Skip to content

Brother Nathanael Calls for National Convention on Monetary Reform!

February 12, 2014

In a short and forceful vid he calls for a Conference and promises a follow up vid to declare who should be there.

Brother Nathanael Kapner is a very strong voice reaching many people. He is at the heart of the Truth Movement, which is so profoundly affecting global public opinion.

And the Truth Movement simply cannot do without a solid agenda against the banks.

Recently Alex Jones also for the first time started talking some sense, mentioning interest rates, predatory banking and State Banks that could do a great job financing economic development at low cost.

This is a marked improvement over his previous atrocious Austrian Gold position and obviously anathema to Ron Paul.

Nevertheless, both not yet really focus on the Usury issue. They focus on nationalizing money. And this an evasion that could easily result in fascist tendencies if not managed well.

Nationalism is not the same as empowering this Federal Government. We want to empower the People. The commoner. With interest-free mortgages and business loans. Not wage slaves in big corporations, but strong small and medium business. Much less stress, much more free time. Time to think, to study, to build. To heal.

We are proud of our nation but we want to be free men.

However, this is both the coup de grace to Austrianism and a major step forward.

What happened to Brother Nathanael and his U-Turn on Ron Paul and Monetary Reform?
Austrianism is Dying! Truthers Unite!
The Public vs. Private dialectic or: Money as part of the Commons.

From → Uncategorized

  1. Amen Bro Nathanael! Monetary reform strikes at the heart of our enemy’s power. Ending usury must be the focus of this reform. Anything less will be a waste of time.

  2. Be sure that “ending usury” includes ending all sale and purchase of debt.

    • Yes indeed. But the whole edifice of derivatives and other financial ‘products’ is built on the notion of the Time Value and it’s hard to see how it can survive without it.

      • Ross N. permalink

        You still need a drain knob. A 100& floating money supply is as bad as a 100% debt money supply. Some debt, ideally sovereign debt in the money supply is necessary to my mind. This sovereign debt type can be aimed at industry. Industry can always pay back interest with improved productivity – making it non usurious.. Sovereign debt will also have the ability to be released of debt obligations – meaning a jubilee will convert said debt to floating money. The supply needs to be comprised of money types, not just one type. I would say 80% money and 20% credit. These ratios can change based on experience and if there are competing currencies.

        By not making new sovereign debt loans, former debt money (made previously as loans), continue to drain into the credit ledger and disappear. This helps the monetary authority manage the money supply volume. The Monetary Authority gives private bankers daily guidance about sovereign credit availability. Private bankers are free to make money loans using their depositor money, but must ask for MA permission to make loans out of a sovereign fund. The guidance will likely also influence money loans.

        Since money pays off debt, but not vice versa – there is permanent floating money (80%?) available as people’s savings. Any new money (not debt as money) is injected directly into the population to allow some savings, and keep this component of the supply full.

        The only way to remove real floating money from the supply is to have it drain into a credit ledger (money pays credit) or have it removed by taxation. The other three branches of government are those that use taxes, and are extremely unlikely to remove money from the supply. By their nature, they will always tax and spend whatever they can. The fourth branch, or MA, is closer to the people by design, and pay’s its keep with a demurrage tax on savings.

        • Ross N. permalink

          Clarification: Debt money and Credit money are the same thing. They are born together at birth as twins. Credit money finds the ledger upon payback and eliminates the debt. When the loan is fully paid back, the debt instrument is torn up, and the “debt” disappears. When banker credit money re-fluxes to the ledger, it is a positive number that meets a negative number, to then disappear. The money supply drains.

          My point is that this drain is useful, and should not be excluded from the arsenal. With a sovereign debt fund, the debt instruments created do not vector into a marketplace – thus they are NOT trading people;s future by proxy. Sovereign debt is different than private debt, where the former enhances our social credit and the latter (private debt) destroys. Worse, private debt makes us debt peons, while trading our instruments thus turning us into commodities.

          Legal debt instruments are created at the moment of sovereign credit/debt birth, and the intent is both to create a drain knob, and improve the social credit. To define social credit – that is what we all have created as our common heritage – including what our ancestors and God have given to us. We inherit Social Credit upon birth as our birthright, and it should not be given away to private financial predators and rent seekers.

          Note that the term “Sovereign” is completely at variance with “international.” Private credit money can be international, while sovereign money cannot.

        • But my beef with corporations paying interest is that they will pass on these costs in prices Ross. Even if they can compensate with higher productivity, it means the added value of the productivity rise goes to the lender.

