Skip to content

Usuronomics or Sacred Economics?

July 26, 2013


From → Uncategorized

  1. Great Banner for websites, protest signs and legally approved public areas.

    Mommies right. After they bleed you dry from usury they still find a way to squeeze more out when you become unemployed and destitute. In 2010, J P Morgan made 5 billion in profits by making unemployment & foodstamp debit cards. That’s 5 billion in tax money that could have gone to the unemployed and jobless.

  2. Sacred economics is about people waking up in mass one day and going to work with absolutely no expectation or promise of anything in return. A gift economy. There is NO money in that economy.

    • I know philo! Interest-Free Economics, to my mind, is a step in that direction!

      • There is no “that direction”. It’s a concept ideologue philosophers are selling to make a living. All a pragmatist can do is illustrate how deluded and selfish people are. For the un-initiated – BANKS DON’T LEND ANYTHING!

        • Ideologically, there must be no indecision or half measures. But a true pragmatist must do more than chastise people for not intellectually measuring up. They must be activists attempting to realize these goals. And if anyone thinks that this can be done overnight en toto, then they’re a bigger dreamer than you think Anthony or Yale graduates are.

          There is a bill in the U.S.A. called the Warner-Tierney Bank on Students Loans Act which offers to “partially” do away with usury for one student loan. It’s having a difficult time because the people can’t wrap there minds around not being fleeced. The politicians on the left say 3.8% interest is better than the proposed .075% while the republicans say 6.8 – 10% is a bargan — and everyone believes these are the only options. If a small bit of progress can’t be made, you shouldn’t have such grand expectations.

          A true pragmatist is fighting in the streets to get these small step economic issues passed. Potentially one such individual is Randy Credico. He’s running for Mayor of NY and his program is to fight wallstreet and banks with through wallstreet sales tax among other programs. He also is planning to start a new polictial party called “Wallstreet tax party” regardless of the outcome.

          • How do you conclude that pragmatism has anything to do necessarily with activism? I don’t think the Yale grad. has any illusions as to what is possible. I think he likes making a living. The bank isn’t fleecing anyone. It has its role and people voluntarily play the game.

          • Pragmatist are concerned with results and not theories. Activism is the method by which ideas are realized in the real world. Mobilizing people around a well defined common economic cause in strikes, protests, boycotts against politicians and corps.

            Your ideologue and yalie are satisfied to talk and dream about there ideas. Neither will bring about change nor do they care about he truth because this is something that must be acted upon — former for the sake of profit and the latter out of delusion.

          • When there’s a groundswell of people that want to march with banners, “THE BANKS DON’T LEND ANYTHING”, I’ll lead the march. But I’m not going to offer a solution that has nothing to do with reality. If everyone woke up to this fact, civilization would collapse.

          • I think most of the people actually don’t know or understand this doublethink hoax. Most watch mainstream news and are further distracted by the sort of garbage that passes for entertainment on tv and the movie theaters. There isn’t even a reliable awareness in the alternative media; there are by far more gold bugs than debt (usury) free monetarists.

          • I often feel there are much more of us than we realize pm. When I look at comments at many ‘truther’ sites with Goldonomics I notice people are far more aware of the potential of interest/debt free money than one would expect from the number of outlets plugging it.

            There is just a very limited number of people discussing our side. And when they do it’s on a very general level.

            And there most certainly is very little actually calling for a clear cut program, whereas the Gold, Gold, Gold crowd is very vocal in clamoring for what they want.

          • You may be right, but i’m certain that it doesn’t add up to much more. It’s a fringe group that only gets discussed robustly on small blogs like yours. All the big ratings media outlets on both sides never advocate abolishing interest. They all describe the problem very well — that’s the hook — so they can sell you some bogus solution like gold, end the fed or genocidal deflationary austerity. Not all are consciously trying to deceive, but he result is the same.

            Sure there are those that are out there tirelessly giving interviews, like Webster Tarpley and Ellen Brown, explicitly advocating nationalization of the FED and public banking. However, tune into these programs on the next day and nearly all of them are peddling the same crap they were the day before.

            The only reason i’m not a pessimist is because it’s a sin to despair in the providence of God.

          • What we debate here has everything to do with the truth of reality. Hard part always is translating this into some concrete reform. I think Anthony has some practical experience with this in trying to gain support for belief in local usury free currencies with the Gelre. He can tell you that the gelre, or any other local currency, isn’t going to catch on without a series of small successes in the real world.

          • Greenbacker84 permalink

            Its a nice idea, but why tax or even regulate theft in the first place? Just allow us to issue our unexploited promissory notes, free of banking and none of this fraud could occur in the first place. We could ‘kill the bank’ overnight with MPE.

