both in the market in and politics, is so naive and pleasant to the powerful that it is almost impossible to fathom how somebody else could have thought it up than these powerful interests themselves.
The fact is, that Governments all over the world have been subverted by private interests. And these private interests are quite homogenous. This international centralization of power, concentrated around extremely rich banking families, the Money Power, is the problem.
Government is a neutral institution, associated with a Nation. Public Opinion can always force its hand.
But when both Government itself AND Public Opinion are captive to the Money Power, Government will become quite unpleasant.
Soon, it will be obsolete, as it surrenders its sovereignty to World Government and World Currency. Governments and certainly Nations will never voluntarily surrender sovereignty.
These projects clearly belong to the Money Power.
3. Manipulation of the Volume of the Money Supply is the main problem with our money
Another red herring: manipulation of Volume is certainly quite a scourge. But it ignores an even bigger problem: Interest.
The Government currently pays 700 billion per year in debt service for the National Debt.
It matters not whether she pays this for Gold or for paper.
We currently pay $150.000 dollars in interest over thirty years for a $100.000 mortgage. Most of this mortgage was created by simple bookkeeping the moment we borrowed it.
45% of prices we pay for our daily needs are compensation for capital costs incurred by the producer.
We are Interest Slaves.
But if we can have credit by bookkeeping, clearly we should get the money interest free, because it is our credit, not the bank’s.
4. Gold guarantees a steady volume
This another very strange supposition. After all, the Gold Standards of the past saw horrible asset bubbles.
The boom/bust cycle has nothing to do with the currency, but whether the money supply is being manipulated.
The idea that Gold cannot be printed and that that give security about the volume is nonsense. Bankers routinely have withheld vast quantities of specie from circulation, only to inflate at a later stage again.
5. Inflation is bad
It is certainly true that inflation knows problems.
Inflation hurts savers, creditors and people on pinned incomes. But it is pleasant for debtors, of which there are far more than creditors. And, very important, inflation is associated with economic growth. People stop hoarding cash and rather invest and spend.
The one sided focus of Austrianism on inflation, while actually promoting the horror of deflation (see next) makes it look like they’re demonizing inflation in order to make deflation more palatable.
6. Deflation is good
This statement is so incredibly favorable for the ultra rich, who are basically the only ones who benefit from deflation, that it puts Austrian Economics in a very bad light.
Austrians clearly promote the Deflation vs. Inflation dialectic, with all its nefarious implications.
Deflation hurts debtors. It makes their debts and the interest they pay over it worth more.
Deflation is a wealth transfer from those holding assets to those holding cash.
Deflation destroys economic growth because people rather hold cash than invest or spend it.
As a result, Deflation on all fronts makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
7. We don’t want a Gold Standard, we want a Free Market for Currencies
This is such nonsense.There are two major reasons why it is.
1. In fact, the idea of a Currency Free Market is quite attractive. In the case that all different systems would receive the same funding and propaganda, such a market would undoubtedly see Mutual Credit Facilities providing interest-free credit prevail, see below.
However, only Gold and perhaps Silver, but not if they can avoid it, will receive all the attention and funding. In fact, Mutual Credit will be resisted actively by the Money Power.
This will not be hindered Government, who just by decree created this new ‘Free Market’, because that would be ‘statist interference’
Thus, only Gold will circulate.
2. Would there be a ‘free market’, there is Gresham’s Law. Bad money drives out good money.
It means that the units appreciating in value will be hoarded, while those depreciating will be used to pay.
Everybody will accept the depreciating unit (as long as it is not hyper inflating), because most will want to pay with it and firms will have to accept them to accommodate their customers. They won’t have a problem with that anyway. Firms don’t care what the money will be worth in a year. They want to know where they can spend it tomorrow.
This means nothing will happen if Ron Paul’s proposal to make Gold and Silver also legal tender is accepted. People will continue to pay with the Fed’s notes and hoard Gold.
Also, if you can get a Gold based mortgage costing 5% per year, or a 0% mortgage in Mutual Credit, which would you chose?
Case closed.
8. Austrian Economics is hated by the Main Stream Media
While it is true that Austrian Economics is a fringe, also in terms of Media Attention, it always has maintained a steady niche. It is not for nothing that Peter Schiff and Gerald Celente were predicting the crash in the MSM.
Lately, Ed Griffin was plugged by Glenn Beck on prime time T.V.
Judge Napolitano gets all the airtime he wants on Fox News, spouting his Austrianism. Amazingly, the fact that even Fox News will plug Austrianism does not ring a bell with people.
9. Fiat Currencies are always bad
Another typical device: a dialectic. Trying to frame it as Paper vs. Gold. Both ignoring interest.
But interest-free paper is of course something else entirely. At least it won’t suffer from the forced inflation on interest-bearing money supplies. Because the interest is not spent back into circulation, but lent back, there is never enough to pay off all the debt + interest. During a Gold Standard this is deflationary, because the money supply can’t grow. With paper, this is ‘solved’ by ever more debt. With ever more interest.
Modern Mutual Credit is inflation free. Or better: the market is in control of the money supply. It grows when it must, shrinks when it must.
Social Credit is probably inflationary, but everybody will be fully compensated for it because of the fact that they spend the inflationary cash into circulation themselves. Meanwhile, the inflation will stimulate production.
They are trying to promote the idea that Fiat Currencies are automatically bad ‘because the volume will be manipulated’.
This is the eternal clincher, killing all rational debate about how to manage all the different parameters in the different proposals.
10. The problem is the FED
The FED is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is that the Money Supply is controlled by the Money Power, which uses this control to enslave us with interest, scarce money and the boom/bust cycle.
The FED is their vehicle. We want to get rid of it, because we want to end the control of the Money Supply by the Money Power. It’s not a goal in itself.
Austrians use this to ‘fight the FED’ and gain sympathy and support, meanwhile maintaining the control of the Money Supply with the Plutocracy.
Alex Jones joins Alan Greenspan in calling for a Gold Standard
Anthony Migchels
January 21, 2012
Slowly but surely what was known to the initiated for a long time is becoming more and more mainstream: the return to the Gold Standard. Although it does not seem likely Paul will win the election, it’s far from ruled out either, so the return of the Banker’s favorite currency is very much on the agenda.
It’s an interesting interview, because it exposes so clearly the many problems that the ‘Truth’ Movement is currently facing.
Ted Anderson, interviewed by host Aaron Dykes, is a Gold Trader. Really very special, all these Gold Traders in the ‘Truth’ Movement. Really useful people for some ‘independent’ (harhar!) commentary on the economy and politics.