          Why cannot this credit be allocated interest free? The problem, I guess, is deciding how we should allocate, if there is no usury to mimic some supply and demand. But can’t this be improved?

          • Ross N. permalink

            Anthony, Douglas solved this problem partly. Corporations distribute money and prices. Out of one end of the factory are prices as goods. The prices include usury and waste and any other rents they can take. Money goes out the other end of the factory to pay wages. The delta between one end of the factory and the other is the gap. Labor does not earn enough in wages to pay the prices of what they produced.

            Douglas proposed direct injection into the population to pay for the gap. This direct injection is debt free real money. Injections have to happen even if there is volume controlled zero interest, because corporations will still pass on waste and take rents. If no direct injections, then labor cannot buy their output. Yes, usury is most of the gap to my thinking, but there is still waste and rents. Maybe 40% of the economy is waste overhead to usury, and another 20%, I guess, is rent taking. Corporations and special interests angle for special favors and lard the economy with inefficient rents. This abuse will be hidden in prices even at zero interest.

            Waste and rent taking can only be reduced by active vigilance of law, and falls mostly outside of the monetative. Monetary policy and Fiscal (taxation) should be separate. For example, fiscal policy should include land reform – but that cannot happen as long as land is hypothecated by private bankers to make double entry private credit.

            Since the three taxing entities (legislative, executive, judicial) depend on fiscal policy, their policy will go after rents. Taxing rent taking is an easy sell to a population that has their own money. Population will not want their sinews taxed, but will allow fat to be taxed. They will not want inflation or deflation either.

            The L,E.J branches cannot make new money, they can only spend what they tax, or earn in the marketplace. Government constrained to inelastic markets is where Govt belongs, and they are efficient in that sector.

            Direct injection by MA needs to be low as possible, because too much will be inflationary. Since direct injection goes directly into lower loop households, said lower loop will be able to self finance at some point, starting up their own small competitive companies. This adds yet more efficiency to the market, and drives rent taking down organically.

            Direct injection money needs to disappear under some circumstances, and can drain into the credit ledger. Money pays credit. Labor being able to pay credit taken on by corporations is non usurious. In this case, the small positive numbers of credit to corporations is balanced by a money supply that is pumped into labor to pay both interest and waste gap.

            Usury is more than just interest on money, it is unequal contracts. Specialists in a think tank college associated with Monetary Authority (paid for with demurrage) can study contracts and rent taking in the economy – they are sheepdogs on the hunt for wolves. These specialists will be called up on to give advice to L.E.J branches, especially data on how sub branches of the economic machine are functioning. There has to be drain and add knobs being pulled and pushed. There has to be, most modern economies are very complex. Your body is always adjusting for equilibrium, and it uses active agents of many types, not just one type of money.

            It is unreasonable to expect L.E.J. politicians to understand money and economics – for the most part their minds are not wired to go there.

          • Yes, I see the problem of the Gap being somewhat bigger than Usury.

            I’m in full agreement with your take on the sheep dogs to search and destroy rent seeking. I think this is the better approach than compensation through cash infusions. Not only does compensation mean that rent seeking continues, I also have difficulty fathoming how it can not be inflationary: the rent seekers get the purchasing power and this purchasing power will be used and it will doubled by compensating those losing to rents.

            What is your take on this?

          • Ross N. permalink

            I agree

        • I don’t really understand what your basic beef with a credit based money supply is, Ross.
          Our current system seems to be fairly effective as money. Too bad it is enslaving the multitude through usury, but what problems remain with credit based money if there is no usury?

          To my mind, an interest free credit based money supply is about as good as a debt free demurrage unit.

          • Ross N. permalink

            Anthony, Debt instruments move just like money. They can travel paths that become detrimental. Don’t get me wrong, I’m OK with debt free credit providing it is beneficial to labor. I’m not an ideologue at war with what is do-able. I think interest free credit is a stepping stone, but not ideal. We need the stepping stone, so I encourage you to continue. But, debt fee credit is not the high ground position.

            Creditors will have to work together to control volume. I have trouble seeing how that can work out, but we should try. Debt free creditors should understand that money is law, and they have been entrusted to do what the government should be doing.

            Credit always comes with a debt instrument, and the creditor holds that instrument. Even at zero interest rates, the creditor holds the instrument. This “holder” then is in charge of the money power. It is a centralizing power that must be kept in check to the benefit of the people, and due to its centralizing nature, will likely be attacked by predators. Also, the mechanism of converting an asset to money is prone to failure.

            Mutual credit is a little different in that the debt instruments are held mutually among the population..

            We’ve seen what double entry private credit can do, it can cause booms and busts, and the debt instruments are re-hypothecated into (mortgage backed) securities, thus causing all kinds of rents and usury on the population.

            Money (not debt) can jump from transaction to transaction, thus it is the most efficient money type. Credit, due to its disappearing nature, will drain and hence will tend to stay above zero rates to come into being.

            In other words, zero interest credit will be harder to do in practice, than theory. It will tend more toward usury than sovereign credit/debt. It will not have constitutional law to protect it from the future. It does not have mechanisms to go after rents. It still confuses the law nature of money with hypothecation of assets. This confusion of types is similar to the metal age of money.

          • Ross N. permalink

            Sorry, not debt free credit – that is an oxymoron. Zero interest credit still comes with a debt instrument. All credit comes with an instrument to make disappearing money.

            With a real money economy, any currency already is, and hence the debt instrument is a claim on money that already exists. The money that exists is a higher order, it is not an IOU that refluxes to disappear. The money that exists is a tool that people use to do zero cost transactions.

            A debt instrument means something entirely different in a real money economy. The debt instrument is for the debtor, who borrowed real money from a creditor. The creditor lent his money or asset, and the debtor must pay back with money (or asset) that already exists. The future is not held in hock with this type of money.

            Zero interest credit, will require continuous loans to keep the future money supply full. The loans always vector into the “bank” or the centralizing institution. With real money, the debtor pays back the creditor what he borrowed previously. Credit also always fails the comet scenario as well, and creditors do not have the law ability to counter spend. The comet scenario alone is enough weakness to torpedo zero interest credit into oblivion.

            This is why I encourage zero interest creditors to put their ideology aside, they will need real answers, and a plan, when their system breaks into instability.

            Note how a real money economy puts debtor and creditor relations back to something similar to a gift economy. Real money is between the people, where it should be. There is no banker between the people, and any banker is simply their agent – loaning out their money. Any credit ideally should be sovereign, so the debt instruments and the credit created vector into non usurious and beneficial paths.

          • Ross, I’ve just posted an extensive article on MC. Do you mind reposting this comment there? This discussion is highly pertinent to that article.


  3. I think it`s dangerous. Why exactly THIS character must push for this, a character that would NEVER be accepted in the Mainstream and that is easily dispatched by the system for his “rabid bigotry” etc. etc. Although he`s sincere, you gotta admit he`s quite the cartoonish guy, now why do you have someone like HIM saying all the right things at a moment like this? I think it`s a set-up, guys. Remember Albert Pike, 33 rd Scottish Rite: “When the people need heroes, WE shall provide them”.
    I think we need serious, psychologically balanced, reasonable, non-enragée people. Alex Jones and “Brother” ( of whom?) Nathaniel are just bizarre, I’m sorry. Gotta be the Devil’s advocate once in a while.

    Changing subject, the propaganda pushes the envelope How long ’till it goes from the “persuading” stage to the “enforcing”?

    • I understand and you’re making good points.

      But we have seen the devastation Austrianism managed to bring: 2008 and 2012 were lost for the movement because of Paul and his stupid Gold buggery.

      Whether we like their style or not, Jones and the Bro have been very influential and getting rid of Austrianism is a huge step forward.

      Everybody realizes deep down that we’ll get nowhere without a real monetary/economic agenda.

      My main worry for the next stage is focus on ‘nationalization’. The banks are busted and it’s far from unlikely that they will ‘need’ to be nationalized, including these incredibly deep pits they call their ‘balances’.

      The Government taking over the economy and directing it for its own ends, a la Schacht, instead of decentralizing real economic power to normal people seems the next frontier in this campaign.

      • Jones has a history of advocating Austrianism through his unqualified support of Ron and Rand Paul.

      • Carol Ann permalink


        You mentioned in another portion of your site that an entire article and thread about the money issue mysteriously disappearing from Brother Nathanael’s site. I thought that was highly unusual too.

        Would like to share some other “unusual” happenings that occurred at the Bro Nat site. I posted a number of comments. They were altered slightly. Thought at first some moderator was trying to make them more “grammatically” correct. Some key words of my posts were deleted or added to changing the entire meaning of some statements. Never experienced that type of thing before!

        Notified Bro Nath about problems with my specific postings and also about donation irregularities. He emailed back that he did not moderate comments. So my assumption was that one of his “moderators” was altering my posts. Watched this happen again and again with these slight but significant changes. Latest problem though was insertion of entire new paragraph!