          • why? because you have to start somewhere and establish something to build upon. A small real world success can have big influence on future awareness and mobilization. It breaks the spell of helplessness and creates a practical optimism.

            If you can get a majority of senators and congressman to sponsor and pass a bill outlawing the fed and enacting MPE all at once, then go for it. Imo It will never happen if you wait for that scenario.

          • The Yale boy probably has his life all planned out for him. Don’t be surprised if he ends up being appointed at the U.N..

      • Why doesn’t the Yale graduate in mathematics and philosophy, Charles Eisenstein, ever say in his work, “By the way, it’s an illusion banks are lending anything.”? Does he not see it? Can he not do the math? Promise for $10 = $10 in your pocket? Promise for $10 interest = $10 in bankers pocket? He does promote the idea that if you think about something you want long enough you’ll get it. That’s who gets a degree from Yale.

      • Please elaborate.

      • Greenbacker84 permalink

        A moneyless world is one without representation of our labour and production to each other. It would deny us representation of what we have worked hard to achieve, my home, car etc. A moneyless world sounds like Zeitgeist/Venus project controlled opposition. Just my unimportant opinion, but as long as man in inherently sinful we will need an accurate record of our exchanges and representation. Remove the bankers/money changers/usury from the picture and we can have true free trade and exchanges..real economy.

  3. There might be something to the trend to expose these studies:
    Even when the subjects knew the game was rigged, they felt they deserved to win. The game is definitely rigged.

    • So much for the commonly accepted social theory that poverty causes criminal behavior.

  4. @pm
    and the low-life scum that admire plagiarist Bill Still and full-time liar Ellen Brown

    Executive Intelligence Review
    Volume 39, Number 49,
    December 14, 2012.
    —[please download the issue from the LaRouche website, and read the full text of the 30-page essay]

    How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States,
    by Michael Kirsch

    “The end of the American Credit System
    “The purpose of the creation of the Bank of the United States was to enlarge the active and productive capital of the country. It was to create more transactions reflective of future payment, resulting from increases of productivity, rather than limiting trade to transactions of existing goods using expensive gold and silver (specie). The metallic-based system, insisted upon by the British, sought to restrict production to the currency in circulation, rather than to make the currency a reflection of growing powers of production.

    Under the regulation of the Bank of the United States, specie was a reserve in the banks to maintain a uniform currency entirely sufficient for the internal economy, and to settle accounts with foreign countries. Banks safely issued multiple times the specie they had on hand, maintaining the ability to redeem any note with specie. It was rarely necessary for the banks to do so, however, since within the internal economy of the Union, banknotes were the preferred means of payment amounting to roughly nine-tenths of all transactions. By the regulation of the Bank from 1823-1832, the proportion of reserve to banknotes in circulation was determined by the productive economy.

    “A circulating currency was created of the magnitude proportional to the active capital of the country, such as manufactures, agriculture, etc., without requiring the trading in of most of that capital for specie with which to exchange goods, as was necessary with a metallic currency. The substitution of banknotes for metal decreased the capital required to be used as currency. This saving of physical capital meant that it could be absorbed in the purchase of land, new dwellings, and new manufactures.”
    —[for whatever reason he leaves out that Baring, Brothers &co. were the largest shareholders in the 1st Bank of the United States: at least 2,220 shares out of 25,000 shares; he also leaves unmentioned that according to accepted wisdom in 1811, 70% of the shares of the 1st Bank were held by british nobility. He also leaves it unmentioned that in the 2nd Bank of the United States, once again, Baring, Brothers &co. were the largest foreign shareholders: 7,915 shares; Steven Girard (warm friend of the 1st Bank and the Baring brothers) was the 2nd largest domestic shareholder: 6,331 shares.
    So, how is a Baring branch bank, which the BoUS was, opposition to the British oligarchy ? How is tying U.S. finances and currency to the Bank of England and the Baring brothers a move against England, and towards national economic independence ?