Also interesting is that Jones has no qualms calling it a Gold Standard. Many Austrian Economists try to downplay this label, explaining it will all be different from the past. They try to circumvent the issue by calling it a ‘free currency market’.
Now, I do support a free market for currencies.
But what is going to happen, if Paul gets his way, is that the FED is going to be closed and a ‘free currency market’ declared. But in this free currency market there will be only Gold backed currencies. You’ll quickly see all sorts of heavily funded Gold and other metal mints. Of course these will be organized in the same way as every Money Power cartel: as nominally competing businesses. They’ll probably believe themselves they’re competing, not realizing they have a common owner, or controller.
Mutual Credit will play only a small part. They, very strangely enough, will NOT find massive funding. They will also lack the full support from Washington, who will be very busy implementing the infrastructure for the ‘free currency market’. Notwithstanding, of course, the nominal resistance against Government interference that Austrian Economics is famous for.
But of course, people sending their man to Washington to end heavy handed Government certainly are prone to all sorts of interesting ‘logic’.
So the ‘free currency market’ will be a de facto Gold Monopoly, or Bi Metal Cartel.
Also funny to see Dykes and Anderson talk about ‘Honest Money’. Or ‘Sound Money’. Exactly the line the bankers used in the late 19th century.
During the 20th century one of the more famous people calling Gold Sound Money was of course Alan Greenspan. His essays from the sixties were all for Gold. The first sentence from the linked essay is really hilarious: “An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions.“.
Quite typical of the Daily Bell and other Austrian Economists. I guess now we know where they get their material from.
And here he is in 2007, promoting the ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ he created himself, even before the ‘reaction’:
Yes, the Bankers really, really hate Gold.
Nothing much changes.
Who is Ed Griffin?
Anthony Migchels
January 18, 2012
With the ascent of Ron Paul it has become very clear that the subversion of the Patriot movement through Austrian Economics and its Gold Standard is a far more serious threat than perhaps imagined. How did America’s Patriots lose its connection with their natural heritage from the Populists, calling for plentiful money?
It seems Ed Griffin might have more to do with it than we’d care to know.
It is no use introducing G. Edward Griffin. If you don’t know him, it’s highly unlikely you will be reading this. His influence on the ‘Truth/Patriot’ movement is hard to overestimate. He made a name for himself with his cancer analysis and Laetrile antidote. But his big break was ‘The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994)’, an expose on the Federal Reserve System.
Now, I don’t think I’m the only one that associates this book with Eustace Mullins’ ‘The Secrets of the Federal Reserve’. Mullins himself certainly did. And Mullins of course, was inspired and basically educated by the great Ezra Pound himself, who was then incarcerated in a mental asylum in Washington D.C.
So in this way by association I basically assumed Griffin would understand the basics of money and the Money Power’s control over it. At least the suggestion is created that Griffin is part of a tradition that has a very specific and concrete analysis of these matters.
It was only the last few years that I started to realize that Griffin, however, plugs a Gold Standard as the solution to what he considers the problem: the Federal Reserve Bank and its ‘fiat’ money.
And this is simply astonishing.
Ezra Pound was probably the greatest political commentator of the 20th century. He profoundly studied and explained the Money Power’s origins, ‘ethics’, methods, economics, sociological effects and of course its control over money.
And he didn’t call the Money Power ‘Fiat’, nor ‘Inflator’. He called her Usura.
Pound was very astute in his observations of money as a means of exchange and not a store of value. He proposed Social Credit. He also supported Gesell’s work.
And Gold? “The present war dates at least from the founding of the Bank of England at the end of the 17th century, 1694-8. Half a century later, the London usurocracy shut down on the issue of paper money by the Pennsylvania colony, A.D. 1750. This is not usually given prominence in the U.S. school histories. The 13 colonies rebelled, quite successfully, 26 years later, A.D. 1776.” According to Pound, it was the money issue (above all) that united the Allies during the second 20th-century war against Germany: “Gold. Nothing else uniting the three governments, England, Russia, United States of America. That is the interest–gold, usury, debt, monopoly, class interest, and possibly gross indifference and contempt for humanity.”
And elsewhere: “Gold is a coward. Gold is not the backbone of nations. It is their ruin. A coward, at the first breath of danger gold flows away, gold flows out of the country.”
That is the real face of Gold as Pound saw it and how right he was.
Pound, evidently, had no problems seeing the self evident: that the Gold Standards of the past and most certainly of modern history, beginning in Amsterdam, were banker operations.
Neither had Eustace Mullins, who left very little to guess in his book:
“The international gold dealings of the Federal Reserve System, and its active support in helping the League of Nations to force all the nations of Europe and South America back on the gold standard for the benefit of international gold merchants like Eugene Meyer, Jr. and Albert Strauss, is best demonstrated by a classic incident, the sterling credit of 1925.
J.E. Darling wrote, in the English periodical, “Spectator”, on January 10, 1925 that:
“Obviously, it is of the first importance to the United States to induce England to resume the gold standard as early as possible. An American controlled Gold Standard, which must inevitably result in the United States becoming the world’s supreme financial power, makes England a tributary and satellite, and New York the world’s financial centre.”
Mr. Darling fails to point out that the American people have as little to do with this as the British people, and that resumption of the gold standard by Britain would benefit only that small group of international gold merchants who own the world’s gold. No wonder that “Banker’s Magazine” gleefully remarked in July, 1925 that:
“The outstanding event of the past half year in the banking world was the restoration of the gold standard.”"
So where the currently popular notion comes from that Gold is feared by the Bankers is really very hard to understand. It was certainly not the opinion of Mullins or Pound.
Of course, neither Mullins nor Pound are saints whose stories we should accept at face value. But it is strange that Griffin is associated with them. Because he clearly vehemently disagrees with both his forebears.
Griffin on Gold
On his website Griffin addresses a number of questions about his position on Gold. They are arranged in a Q & A. Let’s have a look at them.
We will not go into the stuff we already discussed with Gary North and the Daily Bell, but Griffin mentions a few more typical pro Gold arguments and we’ll deconstruct them here.
1. On Social Credit
Let’s first see how Griffin responds to the question whether Social Credit would be a better monetary system. And let’s keep in mind that Ezra Pound favored this system.
Here’s what Griffin replies:
“Fiat money remains fiat money regardless of the formulas used to determine its quantity and distribution. Social credit systems are designed by men according to formulas drafted by men and enforced by men – all of which means the system is not fixed by supply and demand but by edict – and that is not fundamentally different from the present system. Eventually, if the rules for money creation CAN be changed, they WILL be changed to the advantage of those with the power to change them and to the disadvantage of everyone else.”
Now this is the typically incredibly lame clincher that Austrian Economics is famous for. ‘It’s Fiat Money so it’s bad’. They’ll mess up the volume!
And how about 700 billion on debt service per year for the Government Mr. Griffin? How about paying 150.000 dollars in interest over a 100.000 mortgage over 30 years? Ring a bell?
Again: the blatant ignoring of Interest. Usura.
In this case damnable because Griffin MUST know about interest, when considering his predecessors.
2. On the wonders of Gold
The question he replies to is fair enough:
‘If the Banks own all the Gold, why would we want a Gold-Backed Money System?’
Now that is a very, very good question indeed. Here’s Griffin’s reply:
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards. Even if they did own all of it that presently is in the form of bars, that would just drive up the price and stimulate gold mining so that new supplies would quickly come into production – as now is happening around the world. When the price hits several thousands of dollars per ounce, it will be profitable to extract it from the oceans, and there is a limitless supply from that source. It’s just a question of the natural balance between supply and demand – without a committee of politicians and bankers drafting a magic formula and using coercion to redirect human resources.
Bankers may hoard gold (because they understand its value more than most people) but they have always done everything possible to prevent a gold-backed currency. If they wanted it, they could have had it long ago, but (as you may have noticed) they always have worked against it. Why is that? It’s because they can acquire far more wealth by expanding the money supply at will and collecting interest on money created out of nothing than they can by having limits on their money supply and collecting interest on a much smaller amount of gold-backed loans. Bankers love to possess gold but they hate a gold-backed currency because that limits their money supply and, thereby, limits the volume of loans.
Any system other than precious metals is dependent on human decree and manipulation. It must inevitably end up no different than any other fiat money. I am familiar with the social-credit scheme and find it lacking in merit. It is a social engineer’s fantasy. It does not line up with human nature.
Gold has always worked well as a monetary base throughout history. It can’t be improved upon. We must not fall for the line about gold being just a pretty metal, etc. It has intrinsic value even if not used for money, it does not deteriorate, it can be divided into small units and recombined again if necessary, it is scarce so it has great value in a small space, and, best of all, it can be precisely measured for purity and weight, which allows for units that are beyond human judgment and human manipulation. It is the perfect money.”
Let’s go through this point for point:
“The Rothschilds do not own all the gold or even close to it. Most of it is still in the ground, in the ocean, and in private hoards.“
Now this is a completely unprovable statement. It is just as unprovable as the idea that they DO own it all. However, since the Rothschilds CLEARLY owned the Gold Market during the 19th century, it is at least a very serious possibility that they still do today. And considering the all importance of the control of the money supply it should be completely self evident that we should not take the risk.
Even Bitcoin is better than Gold: at least we know where these Units are. We don’t know where the Gold is, so we don’t know what the Volume is, and whether someone could manipulate it.
Therefore the rationale for Gold, stable Volume, does not stand: we simply cannot know whether it can be inflated and/or deflated.
Griffin himself seems to understand his treading on quicksand, because he continues:
“Even if they did own all of it that presently is in the form of bars, that would just drive up the price and stimulate gold mining so that new supplies would quickly come into production – as now is happening around the world. When the price hits several thousands of dollars per ounce, it will be profitable to extract it from the oceans, and there is a limitless supply from that source. It’s just a question of the natural balance between supply and demand – without a committee of politicians and bankers drafting a magic formula and using coercion to redirect human resources.“
Suggesting we could break a Rothschild Monopoly if it were real.
But Ed: who do you think controls the Gold Mines?
Cooperative Unions of Sovereign Individuals? 6 Billion wide awake Citizens of the World? The White Brotherhood? Ben Fulford’s Friends?
Or perhaps the Usual Suspects?
And it’s even worse. We are supposed to go Gold because its volume cannot be increased. But if we need more we can dig it up?
Huh? What kind of logic is this?
And last: the notion that rising prices would force Gold out of hoarding. The Daily Bell is also known for spouting this ridiculous nonsense: a Monopolist doesn’t surrender his stash when the price is right! He just lets the market set the maximum price it can bear and then proceeds to rip us all off for ever at that price!
So no, there is no free market for Gold. Rothschild DOES own a decisive stake in the World’s reserves. And rising prices due to scarcity is his wet dream: he can continue his monopoly pricing operation.
It’s just incredibly upsetting and annoying that we even need to have this conversation.
Then this:
“Bankers may hoard gold (because they understand its value more than most people) but they have always done everything possible to prevent a gold-backed currency.“
This is such a blatant lie. Are we to believe that Ed Griffin did not read Eustace Mullins? Just read Mullins’ quote above. His entire book radiates an absolute disgust for a Gold Standard. Mullins time and again explains it’s a banker operation.
I can understand people reading Griffin and ignorantly touting this lie all over the Blogosphere.
But Griffin is responsible for this obfuscation of the Truth. For this clearly blatant and well considered try to extinguish Mullins’ and Pound’s message from the Truth Movement.
“If they wanted it, they could have had it long ago, but (as you may have noticed) they always have worked against it.”
Again lying. And adding another lie: they could have had it long ago.
They had it. The reason they lost it, is because the Great Depression was SO bad through artificially deflated volume WHILE ON A GOLD STANDARD, that populists in both Europe and America finally managed to force their elites to dump the Gold Standard. THAT’s what happened in the thirties.
However, they were compensated for their loss by a new monopoly, based on the printing press. In Europe, anyway, because the Dollar remained redeemable for Gold under Bretton Woods, although not for American Citizens and only in international trade.
“Bankers love to possess gold but they hate a gold-backed currency because that limits their money supply and, thereby, limits the volume of loans.“
Another example of idiotic ‘logic’. What does the size of the Money Supply matter?? Even if we would have only ONE ounce of Gold, it would suit them fine. For the reason that is always explained so beautifully by the Austrians themselves: We simply divide the Gold through all the money there is, and that’s what the one ounce will be worth. We then divide the Gold through trillion and use these small nuggets as backing for the notes that will circulate.
It is completely irrelevant how large the size of the money supply is. What matters is who owns and controls it. So he can slap interest on it.
Griffin also makes the point that bankers want to inflate the money supply because that will make them more money.
Nonsense! Bankers are interested in their share of the whole, not in nominal profits. They will prefer a billion which is half of the total over a trillion which is only a quarter of the total.
They are willing to let the total pie shrink, if they get a larger percentage of what remains.
That’s why Bankers love deflation: it shrinks the total because it destroys economic growth, leaving less for us and increasing their share of the total.
Griffin ends with a love song comprised of erroneous and or unprovable statements quite typical of Goldbugs:
“Gold has always worked well as a monetary base throughout history. It can’t be improved upon. We must not fall for the line about gold being just a pretty metal, etc. It has intrinsic value even if not used for money, it does not deteriorate, it can be divided into small units and recombined again if necessary, it is scarce so it has great value in a small space, and, best of all, it can be precisely measured for purity and weight, which allows for units that are beyond human judgment and human manipulation. It is the perfect money.”
Gold has not always worked well as money. That’s why there was almost revolution in the thirties and the elite dumped it to save their asses. That’s why the colonists went to war with Britain in 1776, because Britain’s Gold Standard was impoverishing the colonies, which had thrived under their own scrip.
That’s why Caesar ended fiat money that brought the Roman Republic to Hegemony, when he perpetrated his Plutocracy sponsored coup in 44 BC. He introduced a Gold Standard and the newly formed Empire started Rome’s decline.
That’s why millions upon millions of desperate Europeans allowed themselves to be forced from the land they inherited through generation upon generation and left for the sweatshops in the cities: because scarce Gold forced upon them by the emerging Central Banks destroyed their ancient fiat currency based economies.
That’s why Bryan so brilliantly exclaimed: “Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.“
Many Problems, One Source
The problem is that the enemy is everywhere. GMO ‘foods’, Pharmacide, Big Oil, Empire, Feminism, Global Warming, Environmental Destruction, Famine, DU weapons, left wing radicals, right wing radicals, Consumerism, the coming Iran War and WW3, Pornography, Television and other Mass Media.
Each of these represent a major threat. As a result everybody attacking one or more of these outrages is welcomed in the Alternative Media as a valiant knight fighting Power.
But we must understand that behind all these phenomenona there is one source: the Money Power.
And the Money Power rules through control over the Money Supply. It uses this control to enslave us with Interest first and foremost, but certainly also through the boom/bust cycle.
All issues must be addressed, but they cannot be addressed before we get it right concerning the money supply!
How are we going to finance green energy, healthy food and 21st century architecture? Do you really believe going to a bank for some interest bearing credit is going to work out?
No! We need Trillions of interest free capital to clear up this mess.
The Money Power rules through control of the money supply. It enslaves us with Interest and the boom/bust cycle. We cannot allow the Truth Movement to be hijacked by change agents who make moot points about cancer and like looking a hero by exposing chemtrailing in 2010 when even the UN is already admitting large scale terra forming and Geo Engineering.
We must not fall for the idea that ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’.
Not so! The Money Power is well known for organizing its own opposition.
Money is All Important!
People that hide behind credible information about cancer but in the mean time plug a Gold Standard, subverting the legacy of Pound and his pupil Mullins, should not be taken seriously!
We have cooperated with Austrian Economics because they hate the FED, abusive Government, Fractional Reserve Banking and inflation.
But in the final analysis these are ALL red herrings. The FED is not the problem but a symptom. The Money Power does not care about the FED. It is ready to dump this vehicle. As long as it controls its successor! And it will, because its successor will oversee a Gold Standard.
Inflation is way overrated and absolutely the lesser evil compared to Deflation. Deflation comes with economic stagnation and decline, inflation is associated with economic growth.
Deflation is good for creditors, inflation good for debtors.
Abusive Government is a result of it being subverted by the Money Power. But the Money Power fears Government, because it can be liberated by the Nation to which it belongs. That’s why they want their World Government, that will know no national affiliation and will be of their making only.
Considering the horrible damage done by the Austrian Economics Mind Control operation, as witnessed by Ron Paul’s ascent, it will no longer do to see them as allies against the Powers that Be.
Ed Griffin is a particularly nasty cookie, as he clearly purposefully tries to obscure the crucial messages of Pound and Mullins. Knowing the Money Power there is every reason to suggest that this is the main reason Ed Griffin exists and why we all know about him.
Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics
Anthony Migchels
January 4, 2012
For Henry
Whether a currency is backed by gold makes no difference as long as we are paying interest. This is still ‘The Synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, but are not’, enslaving us with interest. It is still ‘Jewish’ economics. The real alternative is an interest-free currency.
As we know,the Illuminati Jewish Money Power likes playing the Hegelian Dialectic game and controlling both sides of the conflict. Clearly, they will have their answer ready when their Fiat Empire comes to it’s end.
That answer may be Austrian Economics.
Here’s why:
Murray Rothbard was a son of poor Jewish immigrants from Poland. Ludwig von Mises was a son of a wealthy Jewish financier family from what is now the Ukraine. When von Mises came to the US, he was set up with a grant from the Rockefellers.
Austrian Economics correctly identifies the manipulation of the money supply as the cause of the boom/bust, a.k.a business cycle. This is the little bit of truth necessary for the rest of the disinformation to have credibility. However, they completely ignore the wealth transfer through interest, which is of much greater significance.
The Grip of Interest
Interest has always been the Money Power’s main tool. They took power by creating wars, financing both sides, and having Governments go deeply into debt.
This is the key issue: interest is a wealth transfer from the poorest 80% to the richest 10%.
The global numbers are not known, but in Germany $1 billion per day is paid by the poorest 80% and extrapolated to the world this means the Plutocracy drain anywhere between $5 trillion and $10 trillion dollars per year.
The US Govt loses up to $700 billion per year in debt service. That’s a TARP every year. All for money that was printed the minute it was borrowed.
But Austrian Economics will ‘fix’ that problem: we’ll be paying it for Gold-based credit instead.
To add insult to injury: the boom/bust cycle will not change, which is the basic case for gold.
Gold has been the standard for a long time and it didn’t stop the Money Power from creating asset bubbles and deflationary busts.
Even under a full reserve banking system it is quite easy to manipulate the volume in circulation when you control a large part of the World’s gold reserves.
So all in all its fair to say that Austrian Economics is ‘Jewish’ Economics.
Ron Paul
All this has become relevant because of Ron Paul, of course. He is well known for his support of Gold as Currency:
“There’s nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency….Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency……(source) “
He says Gold will keep Government spending in check. He wants to cut Government spending, but is unable to explain how this would lead to different results than what we have seen in Greece: an imploding economy with a withering tax base and even higher deficits as the predictable result.
People like Webster Tarpley and Paul Krugman want the Government to reflate the economy. This is correct, but the risk is it will kill the patient which is suffering from intolerable debt service levels as it is. They both skillfully avoid the monetary system itself, let alone interest. That’s why they can’t really put up a fight against the Austrians.
If the economy were reflated with either debt free money, or interest free credit the problem would be over instantly.
In the debate you see the Keynes-Austrian Dialectic: Spending versus Austerity.
Both ignore interest, which is the hidden common ground.