        Also, don’t dare say anything about Putin possibly being controlled by the Rothschild’s banking cartel in any way or any slightest critique of the Orthodox Church. Posters will rebuke with mile long posts, in mass, along with their buddies. Seems Bro Nath’s site has been compromised. This is unfortunate because I felt he was sincerely trying to change things.

        I found your site through a post you put on Bro Nat’s site. Agree with you completely about the Usury issue!

        Carol Ann

    • He seems bizarre because he takes the Christian faith seriously and has a history of speaking the complete unadulterated truth. Minds used to ingesting establishment propaganda are going to react with revulsion to the truth. Most of these sorts of people probably can never be reached through a presentation of the facts anyway. So why waste time worrying about them.

      We will know whether or not his monetary conference is genuine by what reforms he advocates. He has alluded to the nationalization of the FED. Good so far. Ending usury will gain my trust. No false Op agent would ever push for the abolition of usury. It exposes the whole nefarious game. A false op reform would involve some recycled free market scheme (e.g., full reserve gold money).

    • Here in Brazil, a country with an independent Central Bank like America, that wastes HALF of it’s national budget “servicing the debt” ( paying usury ), a demoralized left-wing party in power, in liege with international foundations, created a culture of riots. Almost everyday there are riots and protests somewhere, that eventually turn bloody with crashes with the police. At the same time, a visible strengthening of the moralistic, parochial right-wing is spawning more and more Austrian zombies and religious fanatics ( economically in cahoot with Austrians ) than ever – forming a dialectic: Austrian/religious X Marxist/progressives. There’s no space for anti-usury activism here.
      Now you have weird figures pushing the anti-usury idea in America, with the potential of forming a dialectic with the established economic thought, being easily dispatched in favor of that. And as I mentioned the chip propaganda, guess who JUST churned out a book about “trans-humanism” and how we should all avoid “merging with machines”? David Icke the reptile-hunter. Ask a commoner in the street if they would believe in the BBC or Icke. They’re building up dialectics that are either inoffensive to them ( like the Brazilian one ) or they can easily win ( like most others ).

      • I hear what you say and it’s hard to argue with you.

        But the Truth movement seems to exist of a number of groups who all make some worthwhile points and are influencing important societal groups. Whether it’s the tea party, Dieudonne in France, the occupiers, the revisionists and the anti semites, the freemen, they are all moving in the right direction but divided.

        We should be working towards a common agenda and we cannot hope to work only with people we greatly like and agree 100% with.

        We are currently seeing a great denouement of the current order and this is this is to a large extent what the Money Power has been working towards: the Protocols tell how they want everybody to bore into the foundations of the Gentile States, for instance. They have their plan ready and at some point they will want to usher in their pseudo utopia.

        If we look at how succesful the Money Power has been with coopting the Truth movement through Austrianism, isn’t it a very important development that this now so in decline?

        Usury is the civil rights issue of the 21st century and I simply don’t believe the Money Power can survive a widely held discussion of it.

        • We should only work with groups that we agree with on economic and monetary programs. These are the core issues which gives us political power and ability to determine everything else for ourselves.

          That said, I wouldn’t include the tea party people in any reforms. The are hardcore Austrians. They Advocate anarchy and ruthless austerity. They are the lunatics that played fiddles while the republican attempted to shut down the U.S. government through an unconstitutional bankruptcy.

          • The Tea party was subverted from day one, we surely agree PM. The reason I mention them is, because they were and are motivated by genuine feelings of unease.

            Jones is the self styled prophet of the tea party and him now talking basically public banking is really quite something and if the Tea Party can be dissuaded from Austrianism than I guess we’re all winning.

            That would end their support for austerity too.

            Both ends of the spectrum consist of gullible but basically well meaning people and for a broad movement we must reach out where we can and show tolerance for ideosyncracies, of which none are free.

        • For sure, I agree. Between a completely tame, inoffensive dialectic and one which, even if they win and manage to ridicule us, at least shows our ideas to a vast amount of people who might otherwise never hear them, go with the second all the way. Anti-usury ideas must become visible through any means possible, whatever happens then is secondary.
          The Tea Party is a religious/Austrian movement, “let’s get them Ayrabs” and “cut off benefits for those ´looters´”. They feed on resented nationalism, just like the left feeds on resented classism. It’s all about resentment-driving, I really believe people follow these ideologies NOT because they rationally believe them, but because they offer some psychological release, their slogans “redeem” the confused ( and collectivist ) mind. This article is perfect: . The masses should be taught that the economy should serve THEM, not vice-versa – socialism is a distorted version of this.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Bitcoin: “The Old Way”

Leave a Reply

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