    On December 26, 1839, Abraham Lincoln attacked Van Buren’s proposed Sub-treasury system in a speech to the Illinois State Legislature, contrasting it to the expired Bank of the United States.”
    —[This was the Independent Treasury system which segregated the Government from banks and decreed that lawful money alone may be received in payment to and from the Federal Government, bank notes may not….. Lincoln and the LaRouche crew are opposed to this concept]

    —[next he presents a reasonable conspiracy theory that the Rothschilds had President Harrison assassinated, because he would have signed the proposed charter of a 3rd Bank of the United States; he knows that the Rothschilds were opposed to this Bank (showing that the charlatans and the ignorant groupies who support these professional liars had no idea what the reality was around the veto of the re-charter and the vetoes of the new charter);
    in the views of the LaRouche crew, even Thomas Jefferson is bad for the health of America and its citizens:
    “President William Henry Harrison promised to sign a bill in Congress for a new Bank, and such a bill was prepared and passed. Unfortunately, Harrison mysteriously died on April 4, 1841, exactly four weeks after his Inauguration. He was replaced by Vice President John Tyler, described by John Quincy Adams in 1840 in his diary as a “political sectarian, of the slave-driving, Virginian Jeffersonian school, principled against all improvement, with all the interests and passions and vices of slavery rooted in his moral and political constitution.”

    —[He relates, proudly, –better, and in more details, than Thomas DiLorenzo or I– that Lincoln, throughout his political life was a friend and advocate of a privately owned bank of the United States that is the fiscal agent of the Government, that issues its own notes as national currency. Lincoln (and Mr. Kirsch) says Independent Treasury is misery, private central bank is prosperiry.
    And this is the Lincoln to whose aid the Tsar of Russia sent his naval ships, in whose behalf he was ready to make war !!!

    Lincoln stood firm with his December 1839 resolve, and in 1843, on March 1, submitted a proposal to a Whig meeting in Springfield, Ill., including the resolution, [Collected Works, Vol 1, pages 307-8-9-18]
    ‘That a national bank, properly restricted, is highly necessary and proper to the establishment and maintenance of a sound currency, and for the cheap and safe collection, keeping, and disbursing of the public revenue.’

    “Three days later he explained his resolution in an address, saying,
    ‘Upon the question of expediency, we only ask you to examine the history of the times during the existence of the two banks, and compare those times with the miserable present.’

    “On July 1, 1848, as an advisor to Gen. Zachary Taylor, Lincoln crafted policies for Taylor to enunciate as a Presidential candidate, including:
    ‘Should Congress see fit to pass an act to establish a National Bank I should not arrest it by the veto, unless I should consider it subject to some constitutional objection from which I believe the two former banks to have been free.’

    “The strong nationalist Taylor won the Presidency in 1848. His Treasury Secretary, William Meredith, was a relative of the Gouverneur Morris who established the credit system with Robert Morris and Hamilton; he was a vocal advocate against the British doctrine of laissez faire, and wrote plans for a higher tariff in 1849. However, Taylor died mysteriously on July 9, 1850, from causes that have never been fully established.”
    —[because, according to the LaRouche crew, Morris’s credit system was a blessing to the U.S., and the re-establishment of it is its best future hope; because private central bank, bank paper, permanent national debt and high tariff should go hand-in-hand;  because, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, a national debt is a national blessing, and the paying off this national debt the LaRouche crew considers a calamity ]

    —[he proudly tells that the National currency Bank Sytem of February 1863 WAS Lincoln’s banking sytem; but he bold-face lies as to what this banking system was: he knows full well that the Federal Reserve System was merely a re-organization and adjustment of the national currency bank system; he has read the text of both Acts : ]

    “President Franklin Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act restored stability to Lincoln’s national banking system, and FDR’s use of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as a direct conduit for Treasury lending, superseded the money system of the Federal Reserve, and once again propelled the nation forward in the greatest density of industry- and infrastructure-building in the nation’s history.”

    “But the full use of Congress’s powers, as they expressed themselves in the most effective means through the Bank of the United States credit system, was never restored.”


    “The Ghost of the American Credit System
    “A nation freed from the British Empire was reshackled by the controllers of Andrew Jackson and subsequent administrations, British agents working against the United States. The unconstitutional shutdown of the Bank of the United States signaled the destruction of full Congressional control over the nation’s finances, and the integral relation of the currency with increasing the powers of production.

    “The Bank was never merely an instrument of commerce; it was the means by which Congress could most effectively promote the economic interests of the nation, and uphold its duty to carry out its assigned powers of government. This power of regulation was attacked, and the development of the economy destroyed. The bonds that held the nation together were dissolved.

    “Drawing from the recent speeches of statesman Lyndon LaRouche on the revival of the American credit system, the successful operations of the Bank of the United States from 1791-1801 and 1823-1832, Lincoln’s Greenbacks, the lessons learned from Roosevelt’s RFC, a new system of credit can be organized in short order, and the remaining productive powers of the nation put to use. New laws and government regulations will foster a productive currency, one defined by the system of laws in which it operates. The value of currency does not lie in the individual unit, but in the process which it facilitates, the flows of trade and commerce, not the abstract material which is exchanged.”