It is too bad Ron Paul has managed to hijack the Patriot Movement. His constitutionalism, his peaceful intentions (we’ll have to see how they would work out in practice), his $1 trillion austerity drive combined with his modest demeanor have managed to convince many discerning and well meaning people.
His rise and the sycophantic worship that he receives are eerily similar to that of Barack Obama in 2008.
But as long as we don’t understand money and the all importance of interest, people like Obama and Paul will continue to fool us with their Voodoo- and ‘Jewish’ Economics.
During modern history the financiers behind the throne clearly subjugated Governments. They don’t need the State. To them it is a competitor, a dangerous one too. They will use it as long as they can control it, but it is not for nothing they are trying to consolidate their financial power in a World Government of their own.
Meanwhile, the gold versus fiat narrative is a distraction which allows them to sabotage all meaningful monetary reform. We need a debt-free or interest free credit based currency which would lead to political freedom and the put humanity back on the path to fulfilling its Divine destiny.
Why Bankers love Gold
Anthony Migchels
December 27, 2011
One of the more persistent memes circulating the internet is the idea that Bankers, or the Powers that Be, hate Gold.
The idea is much plugged, but it is a strange notion.
After all, we lived under a Gold Standard (true, a very strange one) up to 1971, when Nixon ended Bretton Woods.
Surely, TPTB are in charge much longer than that? The Money Power has ruled through Gold for a very long time. So why would they hate it?
Just like with today’s paper, they ruled through interest and boom/bust cycles.
No, the Bankers love Gold and in fact, there is every reason to believe they are working hard to reinstate it as the monopoly currency of their choice. In fact, this is probably the real fundamental driving Gold prices up. It’s not just a hedge against inflation: if Gold becomes the standard again, it will become very, very expensive. And more and more of the smart money is betting on this.
Here are a few more of the reasons why Bankers want their Gold Standard back:
1. Gold is de facto World Currency.
Of course, every nation, or even private entities, could coin their own. But an ounce is an ounce is an ounce. If Gold as currency is used everywhere, they basically have what they want. It would be much easier to control for a Global Central Bank than all sorts of paper currencies with wildly varying exchange rates.
2. With Gold, Interest is more difficult to explain away.
When you lend Gold you can say: I need interest, I can’t use the Gold myself while you use it.
When you just print the money when you lend it out at interest this doesn’t add up. The money didn’t exist when it was lent out, will cease to exist after it has been repaid.
3. They own it all.
And the little they sold us they will regain quickly when compound interest mops up the rest, after which their monopoly will be completely restored.
The fact is, nobody knows where most of the Gold is, and that in itself is a clear sign we shouldn’t use it as money: we can’t control it’s supply.
In the mean time, while Gold appreciates, so do their reserves.
4. They prefer deflation over inflation
Interestingly, under Gold deflation is the norm and under paper inflation.
Both see the boom/bust cycle, but each with it’s own ‘natural’ condition.
Paper sees continuous ‘mild’ inflation alternated by deflationary busts.
Gold sees structural deflation, alternated by asset bubbles.
Bankers prefer deflation. It makes their Gold and the interest they rake in with it worth more. It hinders economic growth, keeping the middle classes small. This is so because deflation invites hoarding currency (the currency is appreciating against other assets) instead of investing it.
Under inflation, everybody is getting rid of their paper because it is losing value, promoting both consumption and investment.
5. But surely, they suppress Gold, don’t they?
Of course they do. They have their mouthpieces explaining it’s just ‘a barbarous relic’. They have their banks suppress it’s price.
By doing so, over the years they have convinced many to surrender whatever stash they had, greatly enhancing their grip on it. To them it is just another dialectic: paper versus gold.
When the time comes to release the valves, Gold will appreciate further and further. Greatly enhancing the value of their own Gold holdings, probably more than enough to compensate them for any paper losses.
That’s basically more or less their style, isn’t it?
Whether they will succeed this time is another matter, though.
So there are plenty of reasons to assume the Banking Fraternity would be quite pleased with a new Gold Standard.
A Gold Monopoly Standard, that is. In a free currency market Gold would play no role.
The basic thing to keep in mind is that they control Gold and are capable of creating the boom/bust cycle with it. History shows this without a shadow of a doubt. Worse still: we’d be paying interest over the money supply and this is the most important way the plutocracy drains our wealth from us.
Do you know of more reasons why the Banking Fraternity loves Gold? Feel free to comment!
What Gary North is not telling you about Interest
Anthony Migchels
December 23, 2011
So at long last, Gary North has felt the need to say something about interest. Beside, of course, whatever he had to say in his massive 20 volume economic commentary on the Bible.
I’m glad he did.
The fact that Austrian Economists felt they could ignore it, was bad news for the cause.
Next, we’ll look at what he has to say, but first let’s see what he did not deem necessary to discuss.
What he didn’t say
There is the fact that interest is being payed by the poor, to the rich.
Adds up, doesn’t it? The rich have money, the poor don’t. So the rich lend it to the poor and receive interest in return.
In Germany Margrit Kennedy quantified the wealth transfer. It transpires, that the poorest 80% pay more interest than they receive. Only the richest 10% receive more interest than they pay. The next 10% lose nor win through interest.
Predictably, within the top 10% bracket the same process is going on: the poorest 8% pay more than they receive to the richest 1%. Even in the top 1% bracket, the same thing is happening.
A decent explanation for the Rothschilds, wouldn’t you say?
On the other side of the spectrum, we see the same inverted. The poorest 10% lose to all the higher 10% brackets.
The 70% bracket almost receives as much interest from the poorer classes, than he loses to richer 10% brackets.
This shows that the poorer you are, the more you stand to lose with the current system.
So how much money are we talking about?
In Germany it has been established that the poorest 80% lose 1 billion euro’s per day to the richest 10%. That’s about 365 billion euro’s per year.
Extrapolated to the USA, we may expect the poorest 80% pay about a trillion or 1.5 trillion per year to the richest 10%.
That may not even sound that much with a 14 trillion GDP, but remember what percentage the richest 10% take of that GDP and what the poorest 10% earns.
So the system intrinsically greatly favors the rich.
Another major item that Gary North ignores is this:
Even if you have no outstanding debt, you lose 45% of your disposable income to interest, assuming you spend all of your income, which is true for no less than the poorest half of the US.
How come? Producers incur capital costs while producing the stuff we want. This is a no brainer, but nobody ever cared to calculate what these costs really amounted to.
H. Creutz and Margrit Kennedy did and they came up with this astounding number.
The numbers differ per sector. Food prices apparently consist of about 25% interest. Capital intensive industries like construction can see percentages up to an incredible 75%. Imagine that: the figures show that about 75% of the costs of building a home are costs for capital.
All these numbers are from Margrit Kennedy’s (below) classic ‘Why we need Monetary Innovation‘.
Finally, let’s consider the old tale of the mortgage.
You pay 300k interest over thirty years for 200k home. Nowadays this money is just created when you borrow it. This we consider unfair. So now we are led to believe we must have Gold instead?
We should take it a step further. If we can create the money for nothing, we should pay almost nothing for it.
That is the basic case for interest free currency and this is what Gary North ignores, and as we shall see, has done nothing to refute in any other way.
What he did say
Let’s begin with the latter part of his essay. North pens a lengthy litany on how, with a stable money supply, interest rates would automatically go down to almost zero through price deflation.
He’s well known for his predilection for deflation. Declining prices. Wonderful, right?
But he never mentions deflation is pleasant for creditors. Both the value of the outstanding debts and the interest payed over them increase.
As we have seen, there are many more debtors than creditors, so deflation is a nightmare for the vast majority of the people.
Also, because in deflation money is gaining value, there is strong incentive to hoard it instead of spending it. This diminishes the urge to invest. And this harms economic growth.
Next, he ignores the question where the bankers are going to get their Gold from. Or better: he simply states banks attract Gold by taking in deposits in exchange for interest. He claims the free market will eventually force these depositors to accept close to zero interest rates. Because it is so handy for them to store the Gold there.
North assumes that the whole world will immediately run to a newly opened full reserve Gold bank to dump all their gold there as quickly as possible?
Well. Maybe. But theoretically, we must take into account the notion that some parties might be playing the Gold market. The boys at Gata certainly seem to think so.
Gold has been a strategic commodity for a long time. I think it might be a little risky to not consider someone may have cornered the Gold market.
The possibility is, that some powerful parties have amassed a lot of the Gold. They would be able to dominate a Gold market and set interest rates as a Monopoly would.
All this is mere speculation, maybe. But I’m certainly worried about it.
Furthermore, the past does not give much hope for the idea of zero interest rates for Gold. And that was in an era that through fractional reserve lending more liquidity was in circulation than there was Gold.
North concludes his deflation narrative in this way:
“In a capitalist world in which there is no increase in the money supply, there would be low rates of interest in an expanding economy. Banks might offer – probably would offer – loans at zero percent or slightly above to borrowers, and also offer negative rates of interest – charges for depositing gold – to depositors. They would sell gold storage and check-writing services.
Inconceivable? Really? Have you looked at what your bank is paying you to get you to deposit your money? Look at what the U.S. Treasury is paying: one one-hundredth of one percent per annum on 90-day T-bills. If this can happen in this economy, it can surely happen in a full gold coin standard economy with falling prices.”
But this is complete rubbish of course: North should know we live in a banker induced boom/bust cycle. They bring down rates only to bring the whole crowd into debt, then they raise rates again. Expect rising rates at some point this time also.
In the Gold Standard of yesterday, there was never zero percent credit and North knows this well.
So this whole narrative of price deflation automatically making credit cheap is far fetched at best. To be honest: the whole story stinks.
To get to the point
Earlier in the article North comes up with the classic explanation for interest. Time. The creditor cannot use the cash while someone else borrows it.
Personally, I believe this is the basic reason why the bankers want to go back to Gold. Because if you have paper, it all sounds a little strange: the money is based on credit, created the moment the loan is put out. So there is no ‘time’ aspect. The money didn’t exist before it was borrowed. It will cease to exist when it is repaid.
But if you lend out Gold, you have a better story. More people will fall for it. And it is an argument to be reckoned with. It can be defeated, but not merely with economic arguments. That is, if Gold obtains a currency monopoly when we do away with the current ‘system’.
To be honest, considering the horrible implications of interest as discussed above and ignored by North, I think we should be far more diligent in our quest for interest free money. It is far too easy to say ‘people want something back for the time they don’t have their gold’.
The cost is just too high.
An interesting approach is Social Credit, which quite a few populists promote. Dick Eastman (left) is probably it’s most powerful advocate. It is debt free currency printed by the Government, and handed out to the population to spend into circulation. It’s much better to have the people spend it than Government, like the Greenback. It’s their money to begin with, and they know better what they and the country need. Also, the Government has little incentive to inflate: it would gain nothing from it.
The main problem with Social Credit is that it does not allow interest free credit. It would still needs banks for that, including interest.
It is for this reason that Public Banking, introduced by Ellen Brown (right) is so important. It is much better than the Greenback, and probably about as good as Social Credit. By the way, Public Banking and the Greenback are two very different propositions. The way North equates them as one is sloppy at best, reeking of a lack of understanding at worst.
The two real problems with Public Banking are the ones the Austrians detest most: it’s basically a statist approach and it is far from certain that Government is the right place for money creation. However, Public Banking includes the option for individuals to open banks and use them for interest free credit. Privately owned banks with such a goal would face the problem of capitalization. This is a result of the necessity for reserves, even in a fractional reserve banking system.
And of course there is inflation: Public Banks would typically print more money than is necessary, thereby allowing price rises. The fact that the credit would presumably be used for infrastructural projects and the like is not a sufficient safeguard against this.
These are real problems, but considering the horrific costs of interest to the majority of the population, perhaps we should not be overestimating the problem of inflation. Or look for other ways in combating it. Educating the public for instance. Although that has shown to be a daunting task with most matters.
However, The Gold people have realized some time back, that a State sanctioned Gold Standard is probably no better than any other State sanctioned monopoly. It is, at any rate, not consistent with their anti statist approach to life and the economy. An approach I hold very dear as well, by the way.
Also, a currency monopoly, even if it is Gold, is not really consistent with a Free Market ideology.
So nowadays Austrian Economists argue for a free market for currencies, as do the interest free currency people.
They assume Gold (or a bimetal standard) will prevail in such a market.
And this is the crux, making the debate about ‘time’ and it’s price, interest, superfluous.
Here’s why.
What units will win in a free market for currencies?
What will happen if Ron Paul gets his way and legal tender laws are revoked?
Absolutely nothing.
People will continue to hoard Gold and pay with Federal Reserve Notes.
It’s called Gresham’s law.
Bad money drives out good money. Either the overvalued or depreciating units will circulate, while the better store of value will be hoarded. Gresham’s Law, although needing repair, will always prevail.
However, I don’t reject Paul’s proposals.
It is right that legal tender laws, creating the currency monopoly, should be revoked.
Gold will be irrelevant in any mature currency market. It loses even against the federal reserve notes.
As a means of exchange, that is. Clearly it is a much better store of value than the dollar.
That’s the problem with Gold. Everybody loves to have it, therefore they hate to pay with it. People will only pay with Gold if they don’t have anything else to pay with. Therefore Gold will lose as a means of exchange against almost any opposition. Even as lousy as the Federal Reserve crap.
But in a free currency market, we will see a third way, besides banking currencies and Gold: Interest free credit, provided by Mutual Credit Facilities.
From fractional reserve, to full reserve, to………no reserve ‘banking’.
Although I suggest we do away with that word altogether. Banks stink, always have, since the days they still called themselves ‘Goldsmiths’.
All the units are created as credit, from day one. Zero capitalization is required. No deposits, no savers are required.
It’s the way most barters operate. These barters are already quite successful (in terms of turnover and profitability). There are thousands of them worldwide.
But they are severely handicapped by the fact that none of them are convertible to other units. Most notably dollars or euros. Up to a few years ago, the technology was not available. It is now, but it is not well known. Yet.
Bitcoin is showing the way, but very primitively. It is not created as credit, so there is no interest free credit. However, it does show how free market currencies can be made convertible to other units.
Soon, these currencies will be available. Some of them are being launched as we speak.
What will happen if, besides Gold and Federal Reserve Notes, Mutual Credit Facilities will be offering their units? Convertible to Dollar and also Gold?
They will destroy the dollar and every other ‘national’ currency.
Because nobody is going to a bank for a 5% per year mortgage, either in Gold or in paper, if you can borrow the money at 0% percent at your local regional interest free currency dealer.
But will businesses not demand Gold, you might wonder? Well, businesses who will only accept Gold will face a problem in the face of competitors accepting paper also, won’t they?
But the businesses will not want the money if they can’t save it, will they?
Corporations are not interested in the question what the money will be worth in a year. They want to know where they can spend it usefully tomorrow.
But they lose value, these units, you say?
So what? If I have some of them and I want to save them, I just go buy some Gold and bury it in the back yard.
That’s the difference between a store of value and a means of exchange.
So as long as the credit facility has sufficient takers for it’s units and/or as long as it is convertible to other currencies businesses will always accept them.
The main example is WIR, in Switzerland. These guys turn over 2 billion WIR (1 WIR = 1 CHF) per year. They have existed for 80 years. They have 1 billion outstanding credit. Eighty thousand small and midsized business accept the WIR and it is widely recognized as a major contributor to Switzerland’s diverse and prosperous economy. Many of these businesses say they would not have survived at least one of previous recessions. Because WIR is especially important during downturns.
It’s main limitation is that it is not convertible.
But even this is not the reason it has not destroyed the Swiss Franc. The story is, that the Big Banks have told WIR to stay put to avoid problems. The Banking Maffia is very powerful and that’s just one reason we need a free currency market.
WIR’s great strength is it’s superior management and it’s focus on the common good. Most barters are not quite as successful as they could be, because they are exploited by their owners for their own purposes.
In this day and age, however, when more and more people are waking up to the all importance of money, more players with the right focus will enter the market.
No, Gary North did nothing to dispel the nonsense of interest.
So he was unable to discredit Public Banking and Social Credit.
But yes, we agree that a free market for currencies is the best way.
And again no, Gold will not prevail in such a market.
Gresham’s Law makes it useless as a means of exchange and interest free currencies are much cheaper.
On Interest
Anthony Migchels
November 26, 2009
Most advanced political and economic debate is dominated by the Americans. Through films like Zeitgeist Addendum, the Money Masters and Money as Debt and books like those of Thomas Greco and Ellen Brown. They have been enormously important contributions to the awakening of the many (including myself!) towards the most pressing problem of our time, our monetary ‘system’.
The one notable exception is interest. Of course all the aforementioned sources have dealt with interest, but to my mind there has been no really comprehensive and satisfactory analysis of interest in the Anglo Saxon world. In fact, most analysts concentrate on the fact that money is debt. There seems to be some kind of consensus that debt is the heart of the issue. But it is not. Without interest, debt would not be a problem as I worked out here.
Interest is one of the few things that is more profoundly understood in Europe, more specifically Germany. Throughout the 20th century interest has been analyzed by some unknown but brilliant thinkers. Silvio Gesell comes to mind, Gottfried Feder and later Helmut Creutz and their current standard bearer Margrit Kennedy.
Feder wrote a book ‘breaking the shackles of interest’ and later advised Hitler, who was to say time and again, that ‘the kernel of National Socialism is breaking the thralldom of interest’. Maybe that did some damage by association to the theme.
It is curious to realize, when studying Hitler, how close he came to the truth in his analysis (which was, no doubt, inspired by exactly the enemies he was purported to attack). It is mind boggling to realize how much the bankers were willing to give away and how they entrenched their supremacy by totally destroying him and his credibility.
Be that as it may, it is time to make fully clear what the scale of the interest problem is. We need to get rid of any misunderstanding, let alone underestimation of this most heinous tool in the hands of our Satanist masters.
Dealing with Interest
We’ll go through this point for point. Some points will in some way overlap others, but they are still worth mentioning because they widen our perspective. I’ll be quoting Margrit Kennedy a lot and I would strongly suggest going through her classic ‘Why we need monetary innovation’.
1. To begin with, I’ll put forward my standard example: a mortgage. Let’s say you want to buy a house and go the bank and get a loan. Say 200k. The simple truth is, after thirty years you will have payed back 600k. 200k for the principal and 300k (!!) in interest. Now this might be ok, or at least somewhat understandable, if you were borrowing this money from somebody else, who has been saving it. But as we know, this is not the case. The money is produced the moment the loan is granted by the bank. In a computer program. By pressing a few buttons.
So basically you pay 300k interest for pressing a button. Granted, the bank needs to manage the loan during the time it is being repaid. But the cost for this is still only a fraction of the income they get through the interest.
Now, we could stop here, because it is clear that the bank is ripping us off, also in legal terms, although they make the laws themselves, because there is no realistic service being delivered for the money.
But there is so much more, we must continue.
2. When the bank creates some money by giving you a loan, it takes the money out of circulation when you repay. Repaying debts means a diminishing money supply. The banks only provide the principal, in our previous example 200k. But after thirty years, 500k has been repaid and only 200k was created. So how can this be? How can 500k be repaid by 200k?
It can’t. Somebody else needs to get into debt to create sufficient liquidity to pay the 300k interest. And the borrower of the original loan must start competing for this liquidity with everybody else to obtain that, intrinsically scarce, cash.
This means that because of the combination of debt and interest, the money supply must grow forever. But we know that a growing money supply is the definition of inflation and that inflation is closely linked to rising prices. So inflation is inherent in the system. This sounds strange, because Central Banks raise interest rates to lower inflation, reasoning less credit will be issued because of rising prices for it. But the higher the interest rates go, the more money must be created to pay for this interest.
Just one of the perverse side effects of interest in the current wealth transfer system we call ‘finance’.
3. Due to interest, money circulates slower. This is a big problem, because the slower the money circulates, the more we need of it in circulation to meet our needs. And when you have interest bearing debt as money, that is quite a problem indeed.
The reason for slower circulation is that it enhances the store of value function of money, with all it’s detrimental implications.
This phenomenon can be best seen when thinking about paying bills. If you know you can increase your money by postponing paying your bills, you will help the money circulate slower. People will be encouraged to hoard the money instead of spending it.
It is also more likely because of this reason rather than the growing cost of money which lessens inflation (or better, price rises) in the short term when raising interest rates. Because less money is circulating slower, demand falls.
4. Now, because of the fact that the principal is created but not the money to pay the interest, money is intrinsically scarce. Because of scarce money, capital is the scarce factor of production, whereas reason has it that labor should be the scarcer than capital. How else can we say we live in abundance?
I think it was Lietaer who pointed out the natural consequence of this state of affairs: competition. Economic actors in the current system compete with each other primarily for scarce working capital. Scarce money is a major driving force in the ever more competitive marketplace. Of course, the winners of this system have their lackeys (‘economists’) explain that competition leads to efficiency. But common sense dictates that humans are more effective when they can cooperate. Surely there is a place for competition in the market, but it has gotten totally out of hand and it is getting worse.
Scarce money because of interest is one of the more profound reasons for this trend.
5. So what of it you think. I was raised to be conservative in these matters and one should simply not get into debt, so you won’t pay interest.
Wrong. Not only because if nobody went into debt, there would be no money, but because companies go into debt to finance their production. They pay interest (capital costs) over these loans. And like any cost this must be calculated into the prices they ask for their goods and services.
And what percentage of prices can be related to interest? It depends on the kind of business, particularly how capital intensive it is. Going from 12% for garbage collection to 77% for renting a house. All in all about 40% of prices can be traced back to costs for capital. These figures are by Kennedy and they have been corroborated by an independent study done by Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands under the supervision of STRO, a leading monetary think tank in the Netherlands.
So, you lose 40% (!!!!) of your disposable income to interest through prices.
6. Interest is being payed by people borrowing money and received by people having loads of it. So it is per definition a wealth transfer from poor to rich.
It transpires, that about 80% of the poorest people pay more interest than they receive to the richest 10%. The next richest 10% pay as much as they receive. This means the vast majority is losing a substantial part of their money to interest. The richest own the banks or have a lot of money there.
We must keep in mind that this is totally for nothing, since most of the money is printed at the time it is loaned out.
How much money are we talking about? I have only figures for Germany, but reason suggests it is basically the same everywhere.
In Germany the poorest 80% pay 1 billion Euros in interest to the richest 10% PER DAY. Yes, that’s right, one billion euros per day. That is a grand total of 365 billion euro’s per year. That is one seventh of German GDP and extrapolating this to America, the poorest 80% must be paying at least a trillion a year.
It conclusively explains the old adage that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
This is the hidden tax that nobody is talking about.
This is the yoke that we carry.
This is the worst kind of slavery, because it is slavery without even realizing it.
This is interest and let it never be forgotten.
This is our mortal enemy and let us never take our eyes of it again, until it is thrown into the fire of hell, together with the usurers enslaving us with it.
The Problem with Gold
Anthony Migchels
November 10, 2009
As the credit crunch has renewed interest in the nature of money and especially in the nefarious nature of interest bearing fractional reserve banking, the clamor for a new Gold Standard has been gaining momentum.
Many people seem to believe that real money should be based on gold. You have the so called ‘Austrian School’, the Mieses people and also many Libertarians seem to have fallen for what is essentially a hoax.
The Gold people suggest that Gold is the best (and basically) only form of real money, because nature has limited its supply, so that the amount of money in circulation cannot be inflated.
They often correctly analyze the current monetary systems, run by central banks, to be simply a plunder operation run by maniacs robbing the populace with continuing inflation/deflation cycles.
They are, however completely blind to the role of interest in what they correctly consider to be an abusive system. They even often believe that interest is necessary to have a ‘free market’ decision on the price of money.
This is complete rubbish: since banks in the current system create money by pressing computer buttons the cost of money is so ridiculously small, it is criminal to have its users pay hefty premiums. And hefty they are: if you buy 200.000 euro home, you will pay 400.000 euro in interest in the following thirty years. And of course the principal. So your house actually costs 600k euro.
When you pay 400k in interest for simply pressing a button, I gather you know you’ve been had.
What the Gold people really want is a stable supply of currency. To stop inflation and deflation by the banking industry’s criminals. They are right in that, but they are wrong with their solution.
The problem is, if you control Gold, you can still inflate/deflate its supply. And since we have been on a gold standard for centuries, a little historic awareness will allow you to realize that depressions and bubbles were quite common in earlier times.
There is no free market for gold. The people at have been documenting the manipulation of the Gold market for years. Gold has been controlled by the same people that control central banking for centuries.
“Economic crises have been produced by us through the goyim by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation”, it has been said elsewhere. This was in the heyday of Gold.
Another famous quote, “Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws.” was also a product of the same era.
Clear proof Gold will not fix our current predicament.
To be totally honest with you: the bankers themselves plan to use Gold in their next system, designed to take over from their current one. The Gold people are their witting or unwitting accomplices.
Gold does of course has its functions. As a hedge against a meltdown it is useful, although silver is probably better. Precious metals will always be there to expose paper manipulation. As is going on now, with Gold at historically high prices, albeit still low if corrected for inflation. Gold once was at 1800 dollars per ounce in real terms, so it still has a long way to go.
But although gold is useful as a store of wealth, it is not as a means of exchange. It is too expensive. Its owners will not lend it out without interest. Its supply is not stable and transparent, because gold has been manipulated for centuries.
The problem with paper money, or in these days, electronic money, is not that it is debt based. It is not that it can be easily inflated and deflated.
The problem is, it is run by our Satanist Overlords who use it as a highly effective tool to redistribute wealth from us to them.
The problem is, that the money is used by a public that is totally oblivious to the nature of money and its producers.
What we need is cheap, solid money, paper or electronically based (for reasons of cost and efficiency), interest free, provided by organizations that operate transparently and are answerable to the people who use the money.
But as long as people can be fooled by silly ideas such as that Gold is the only real currency, this is not going to happen.