    —-[Is Ellen Brown parotting what she is told by LaRouche-ites? is this why she is suddenly a friend of the Federal Reserve ? is this why she is passing so much gas about state banks ?
    The dumb & dumber, and other wannabees who fart through their faces about sovereign credit, should fall in where they properly belong: LaRouche &co. have already raised the standard of Lincoln! central bank! federal credit system ! “]
    the source of your finagled wisdom

    Good News! Yamaguchy is BACK!
    Submitted by DrKrbyLuv on Sunday, 03/06/2011 – 12:08.
    Great news for those interested in actual history — Yamaguchy is Back!
    Here is the new address–
    Thank you Yamaguchy !

    Larry leech
    END the FED before it ENDS US

    “Lincoln was great leader, but Mao Ce-tung was even greater than Lincoln, because Mao was not only great leader, but also great revolutionary.” —CK Liu
    The State, using its sovereign credit and issuing it as currency units, should be the giver and taker of all prosperity —CK Liu
    Ellen Brown acquired much of her immense knowledge from CK Liu…..

    • BTW:– In this essay we found Ellen Brown’s & Antoni Migchels’ favourite book (even if they have not read it):
      Nicholas Biddle: Nationalist and Public Banker by Thomas Payne Govan.

  5. Sub-human Henry Makow did not read histories of Hitler and Germany, so he cannot upgrade his pupil, Antoni Migchels, on this (or any other) subject……

    On January 4, 1933, a meeting took place in Kurt Schröder’s house, between Hitler, Schröder and Papen. A photographer captured the arrival of the guests, and opposition newspapers reported it the following day. At this meeting Schröder agreed to “foot the bill” for NSDAP, which by that time was completely broke and in the hole so deep they could not see the tunnel at the end of the light. (we can’t expect pick-pocket Migchels to look up old newspapers, or books that contain history)

    In 1932 NSDAP participated in 5 election campaigns that cost horrendous amounts of money –good question would be, and one that was never investigated, where did the money come from for the participation in these campaigns of the Communist Party.

    As it seems, Schröder did not guarantee the NSDAP’s debt from his own pocket, he organized a group of supporters. At the Nuremberg war crimes trial Walther Funk testified as who some these supporters were (Nuremberg Document EC-400):

    After the usual suspects –Tendelmann, Thyssen, Vögler, Kirdorf, Springorum– he listed:
    Ernest Buskuhl, H.G. Knepper, Gelsenkirchen mining company;
    Heinrich Stein, Stein Bank Köln;
    Emil Georg Straus, Deutsche Bank;
    Otto Christian Fischer, Reichskredit-Gesellschaft Bank;
    Friedrich Reinhardt, Commerz und Privat Bank;
    Eduard Hilgard, Allianz insurance corporation;
    August Rosterg, August Diehn, (potash industry);
    Erich Lubbert, A.G. Verkehswessen;
    Hamburg-America Shipping Line, Deutsches Erdöl, Brabag Coal, Anhaltische Kohlenwerke, Baugesellschaft

    We may dismiss the Sidney Warburg and the Red Symphony stories as unsubstantiated conclusions based on unverified information and deductive reasoning; but Schröder’s support proves beyond question that without support from bankers and industrialists NSDAP and Hitler would not have been more than footnotes in election reports.

    There was also Paul Silverberg, very jewish lignite miner, who for his own reasons, supported NSDAP with money.

    Chancellor Heinrich Brüning also said that—
    After the inflation there was only one big bank not controlled by Jews, and some of them were utterly corrupt.
    When the banks came under government control in 1931 findings of dishonesty were kept secret by the government for fear of provoking anti-Semitic riots.

    Something ponder-able:

    In 1913 General Ludendorff (one time second highest ranking officer in the german army) was in the line with Hitler, Göring, Scheubner-Richter, & others, that marched up to the firing policemen…….
    Where was General Ludendorff when Hitler took the oath office ?
    In 1934 everyone and his cousin was in München and Nürnberg, celebrating and remembering; where was General Ludendorff ?

    Oh yes, by 1933 Ludendorff was so unhappy with Hitler that he wrote an open letter of protest to Hindenburg, objecting to the appointment of Hitler as chancellor……..

    In 1917 General Ludendorff (an expert on free-masonry) was quarter-master general of the german army, and approved of the transporting Lenin and company through Germany to Petrograd…….

    Good News! Yamaguchy is BACK!
    Submitted by DrKrbyLuv on Sun, 03/06/2011 – 12:08.
    Great news for those interested in actual history — Yamaguchy is Back!
    Here is the new address–
    Thank you Yamaguchy !

    Larry leech
    END the FED before it ENDS US

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Usuronomics or Sacred Economics? | The Money Ch...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *