Skip to content

Merry Christmas and a Happy 2015!!

December 25, 2014

Dear friends,

I hope you have a blessed Christmas with your loved ones and many blessings for the coming year.

For me personally, 2015 will undoubtedly prove very exciting, with the Talent going national in Holland very soon now.

Internationally, I think we’re all waiting for the next phase in the controlled demolition of the American Empire and the West. It does seem that the Money Power is moving on to Asia. The collectivist mindset of the Chinese is closer to our masters’ attitudes and ambitions. While the West was indispensable for conquering the globe for them, now that it has, it has become a liability.

Mass immigration, feminism (destroying the family) and the ongoing rapid destruction of living standards all throughout the West are making life more and more difficult and many people are becoming desperate with the tyrannical nature of ‘democracy’ and its petty laws, fines, and victimless ‘crime’. We will see growing numbers of people leaving the West in the years ahead.

And let us hope it will be just that. The idea of war between the US and Russia (which will quickly involve the Chinese too) is simply unspeakable and it would be just so devastating if the foolish peoples of these Nations would allow their heinous ‘elites’ to pull this one off. It seems hard to believe ‘they’ could, but there can be little doubt they wouldn’t mind some more slaughter.

Wars and rumors of wars…… must all come to pass. They are worldly affairs and we must not allow fear or anger to overtake us when considering these matters.

The Spirit is in complete control and all is well. This fundamental truth we must keep hammering home to our dying egos, who thrive on negative emotions, however justified they may seem from a worldly perspective.

Our task is to ‘crucify self’ (ego death), and executing the simple tasks the Spirit wants us to do each day. And leave the rest to Him, difficult as it may be. We are, after all, just very unsubstantial dots in a vast universe.

Christmas celebrations are under attack all over the West. Multiculturalism is being used to mind control Jews, Muslims and other immigrants into claiming they are ‘insulted’ by this ‘non-inclusive’ celebration.

All bollocks of course. Immigrants have a duty to integrate and show respect for the traditions of the host nation. Mass immigration in the US in the 19th century was a success because immigrants were expected to learn the law and language of the land and partake in the norms of the nation. Jews, of course, never have been known for their integrative skills and are often behind the Marxist pressures against Christmas.

The attack is multi layered. On one level it’s an assault on Western Tradition, on the other against Christ himself. Because ultimately the whole war is against Christ.

Jesus Christ is not the man that was born 2000 years ago. It’s the Spirit that came into the flesh in the man. The Word, that created everything. The Son. He spoke through Jesus of Nazareth.

Creation is pervaded by, and springs from what physicists like Tesla call ‘the ether’. This ether is self aware and a person. It animates all beings. He lives in us all, whether we realize it or not. He is all knowing, all powerful. It is this being that spoke to us through the man whose birth we celebrate today.

A human being consists of a number of ‘aggregates’, as Gautama called them: the body, the senses, the emotional body, the mental body and volition. Our identification with these aspects is what we call ‘ego’.

Spirit is immaterial and precedes matter. We can learn to observe Him by realizing that he is what remains after excluding everything we can observe via the other ‘aggregates’. He is not what we see, not what we hear, not what we think, not what we feel. What we ‘see’ beyond these materialist experiences, is what the Buddhists call ’emptiness’, and Jesus the ‘the Holy Place’. It is here that we are ‘in the shadow of the Almighty’.

Learning to break our identification with the material aspects of our being and identifying with ’emptiness’ instead, is what the Spirit during his stint on earth called ‘dying to self to be reborn in the Spirit’. Obviously, few ‘born again Christians’ have died to self or would know what Spirit is. Likewise: a true Taoist would know very well what this is all about.

True believers, then, are not recognized by their knowledge of scripture. ‘One knows a tree by its fruit’ and the Spirit knows his own and True Israel, since the new covenant, is among all the races. It is they who have ‘crucified self’ and do the Spirit’s will. Because only those that do the Spirit’s will, as they have learned it in communion, can say they believe.

It is not for everyone. Even today most people don’t realize they need saving, so why would they look for the Savior living in their hearts, anxious to befriend them?

But if you do realize that you need saving, than study these matters. Go to the Spirit, as he so emphatically requests through Jesus of Nazareth: ‘come to me and I will give you peace’, he promises. And he delivers too.

And it is this awareness that is the real enemy of the New World Order. People dying to self and doing the infallible will of the Creator is what they fear, for obvious reasons. Clearly the Banker’s power quickly starts looking a whole lot less impressive, once you realize that the Spirit can work through selfless people.

And let us not forget that they were already beaten, back then. What we are facing today are basically just mop up operations after the enemy’s back has already been broken.

And this is the real reason why Christmas is under attack.

So don’t worry about Christmas being in fact a ‘pagan’ celebration of the winter solstice. Some of the pagans were infinitely closer to the Spirit than the ‘christians’ who destroyed them in the name of that spiritual tyranny known as the Vatican.

All our traditions are suspect in many ways and most obviously the world is at war with the Spirit and we should not take it all too seriously. But we should also not become unwitting stooges of the adversary, trying to alienate us even further from our traditions and way of  life, sinful as they may be in many ways.

So with this in mind, enjoy Christmas and this chance to rest, to be with those closest to us, who love us and bear with our many faults, just as we struggle to bear with theirs.

May the Spirit be with you and all of us in these troubled times. Soon, real soon, love will again govern all our relations.

your brother in Christ,

From → BRICS, The Spiritual

  1. Wonderful message and a true call to all brothers and sisters to embrace our Christmas

  2. Merry Christmas to You & Yours too Anthony! May the Talent bring prosperity to everyone in Holland and beyond.

    I would also like to wish all the Zionists a Merry Christmas;_ylt=AwrB8qBBS5xUjnYACmqJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIzaTJjMDhuBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM5NDNjYmY4ZDMxMDliZjFhOTVlZDEyYjVkMmM2MTkxMQRncG9zAzUyBGl0A2Jpbmc-?.origin=&

    May all their lies and schemes to destroy humanity become exposed and come to naught.

  3. Sabella permalink

    Beautiful words, Migchels, thank you from the my heart, city São Paulo/Brasil.
    Yes, Merry Christmas and Happy 2015 to all of us.
    kisses and best wishes to you, your family and friends.

  4. Muhammad Afzal Khan permalink

    Gr8, Brilliant message… May Allah helps U.

  5. taylor dunne permalink

    And a Merry Christmas to you too Anthony with best wishes for your ambitious NewYear.
    I agree with the transient nature of Old Money and its temporary affiliations with any currency, even one as epochal as the USD. Yet how is this ancient Money Power shielded from a collapse of the USD in a world pregnant with dollars? True, growth lies everywhere the US is at odds with. The Eurasian Century will not belong to the American Empire. In short, the Old Money has to ‘put its money’ somewhere. I’m not a gold bug. But it seems that must be the only answer.

    This Old Money and its IMF/BIS affiliation seems at odds with the co-called Anglo-Zionist faction at the moment. The business of the day involves disabusing the world of dollars while avoiding a nuclear war and getting back to the real business of productive growth. So I suppose my question is, where in your worldview do you place the Goldman Sachs and JP Morgans of the world? They strike me as nouvea riche upstarts, maybe even a rogue breakaway money power? Between the American Empire’s sabre-rattling and Jamie Dimon’s aggressive (desperate?) recent push to repeal the derivatives exemption of Dodd-Frank, the AZ empire is the reckless player on the block. I cannot bring myself to believe the ‘orchestrated dialectic’ suggested by some i.e. that the Old Money is fomenting potential nuclear war so that it might rise from the ashes as the New World Order. Presently, the AZ’s (or is there a schism between the A’s and the Z’s?) are at odds with the ordered forward-direction of the planet. This puts them at odds with Old Money as well.

    In short, how does the Old Money vacate itself from the grotesque excesses of the USD?

    • The way I look at it is that the Money Power is playing an East vs. West (anglo-zionists) dialectic, in which the East is to gain the upper hand in the coming years.

      I don’t see much issue with the dollar. The bankers have routinely ditched reserve currencies throughout the ages, most recently Sterling. They just take their assets out of dollar denomination before the crash and don’t mind writing off a trillion here and there. All that matters is that they control the successor and since that is going to be gold, there is no reason for them to worry.

      ‘Productive growth’ is most assuredly not on the agenda for the West in the years ahead. Quite the opposite. With current trends the West will be unrecognizable in even ten years.

      • Think in terms of the Pyramid. At the level of the all seeing eye it’s all one.

        Vehicles like Goldman Sachs and other banks and states are welcome and encouraged to fight each other to the death at the lower levels of the pyramid.

        • taylor dunne permalink

          Clearly you are a Christian as am I. Nonetheless I have been intrigued by Islamic eschatologist Imran Hosein’s portrayal of a Pax Brittannica – to – Americana – to- Judaica progression. As we know, the history books mis-portrayed the first hand-off as being an unmitigated catastrophe for the UK as indeed it was for the British people whose wealth and salaries were clearly ‘UK pound-bound’. In fact from the standpoint of what you call the Money Power, the transition was essentially seamless and progressive. Given this, I wonder whether in fact the Zionists are a workhorse-constituent of the dialectic and not the Money Power itself. How does that demarcation work?

          • Zionism is just a footnote to the whole story. In fact: I’m convinced the Money Power intends to see it destroyed in the years ahead. Zionism is only a few (maybe 13) decades old. A relative late comer.

            Renaming the Jewish Question to Zionism is a big mistake, in my view. Mind you: while Jews are at the heart of the NWO and Jewish Usury and the Money Power are one, it’s ultimately about the materialist/anti christ agenda and this transcends race.

        • Liam B Allone permalink

          This is true. I saw an interview of one of the Rothschilds in 2009 after the last melt-down. He proclaimed that he was divested of all bank stocks… This from the premiere bankster!

  6. Moneylender permalink

    Compliments of the seasons

    ”The power of non violence, no force in the world to over throw it”

    • more is needed than non-violence Money Lender: Charity is proactive.

      • Moneylender permalink

        Non Violent solution is there for the economic evil imposed vis usury.If we are looking for a permanent solution it has to be non violent.
        The Torah, The Koran, The Bible, the Gita and all other religions condem usury.
        We have millions on our side unfortunately they have been and are still being divided and ruled.
        No leadership of Gandhi’s stature to lead.

        • taylor dunne permalink

          I find an odd discrepancy in the Christian and Islamic narratives. Solution? Usury/riba is enjoined by scripture to consolidate all earthly power. That’s the purpose of history. There is only one solution. That is Armageddon/Malhama. With all due respect to the author’s Talent initiative, all else are sideways motions. Do I argue for fatalism? At this late late stage, perhaps.

          • the Talent is not going to solve the world’s problems, but it’s most assuredly intended as an early shot before the opposition’s bow. It has a real chance of at least alleviating the plight of a lot of people.

            Remember: the NWO expects to win because they don’t believe people will offer real solutions.

  7. Merry Christmas, Anthony. I love the way you put your thoughts about Christmas and the reason for the season.

    I took a back handed stab at it through photoshop:

  8. Nahh permalink

    Well the only Jesus I know of is the one in the scriptures.
    To know Jesus and the word, is to know the scriptures.
    The Natural law is in all human beings since the times of Noah, that is why even pagans recognize it.

    What God asks from us is SUPERnatural faith. The one that can move mountains , that is called miracles. And open the gates of heaven.

    I’ve never seen any miracle in other religion than in the Catholic Church (include some orthodoxy, who accept the pope and the primacy of Rome, yet deny that we have one know) and that plus the following of scripture is what guarantee that I’m in the real Church.
    That is Jesus signature.

    The aether is not clear what is it, as thanks to our “science”, founded on Gnostic principles, we are not “allowed” to research yet.
    But from scripture it’s pretty clear that God is above the world.

    He is not the aether and everything that is said in this regard is mere speculation and to affirm something at this point is just to bear false witness or lie (and a sin).

    He is in all things as nothing exists outside of the God’s will, that for Christians is Almighty, Pure, all merciful, eternal, all knowing , all Just etc etc The way that this works is mysterious and we will never know.

    What it can’t not be is “nothing” (“emptiness”), as “nothing” cannot create something, if it’s aggregates, it is something. This is the same rationality that creates usury. Because both money and “nothing” cannot breed and create something.
    Things without life such as aether (aether is dead until proven otherwise, and it’s like atoms just the fundamental part of matter), or a rock needs a artist, a scientist, a creator. And for the Material and Immaterial worlds that is God. Or as Many would prefer to call the Father of all things.

    Just God gives life he infuses life in everything at his resemblance by his WILL, not his substance, as Just the Son has parts (100%) of God, He is perfect, we are not, much less a animal, a rock etc.

    So the battle is already won. That is not the case for the Buddhists.

    So from here we know that we two different Gods.

    The God of Buddhists is Lucifer for others, it’s called Gnosis and it’s the base of Masonic teaching.
    I can quote Uncle Albert Pike to show you if you want.

    “Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
    For a true believer this should be enough. Note “by me”, not by Gautama.

    If reality is a tyrant, that is God’s will, and that His Will will be done, if not by our works by His Holy Wrath or Holy Mercy, that is the same, as He punish to prevent more souls going into hell.
    We care about the way it’s done that is why its so hard to fight the crooks who don’t accept reality (or the ones like Buddhists who think it’s a illusion), but with some it’s possible to talk.

    If I see a girl about to be raped and I use violence to stop it, that would be a good act done by me. So violence can be used in a good or bad way. The same can be said about war, which under the pope in Catholic nations (still is as Latin America proves) were civilized at the extension that was possible, including excommunicating crusader. With the masonic leadership the things derailed, in Europe and in the world.
    And yeah people shouldn’t fight for their countries, but as the “happy” and “free-thinkers” Europeans and Americans, full of shit in their mind after centuries of brainwash, as they believe in freedom of press, speech and religion, want to do something for them and the world, as they start the WWIII go and kill all the masonic leaders in their parliament and castles, as the peasants in the repressive Middle Ages did to heretic tyrants.
    Or do like the communists and attack the wrong place, a.k.a Roman Catholic Church, you are just reaping what you’ve sow.
    We Catholics were winning in various places, like Mexico and other countries. If wasn’t the soft-heart of the popes that would be a different story. But that is God’s will.
    The Church fought with everything it could to destroy the British traitors while was defending for 700 years Spain and Portugal, finding routes to avoid trade with Muslims and evangelize all at the same time.
    And using diplomacy with civilized pagans as the Chinese and Japanese.
    Portugal at some point evangelized inside the Ships to avoid confrontation, that is the evil Institution and it’s tyrants.
    People need to realize , first, there is and will always be mistakes, and rats. The institution has 2000 years for God’s sake.
    Second, there is the Catholic Kings and the Church, two different things, Charlemagne was a great king for secular matters and it’s not a saint. As not so many Kings were exemplar.
    Third, we are dealing with the devil who always plays dirty, and that causes anger and desperation that if turned in revenge, that is completely unacceptable for all Catholics and frequently excommunication was given to these wicked people.

    Now after all the effort to convert the pagans, martyrdom of millions and everything you want the Church to give up a fight (physical or intellectual) to allow God’s will to be spread, that is not reasonable, and the Buddhists would agree, as you can see, they protect their culture as well, even though they have the wrong religion and are pagans.

    Sword = His Word in this case.

    “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household.
    37 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.”

    So Jesus is really a tyrant by your definition. You should pick one or the other.

    Jesus built a Church exactly like the Old Testament by the way, but He, in the best time possible and in the most amazing way,

    Order to his follower to keep His commandments,

    “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

    So, “But we should also not become unwitting stooges of the adversary, trying to alienate us even further from our traditions and way of life, sinful as they may be in many ways”
    is not possible for a Christian.

    You are being deceived and in the road to Hell, I write this in charity so you may not perish, as the Lord command all Christians to do it.

    “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ”

    And if someone would not follow the Church teaching, which includes refuse obeying heretics even if he is the “pope”, he/she should not even care about Jesus at all, everything is bogus in that case.

    “For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

    The same can be said of all Europeans regarding your Mother the ONE, Holy Catholic APOSTOLIC Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD and that you reject in favor of Humanism, Romanticism, Rationalism, Materialism. And I don’t even know now. Become Viking again, or Celtic, maybe Franks, if the Italians turn into the Pagan Romans again, then I want to see the cry.

    • I was thinking you might have something to say about this Nahh 🙂

      Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not the Bible. To know Jesus, close your eyes and observe your thoughts, instead of being one with them. Once you get to know what observes your thoughts (and your feelings, body, senses, etc), you are getting to know the Son.

      Remember: Jesus himself mocks the scribes for looking for God in the scriptures.

      The Bible, flawed as it is, is undoubtedly the most important book there is. But its main purpose is to get you to ‘come to me’. It is not the Bible that gives peace: it’s Jesus Christ and he lives in and through you.

      Mind you: all this is very, very clearly described in the Bible.

      • Moneylender permalink

        There is no salvation for you people either from usury or any other sins as long as you all wish to bury your heads in all this religious mambo jumbo.

        Wait for another 2500 years and you may be delivered in the mean time the moneylenders are laughing all the way to the banks and you all remain ENSLAVED.

        No more comments from me, a waste of time.

        • Surely you understand reality transcends the material Moneylender?

          I’m not into religion, neither is God. But the Bible most assuredly is a very, very deep book concerning reality.

          • Nahh permalink

            Well first of all all “Christians” who uses usury are going to hell, just to be materialist you are going to hell. A Christian “can be rich” if they employ their riches in order to spread the faith, as was the case of many kings and the conquest of America for example.
            Otherwise he will perish in hell for all eternity.

            Second, nobody knows when Christ will come, and Apocalypse is a really mysterious text with things of the past, present and future.

            A “Christian” who defends abortion is not a Christian of course, just to show the obvious. If you deny ONE DOGMA of the church you are outside of the Church. So as they may proclaim to be Christian (just catholics are, and some “eastern orthodox”), they are not, you are attacking a straw man.

            I don’t attack buddhism because of Dalai Lama, or hinduism because of Gandhi because they don’t represent that religion, of course. I attack on philosophical basis that are wrong and so we can say that is a false religion and man-made (devil made).
            I don’t even need the Holy Bible for it, the Greeks did that before we correct them too.
            But I recognize that it has a valuable knowledge on NATURAL matters. Although the Greeks were superior pagans.

            Now Anthony or you are in a deep deep spiritual fog or you are deliberately deceiving.

            “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

            20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

            You should stop to closing your eyes in looking for Jesus and read the Bible.

            As my points were not addressed, I rest my case as for Jesus Christ you are with him (that include be inside of the Church, as he commanded) or against him.

            You cannot be Christian and something else, that is impossible.
            Neither Buddhist that also is impossible. Buddhism departed from its roots long time ago to never come back as they will never be able to discredited the Greeks and ultimately Christ, that is above all that.

            This is like talking to a muslim, you point out that Jesus is God otherwise a lier, And they say that the bible is wrong rofl. Yet they say that is Holy. He was conceived by the holy spirit but is not God etc etc And it is a fall after another.

            If the teachings of the Church was these ones that you attack I would be the first one to run from it.

            You are attacking a straw man. You are all worshiping Lucifer (Satan transformed in angel of light) you might just don’t know yet. That is the same God of Masonry.
            That is to equate good and evil.
            The symbol of Buddhism btw, and baphomet too. Or the pillar of Mercy and the pillar of severity. Always they same looking for “light” (Lucifer).

            God is evil Lucifer is good and will help you to achieve illumination. That is what you believe knowing or not.

            “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”
            St. Augustine

            See the difference between a true Christian and a new ager (like most people today).

            God made us for Himself, to obey Him, to glorify Him.

            People who fell that they like to kill, are following their felling, their senses. their body.
            The same of cheaters, gamblers, drunkards, druggies, adulterous. And specially the pigs that are “our elites”.

            “Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.”

            Completely opposite, St Augustine correctly points out that slavery (including of our times) is result of sin. I agree 100%.

            Now I want your explanation about the miracles, specially the ones like Our Lady of Guadalupe. And a explanation why they just occur in the Catholic Church, registered even in muslim writings.
            And the science and cannot disprove it either.

            I always write in a hurry so sorry for the might confused writings. And these boxes of forums are the worst.

            Always in charity !

          • Nahh permalink

            I’m sorry in offending the pigs too.

            And by the way , did you read Chesterton ?
            I remembered that I recommend it to you in one of my first posts.

          • The obsession with miracles is purely for the uninitiated.

            Open your eyes: The Spirit has created EVERYTHING. The Sun, the Moon, the Universe, us.

            How difficult to you think it is for such a Titan to raise a man from the dead? To do ‘miracles’?

            Existence itself is the miracle Nahh. Once you see this, you will no longer look for ‘proof’ in ‘miracles’.

          • Nahh permalink

            Just disprove it please.

            The obsession with miracles, why Jesus did so many of them so ?
            Was not to prove he was God ? As I exposed before.

            Do you trust the Spirit as to jump from a bridge and resurrect by yourself ?
            Ask this spirit of yours lets see if it gonna work.

            You are deceiving yourself (and others by spreading gnosticism)

            I can’t address all heresies, I would just like ask, you to should study real catholicism and stop attacking a straw men and call the Catholic Church.

            “Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful they’re the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

            Next time, call it the Novus Ordo Church. And no Catholic ,even those, think of Mary as God, but I guess they will start trying to do it in the next decades.
            As they are changing our religion to be masonic and Gnostic (that is the same thing).

            Deification of Jesus ? He says that, if that is false I wouldn’t even listen anything He would have to say. I would try to conquest the world and make in my like.
            Maybe this spirit of your would help me out.

            I explained the immaculate conception before it, and the reason behind it (Satan has nothing to do it with Jesus) and some scripture indications of that too. Also is oral tradition.
            The pope just declared what was long accepted by most catholics.

            I don’t need proof, I first believe after I assert the truth.


            Can you disprove Our lady of Guadalupe ?
            Keep in mind that there was various attempts. All failed miserably.

          • Two excellent books on true Catholic dogma and teachings are Fundamentals in Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott and Catechism of the Council of Trent. Therein you will find what you must believe to be a Catholic (not novus ordo pre Vatican II modernism or self styled new ageism). Criticisms of anything else is just engaging strawman arguments.

          • Well, I do require proof. Childlike faith can only come from deep contemplation of reality.

            But you are in a box. You have surrendered your duty to investigate because you cannot stand the cognitive dissonance it automatically brings.

            You actually believe you are in a position to spout dogma and reject real discussion as ‘democracy is proven to not have worked’.

            Whereas Truth is a purely personal search. Nothing can be allowed to come between a man and Truth, most certainly not some book or religious institution.

            You even reject the Bible and replace it with your personal interpretation which you call ‘catholic’ and thus ‘true’.

            Not a good place to be in, in my view.

            I prefer to continue meditation and prayer for more wisdom, humility and guidance in these fundamental matters. This has served me fine over the years.

          • Nahh permalink

            That is why I’m asking you to prove Our Lady of Guadalupe.

            That is the difference, just go there and see it.
            Just go to a shrine and see how many miracles happen, in the Church of God.

            Childlike it’s letting him take care of you. Trust 100%. Obey.

            You know the creator by the creation.

            Just His resemblance though. Being Humans it’s bigger representative, after Angels.

            I just say you can’t understand it completely, because that would require a God’s intellect and we don’t have it. So we need the mother Church and God’s revelation.

            I say that Truth is objective. And It’s written in the Bible.
            It’s true because God said so, and he created a Church.

            The bible says that Christ built a Church. I follow it.
            You said that you know Jesus by closing your eyes.

            The Church is infallible in Faith and Morals.

            Secular matters it’s just somewhat affected but, we have plenty liberty in this field, putting God first (Faith and Morals), and then construct everything around that Truth.

            Divorce is here to show what disobeying God causes. Usury too.

            That is why I just believe in conversion or disaster.

            I will pray for you Anthony, may God opens your eyes.

          • meecha permalink

            apocolypse by which you mean Revelation is not particually mysterious. Revelation is a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD but it is “signified” ie written in signs…….The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:rev 1;1 This is the book that describes the synagogue of satan and its destruction…it happened when Jesus “came in the clouds” which western fundamentalists actually think means that Jesus in a white dress rides down on a fluffy bit of mist but is actually hebrew idiom for judgement. Guys …reading the Bible requires patient study and careful cross referencing ….I do agree with Anthony that ultimately Jesus’s people hear His voice ….the Revelation IS His voice and although HIs enemies are not fully crushed they are already defeated…Revelation is THE book in the Bible that explains it but you need Ezekiel,Daniel and Moses to unpack it. Jews ALWAYS killed the prophets and there was only ever a small remnant who were loyal to God.

    • taylor dunne permalink

      Speaking of Pike, I’d like to see confirmation as to the validity of his three world wars ‘prophesy’. Looks like an Internet yarn to me.

      • Nobody knows whether it’s real taylor, but already in the fifties it was discussed and I think a copy of it was also shown in some major museum.

        • taylor dunne permalink

          Here is the WW2 prophecy I see routinely on the web. Note use of the terms Nazism and Communism…in 1871. Hmm:

          “The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm.”

  9. Anthony, et al, I hope this winter solstice finds you healthy and content. Traditionally, this is a time for spiritual rebirth.

    I respectfully question if meaningful spirituality may be found through the Arahamic religions that have swept across the Middle East, the Near East and Europe. Christianity/Judaism/Islam look to be re-hashed myths perpetrated by some in a position to know the prior myths and perpetuated by people with an agenda to hold ultimate power.

    A great amount of damage has been done by suppressing our true mythical heritage. We are misled and told that our divine meta center is in the middle east. No… for most, our roots, spiritual and cultural; are not in the middle east!

    Slowly, I think people are beginning to re-awaken to their great ancestral wisdom as the unconscious mind still carries the repressed memories of these energies. The Arahamic hi-jacking of our more ancient myths has been a polluting influence and a tool of repression and enslavement. Our culture and heritage is being destroyed in a forced multicultural tri-Arahamic tyranny.

    • Don’t mistake Christianity with Christ Larry……they’re like water and fire……..

      Christ abhors what the Vatican did to the ‘pagans’. Many of the ‘heathens’ were much, much closer to Him than those hypocritically calling out his name….

      Christ is the Word of God and Jesus of Nazareth incarnated him, but the Word was with God from the beginning and many noble warriors of the Spirit knew him in those days, before ‘religion’ set out its path of destruction…………….

      • Nahh permalink

        And the solstice is on Dec 21th.

        I don’t have time to adress all heresies here and the non-sense. I could explain the Nativity, the way it was until recently was brought by us, by the Super-tyrannical St Francis.

        • meecha permalink

          i could explain to you how the whole New Testament existed in finished form before 70AD without even having to depart from the text. If the NT is complete by 70 AD ( which it is) then you all have to deal with the fact that it took one generation ( 40 years) to create what people want to label a myth. Would you like to go there or have you already made up your mind? And just to put icing on the cake we could quote Iraneaus Clement and Polycarp who quoted huge portions of the NT in the late first and early second century. To say ..I don’t believe’s all fair enough but to say that you have given it careful consideration when you haven’t is a lie. BTW no biblically literate Christian is unaware that the popular nativity story contradicts the bible narratives…nor are we unaware of the pagan roots of Christmas but so what? what exactly is the point?

          • The Bible excludes many important texts, many of which we are not even aware, as Rome waged total war against them, including burning down the Library of Alexandria.

            The Gospels (while still containing the truth) were heavily infected with purely Babylonian (astrotheogical) symbolism.

          • meecha permalink

            Not heard that before Anthony….can you post some examples (of Babylonian symbolism in gospels)

          • immaculate conception for instance, but also the deification of Jesus of Nazareth (at the expense of the real God of the NT, the Word, who came in the flesh in Jesus of Nazareth), come to mind. I’m not a huge expert on the issue, but Maxwell has useful stuff on this.

            It’s especially in the first few gospels. John is pretty much clear of any of that stuff and that is of course the most important gospel. The other Gospels are great too, though, when Jesus speaks. No bullshit there.

          • Liam B Allone permalink

            Isn’t it wonderful that the truth of these remarks are borne out with the discovery of the Nag Hamadi! Isn’t it wonderful that thought the Catholic Church hijacked the Dead Sea Scrolls and hid most of them from us, the Nag Hamadi stand as an additional witness that anyone can download and read for free? I think so. This is what helped break me free from the religiosity of modern Christianity. If Jesus was here today, he would say of the Christian religious leaders of today “Woe to you scribes and Christians, hypocrites! You preach as Gospels the commandments of men!” Born again is nothing more than reincarnation. Occam’s Razor. What part of “”Keep holy the Sabbath (i.e. Saturday)” don’t they understand? I could go on for pages!

        • According to the Gospels, the shepherds were laying in the fields when Jesus was born. In Palestine, they don’t do that in the winter, it seems.

          • meecha permalink

            Jesus was born 6 months after Passover ie around September….no problem for Palestinian shepherds…..we know this because John the Baptist was born at Passover and Jesus is 6 months younger than John

      • Anthony, you mentioned the “word of God” and I was wondering how these words come to your understanding? Do you subscribe to a Bible or some other written explanation?

        Perhaps I’ve become overly cynical as I beginning to think that the Christian influence has been more negative than positive on the micro ethnic philosophy and the macro western civilization. And by Christian, I mean the roman rooted version along with its cousins; Protestants and evangelicals.

        You differentiate between Christ and Christianity which makes sense, at least from an historical perspective. After the roman version was crafted and stamped with the Emperor’s dictate, the new politically correct cult had the academic and military backing to wipe out most of the other groups with different versions.

        • Exactly. What we know today as ‘christianity’ is indeed a totally artificial cult worshipping ‘another Jesus’ (the man that incarnated the real Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God and the Son).

          It’s unfortunate that X-tians don’t actually read the Bible. They ‘read’ but not critically, not independently. They just interpret in the way as they were mind controlled to.

          Of course, many important texts were destroyed by this cult, diminishing our link with what was once common knowledge (among the initiated, at any rate).

          But the Bible is quite clear about these matters and it’s mostly in John. Christianity’s basic ontology is in John 1:

          1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

          2 The same was in the beginning with God.

          3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

          4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

          14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

          So no, the Bible is not the Word of God. The Son (who is God Immanent) is the Word of God and God the Father (who transcends creation) utters the Word.

      • Jesse ThunderBoy permalink


        Really? What other “deity” has as much blood on “His” hands and in “His” name? AND he never shows up to stop it. This is “THE TRUTH” that counts for thousands upon thousands of indigenous peoples of the “Americas” (and throughout the Earth), and continues to be presented as “THE TRUTH” his devotees conveniently ignore the devastation.

        Even non-brain washed children continue to question the character of such a deity… an indicator that they are on the path of objective responsibility.

        Even the apes that came into power in Hollywood’s fanciful planet had their hilariously pompous deity exposed as preposterous image of themselves… supposedly created in their own image and then mystified by turning it around to “created us in his image.” Gee, that sounds so familiar! Monkeys making monkeys out of human religious suppositions!

        We can always count on and expect the threatening responses to our expressions of “THE TRUTH”… usually with the righteous declaration, “You will all fall on your knees when Jesus returns!” The only folks this worn out pious threat benefits is the Knee-pad sales companies.
        That is, IF they can convert their products to asbestos!

        Then we hear the blend of hypocrisy and ignorance… wherein, according to the word of their “savior” and his dad, the elder deity created every thing. And yet, even in supposition that this is factual, then why & how can devoted Christians denounce us for the way we were created… and thereby, going against their deity’s willful creation.

        It should be enough for descent people in North America to realize that “Custer Died For Your Sins!”

    • My favorite explanation of the subversive nature of Christianity comes from a book called the Revelation of Peter:

      The Revelation of Peter

      ““At first many will accept our words, but they will turn away again according to the will of the father of their error, because they have done his will, and the father of error will disclose them in his judgement as servants of the word. Those who have associated with people of error will become their prisoners, since they are without perception. But the good person, who is pure and upright, will be handed over to the dealer in death, in the kingdom of those who praise a Christ of a future restored world. And they also praise people who preach this falsehood, people who will come after you. They will hold on to the name of a dead man, thinking that in this way they will become pure, but instead they will become more and more defiled. They will fall into a name of error and into the hand of an evil deceiver with complicated doctrines, and they will be dominated by heresy.

      Some of them will blaspheme the truth and proclaim evil teachings, and the will speak evil against each other. Some of them will give themselves a name, for they stand in the power of the rulers: the name of a man and a naked woman of many forms and many sufferings. And those who say all this will inquire into dreams, and if they claim that a dream came from a demon, which is appropriate for their error, they shall be granted perdition instead of incorruption.”

      ““Evil cannot produce good fruit. Everything, wherever it comes from produces what is like it. Not every soul is of the truth or of immortality. In our opinion, every soul of these present times is assigned to death and is always enslaved, since this soul is created to serve its own desires. These souls are destined for eternal destruction, in which they are and from which they are, for they love the creatures of matter that came into being with them.

      But immortal souls are not like these, Peter. Still, as long as the hour has not come, an immortal soul resembles mortal souls. It will not reveal its true nature: it alone is immortal and contemplates immortality, and has faith, and desires to renounce these mortal souls.
      People do not gather figs from thistles or thorns, if they are wise, nor grapes from thornbushes. Something always stays in that state in which it exists. If something is in a bad state, that becomes destruction and death for the soul. But the soul abides in the eternal one, the source of life and immortality of life that these resemble.

      All that does not really exist will dissolve into nothingness, and those who are deaf and blind associate only with people like them.

      Others will wander from evil words and mysteries that lead people astray. Some who do not understand the mysteries and speak of what they do not understand will boast that the mystery of truth is theirs alone. In arrogance they will embrace pride and will envy the immortal soul that has been used as down payment. For every authority, principality, and power of the ages wants to be with the immortal souls in the created world, in order that these powers, who do not come from what exists and have forgotten who they are, may be glorified by the immortal souls that do exist. The powers have not been saved or shown the way by them, though they have always wished to become imperishable. For if an immortal soul is empowered by a spirit of thought, at once it is joined by one of those who were led astray.

      Many others, who oppose truth and are messengers of error, will ordain their error and their law against my pure thoughts. Since they see from one perspective only, they think that good and evil come from the same source. They do business in my word. And they will establish harsh fate in which the generation of immortal souls will run in vain, until my return. For the immortal souls will surely remain among them. And I have forgiven the transgressions into which they have fallen through their adversaries, and I have redeemed them from their slavery, to give them freedom.

      Some will create a mere imitation of the remnant in the name of a dead man, who is Hermas, the firstborn of unrighteousness, in order that the little ones may not believe in the light that is. These are the workers who will be cast into the outer darkness, away from the children of light. For they will not enter, nor do they allow those who are going to their destination, for their deliverance, to enter.

      Still others among them endure suffering and think they will perfect the wisdom of the brotherhood that really exists, the spiritual fellowship with those united in communion, through which the wedding of incorruptibility will be revealed. Instead, what will appear is a mere imitation, the kindred generation of the sisterhood. These people oppress their brothers and say to them, “Through this fellowship our God has mercy, since salvation comes to us alone through this. They do not know the punishment of those who rejoice at what was done to the little ones, those who watched when the little ones were taken captive.

      And there are others among those outside our number who call themselves bishops and deacons, as if they have received authority from God, but they bow before the judgement of the rulers. These people are dry canals.””

      • Nahh permalink

        Gnostic again ! Or should I say Masonic ?
        This text is apocrypha not approved by the holy spirit and probably a fraud. As the two copies that exists diverge considerably.

        When will you understand the following:

        “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14

        I’m done, please go study the real Catholic faith and after that we can discuss,if you study properly, you won’t debate, you will convert.

        It is really boring kicking dead dogs.

        Just straw man accusations.
        Next time call Nahh and he will respond if you have a doubt on the real teachings =P

        • Masons follow Protestant/Jewish teachings that slavishly worship Old Testament style Kabbalah. That is why the Grand Lodge of England uses the ark of the covenant as their symbol. To be quite frank, you have demonstrated very little knowledge of Gnosticism or even the way that religion has expressed materialism (aka Satanism or its technological variant Luciferianism as some are fond of calling it). Having been in the Christian side of the alternative movement and real theological debate, I am most unimpressed by this foolish tendency to slander persons you do not agree with using any number of overused and poorly understood concepts. No one here is a Satanist, no one here is a Luciferian, no one here is a Mason, no one here is a Theosophist, no one here is an Illuminist, etc.

          If you did some work in some of the ancient texts such as the Rig Vedic hymns, the Ugaritic texts (particularly the Baal cycle, and please don’t have a freak out over the title), the Gnostic texts, and others, you would realize that the concept of a Christ is not somehow a concept only given to a small group of Israelites, but rather is a worldwide concept. And it is not a concept

          I have seen the real roman catholic faith and I am not impressed with a religion that has a history of contentious fools who are willing to separate and kill each other over minor speculative nonsense, authorize mass genocide in areas such as England, Wales, Ireland, etc. or the number of popes who were power crazed nobility (and I mean prior to the Renaissance).

          • Nahh permalink

            Okay keep with “democratic” debates, it’s working marvelously !

            You are attacking straw men again.

            Nobody can debunk the philosophical basis of God the father.
            And that he is outside the world obviously, he is a Spirit and etc etc.

            Now we need to know what kind of God we have.

            That is why Faith is bigger than reason, but one doesn’t contradict the other !

            If Jesus is God, and He is, it would be really stupid to not follow him, as he has perfect knowledge and he is perfect logical for any sincere heart.

            “Having been in the Christian side of the alternative movement and real theological debate, I am most unimpressed by this foolish tendency to slander persons you do not agree with using any number of overused and poorly understood concepts.”

            We don’t pretend to understand everything, we know by a fact that we can’t understand everything because we are not GODs, so we prefer to trust GOD through the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is why we call somethings mysteries to begin with.
            Like the trinity for example.

            We use what God gave us, faith, reason and revelation and do our best.

            What God decreed we uphold, and we work with that trying to do God’s will

            “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”

            The alternative movement has more shills then non-shills, by the way.
            That is why it’s important to read their theory, not their talk.

            I did a very briefly expose, of course is poorly explained, I would need to write a book to explain each one and in detail.
            Or you can read the masonic texts, this is their job. Or some people who study gnosticism, including Gnostics themselves, but watch out as they are lairs.

            All them invent things from their heads and give sacred meaning, sometimes inspired by demons (I guess all times), or they observe nature a think God is in/this world and create a theory of creation. Or they take parts of texts. etc,etc

            Talmudic Rabbis basically.

            Jesus fulfills the old testament and says that,

            “Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.”

            Completely different from the other pagans and heretics.

            He claimed to be God, gave us proofs, RESURRECT from the dead and ask us to believe.
            I think we should do it.

            5 And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
            6 And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts:
            7 Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only?
            8 Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit, that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts?
            9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk?
            10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
            11 I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.
            12 And immediately he arose; and taking up his bed, went his way in the sight of all; so that all wondered and glorified God, saying: We never saw the like.

            This is one of the most important verses of the bible. See he forgave sins (like Catholics do in confession), and just God can do that, and the Church in God’s name, as written in the bible.

            Appreciate Our Lord, He is just amazing rofl

            I was hearing this talk these days, I hope you will benefit from it (and whoever else listens to).


          • Moneylender permalink

            I will reedem you all in another 2500years, in the mean time be good slaves.
            Or stand up and fight

            THE PEOPLE v THE BANKS: Eviction Stopped, Bird Family Eviciton

   banks-eviction-stopped Cached

            THE PEOPLE v THE BANKS: Eviction … “When they requested to see a copy of the document EX96 “The Bailiff … I feel that we have done all we can as normal people …t

          • You don’t understand who spoke through Jesus of Nazareth Nahh.

            It is not about the man. The Creator himself came into the flesh in Jesus of Nazareth.

            This is the Spirit of God, the Word, the Christ. Or even Tao (meaning ‘the way’).

            The man is irrelevant as he admitted himself: ‘why do you call me good? Only God is good’.

            Not only that: while God the father is outside his creation, his Spirit (the Word) is IN creation. It animates all men (and everything else): John 1:4 ‘and the Word is the light of men’.

            It is the Spirit that speaks when Jesus of Nazareth says ‘I’.

            For instance: ‘come to me and I will give you peace’. How are you going to come to a dead man?

            But if you realize that it’s the Spirit that ‘is the light of men’ (and thus is WITHIN), then it makes all the sense in the world.

          • I agree. I got to know the Spirit via Lao Tse and only later recognized that he was talking about Jesus Christ.

          • Tim permalink

            I enjoy the writings of Lao Tse as well. Quite profound.

            How did Lao Tse or Lao Tzu teach you about jesus?

            Did he not live 600 years before christ?

          • Jesus Christ is the Creator Tim. That’s the whole crux. God’s Spirit, Logos, Tao, are called Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

          • Tim permalink

            Thanks Anthony, that’s very interesting. Indeed, the spirit is alive, and has been for a long time. The thought that it is jesus only that has patented and delivered it’s message… I feel… is limiting.

            People quite often will see only what their belief system or ideology tells them, it’s natural, and becomes a rather narrow focus. Yet It is also very liberating to buy-in… totally… sweet surrender.

            I cannot say if there is a divine plan or reason which coordinates the universe, but I can say the message, the silence, the observer, the Truth, the “christ” has been an expression through man for a much longer time than the blip on the radar which was jesus.

            Though the archetypes embedded in us over time hold strong, I feel the personal path of Truth one seeks is not owned or patented by a mythic figure leveraged and marketed to the masses.

            That is not to say I disregard the writings of the bible, or the words of jesus. Some very profound teachings. One would also likely be able to find profound and applicable lessons on “reality” and “redemption” in other places.


  10. KSS permalink

    The Problems that result from locating Spirituality in the Psyche

  11. Dear Anthony! Welcome to the “Fellowship of the King!” We (and surely many others!) have prayed for you (and David Shayler!), and lo and behold prayers have been answered! A new-born, regenerated Child of Jesus the King, fellow laborer in His harvest fields so white, brother, wise virgin with oil in his lamp, true disciple of our lovely Master and Heavenly Husband, fellow fighter to win His lost children in these exciting Last Days of Middle Earth, forward into its last battle! We may be poo-poo-ed by them poor pitiful puppy victims of loveless Antichrist Media Propaganda, but many are eventually going to wake up in the eleventh hour, and come to their cosmic senses, that Life is not limited to this puny planet plus its pitiful population! Earth is merely a spiritual kindergarten where people learn to humbly accept their DNA coder & Intelligent Designer (as even famous atheist Anthony Flew finally discovered before he died), and to just learn “how to be NICE!!!!” To love God (Who IS Love) & to love our neighbour as ourselves, is after all ALL the law and the prophets!
    Lots of love from Taiwan.
    Lu, from The Paradise Post,
    If you ever happen to visit our lovely island, you are welcome to stay with us.

  12. Jesus’ wish for humanity: 1. Stop being cowards & bickering over details 2. Turn the tables on the money lenders and end usury 3. Issue your own money like the Talent! 4. Become the Kings and Queens you were created to be!

    • moneylender permalink

      Anthony is a tireless campaigner, I only wish he does not mix religion just as others.
      Here is a inspirational video..
      No religious mambo jumbo exceptsheer guts

      THE PEOPLE v THE BANKS: Eviction Stopped, Bird Family Eviciton banks-eviction-stopped Cached

      THE PEOPLE v THE BANKS: Eviction … “When they requested to see a copy of the document EX96 “The Bailiff … I feel that we have done all we can as normal people …

      • Ross N. permalink

        All world movements have some sort of philosophical underpinnings. Ideas precede action.

        • Moneylender permalink

          The Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the Gita etc all condem usury millions of converts.
          Why there had been no progress, simply because of latching on to one religion.
          Forget the religions, interest is not necessary or inevitable that is the message.

          • You are allowing your righteous disgust with religion to stand in the way of studying the texts, Money Lender. The texts hold much truth, religion hijacks that.

          • Moneylender – you’re right that usury has been been condemned by the Abrahamic religions but yet it continues.

            We don’t need belief systems to tell us that usury should not be permitted as we know for certain that the exponential growth of debt cannot be ultimately repaid in a finite world.

          • If banks, or any organization that creates money, does not charge interest, how do they recover their costs and earn a profit?

          • Liam B Allone permalink

            Exactly! The bottom line is that the problem is the GAP – not the interest which is just profit. That is not to say banks are not a problem though. Any business that works so hard to suppress the truth about the gap – and its obvious implied solution that would dramatically undercut the need for loans – has not exactly got clean hands. The point is that we must accurately identify and fix the CORRECT problem.

          • socred wrote: “If banks, or any organization that creates money, does not charge interest, how do they recover their costs and earn a profit?”

            Banks can earn a profit like other businesses by charging fees for services and transactions. This is done now with the huge mortgage market (close to $14 trillion U.S.) as very few banks actually hold the debt – the mortgages are bundled and sold.

            We have been brainwashed to think that banks must collect interest in order to turn a profit.

          • “Banks can earn a profit like other businesses by charging fees for services and transactions.” (Larry)

            That’s exactly what interest is: a charge for services rendered in administering a loan.

          • Scored – we agree, there are other ways to compensate businesses that rise up to meet the “banking” needs of the people. Interest is only one way.

            If you look at how the compounding of interest will grow; as a logarithmic progression, beyond any ability to satisfy the insatiable debt, it becomes obvious that interest simply does not work.

            Proof – here is a graph that clearly shows an exponential function:

            Total Non-Revolving Credit $MM

            There are many more; empirical evidence already proven by math (e.g. national debt and private debt).

          • “If you look at how the compounding of interest will grow; as a logarithmic progression, beyond any ability to satisfy the insatiable debt, it becomes obvious that interest simply does not work.” (Larry)

            Compounding interest only grows if the principal of the loan is not being repaid over time. In any bank loan, there is a set repayment schedule that pays down the principal of the loan over time such that the ratio of interest/principal decreases with each payment over time.

            “There are many more; empirical evidence already proven by math (e.g. national debt and private debt).” (Larry)

            Correlation does not prove causation. There are alternative explanations for exponentially increasing debt.

          • Moneylender permalink

            How do you justify compound interest on money created out of nothing, (which you admit happens).Counterfieting.
            Any work done on behalf of a client a fee can be charged

          • Money is created out of nothing, but are you suggesting that banks don’t have real costs incurred in administering the loan? There is no difference between a service fee and interest, and the two can both be mathematically arranged into one or another with any loan and repayment schedule.

          • Moneylender permalink

            You can’t have it both ways.Interest is NOT necessary or inevitablle.
            A muslim does not charge interest,(riba) neither a Jew when he lends to a fellow Jew,since both the Koran and the Torah forbids usury.
            Now the Western Banks offering Islamic Banking appear to practice what you are preaching

          • Changing the name from interest to “service fee” or whatever name you want to call it does not change the fact that banks have to charge a price for their services. Calling something a “service fee” does not make it different from an interest rate except in name only.

          • Well, real costs for a 30 year mortgage of 200k is max 10k Socred. But we pay 300k.

            The idea that Usury has anything to do with ‘costs’ for the bank is purely for us, the ignoramusses, only.

          • A public bank or nationalized government bank can issue loans interest free ( or nearly so). So why should we worry about what the costs are for a private banks? Let them live up to their neoliberal propaganda: let the most efficient enterprise prevail. If they can’t compete, too bad.

            It’s unfortunate that the usury parasite has convinced its host — we the people — that we need them to survive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

          • A public bank cannot issue loans “interest free” without heavily subsidizing those loans. The first primary cost associated with a loan is inflation. That’s why the real rate of interest is the nominal rate of interest less inflation. Then you have interest paid on deposits, and the risk of default etc…

            The “debt virus theory” is a fallacy which ignores the fact that banks increase deposits through reciprocal spending.

          • You don’t know what your talking about. Public bank creates credit the same what private banks do with keystrokes on a keyboard for demand created by labor, service and production startups. The only difference is that the people just have to pay back what they borrowed, principle. The people get to keep the fruits of their labor instead of giving it to the private banks that did nothing to earn it.

          • Oh, I’ll let other’s decide who knows what they’re talking about. If a public bank creates credit through a loan, there are real costs associated with the corresponding deposit that the loan creates – loss of purchasing power of money repaid through inflation, interest paid on deposits held with the bank, risk of default on loans, labour costs, capital costs etc., etc… If you think that the cost of operating a bank and administering a loan is “free”, then I suggest you look at the income statement of any publicly traded bank. If a public bank issued loans “interest free” it would be heavily subsidizing those loans.

          • This is a mirage Socred: the bank creates the money when ‘lending’ and ‘destroys’ it when it is repaid. There is no loss to inflation at all for the bank, only for the depositors.

      • There can be no Truth Movement without Truth about the most fundamental matters Money Lender.

        And just constant complaining about the evil of religion is not truth.

        Religion sucks. This is so because it sucks life force from the real thing: spirituality. Religion stands in the way of personal communion with the One.

      • I’m not religious Money Lender. I love the Spirit, that’s quite another matter. I adhere to no dogma and see the value in the underlying truths of all traditions. The PtB have used religious dogma and the priesthood for a long time to rule. Satan rules in the world and Organized Religion is a huge part of that control grid.

        Hate religion, love Christ, is my motto.

        I was an atheist for 15 years, after turning away from Catholicism when I was about 15. Now, I’ll vouch for each and every word Jesus utters in the Gospels. Not because anyone says so, but because they are Truth.

  13. Ross N. permalink

    I’m a little less sanguine about Judaism than most, and here are some reasons why:

    Astle, in his book Babylonian Woe, describes these world power men, who controlled the emission of international money, as the Aipiru and later as Haibaru, then Hebrew. They were donkey caravans of roaming tribes, who then controlled exchange ratios between metal types, and intangible ledger. This money power, via control of the three exchange ratios and subsequent debts, then centralized into a one God religion as cover and shield for their rent seeking. The spirit of Jesus, which is the spirit of man, opposes this false religion and its unequitable exchange. Here is an excerpt:

    “History over these last three thousand years particularly, has largely been the interweaving of both a witting, and an unwitting distortion of the truth, with all the inevitable consequences which have been expected, and now are but a little way ahead. Kings largely became the mouthpiece and sword arm of those semi-secret


    es that controlled the material of money as its outward and visible symbols came to be restricted to gold, silver, and copper… The fiat of the god in heaven which had been the decisive force behind that which brought about an equitable exchange, was replaced by the will of those classes controlling the undertones of civilization, leaders of the world of slave drivers, caravaneers, outcasts, and criminals generally, such as was to be discerned on the edges of the ancient city civilizations, and followed the trade routes between them… The instrument of this will was precious metal, whose supply was controlled by the leaders of these classes through their control of the slave trade, since mining was rarely profitable in the case of the precious metals, except with slave labour, even after the development of hardened iron tools and efficient methods of smelting.”

    “The power of these men, indifferent and alien to most cities as they were, relative to that power it was replacing, which was the will of the benevolent god of the city, had been made absolute by sowing in the minds of men over the thousands of years, the idea of such metals having a specially high value relative to other goods and services being offered for exchange; indeed that they were veritable store house of value.”
    Footnotes on page 32 of Astle’s book, describe the Apiru: Thus it would appear that the restless ‘Apiru of later times, mercenary soldier, bandit, or smuggler, was the descendant of the donkey caravaneers
    Outcasts and roaming tribes of Apiru are confirmed by honorable anthropologists such as half Jew Michael Bradley in Esau’s empire. A distillation here of Bradley’s book at Darkmoon link:

    The Apiru (or whatever spelling) are likely also heavily Neanderthalic, which explains their non-cro magnon way of thinking. It may also explain violence and in-group behaviors endemic to this group, as well as psycho-sexual proclivities. Mathematical prowess is a large genetic component of Neanderthal and dovetails with numerological mystery regions such as Zohar, then Talmud, and math nature of money.
    Reg Morrison in “Spirit of the Gene” notes the 500mSec difference in human brain, and this means the primitive part of our brain still controls higher functions. If one has neanderthalic genes in abundance, then the outputs will be expressed as a different “alien” religion.

    “Yet brain-scan imaging suggests otherwise. In response to any stimulus the brain’s core structures light up about 500 milliseconds before the rational cortex, which suggests that the parliament of genes sitting in the ancient basement of the brain previews the incoming data to decide what is ‘good’ or ‘bad‘ for our immediate evolutionary circumstances”

    To summarize, and in my studied opinion, The World Government began with the Apiru and were likely Neanderthalics mixed with Cro Magnon after last ice age. They were mixed race tribe by definition, and then converted to blood line religion through mother. Blood line religions are in-group by definition. This kept tribe relatively high percentage Neanderthalic, hence hairy Esau. The World Government is now Kaballah, Talmud, and Jewish. Below that is Illuminist, which is also Jewish and Shabbos Goy’s. The means of power are in-group actions bound by ancient mystery religion, and funded by usury. It has been an ancient money power Gang/Cabal since the beginning of metal money, and the objective is always the usurpation of existing civil society. The latest usurpation is to make the world ready for their messiah, which needs the temple re-built (to house the messiah – a female entity they help bring out of En-Soft’s Klippoth space through Tikkun– repairing the world).

    Yes, many Jews are innocent ancestral descendants, now caught up in their ancient fore-fathers psycho-pathology. Much of innocent humanity, who are naturally pre-disposed toward trust, are also caught up by this, now pervasive “unequitable” rent –seeking psychopathology, as trusting normal human minds cannot comprehend a diabolical alien scheme this large in scale. Mosaic Jews may be dupe innocents, but Kaballah and Talmudic Jews are willing agents and often direct descendants of Apiru.

    • Hard hitting stuff Ross and it certainly resonates with me. And how do you link in the biblical stories of the Nephilim etc? I think there is a link to the bloodlines there too.

      I think the Jews in some way usurped Israel, whose tribes appear to have been ‘lost’. Jeremiah already warned Israel that ‘an alien race’ would be sent to make them pay for their wicked ways.

      I can’t get a real handle on it, but I’m sure your thinking goes in the right direction.

      • Ross N. permalink

        Anthony, Please email me with good address. I’m not getting through. I’ve modeled talent system, so you may want to see it.

        “Nephilim” I’m not sure what happened 30K years or so ago when Cro-Magnon happened on the scene. Lloyd Pye has his theories:

        Intervention theory could be “god” or “gods” and the law/rules would have been different then.

        Today, everybody is Cro-Magnon, so the idea of in-group blood-line religions, that codify superiority and violence against the others; this in-group thinking supercharged with money power, needs to be attack for being psychopathy. It is really psychopathy written down and codified.

        Psychopathy is also present in the Old Testament, and is present in Post-Medina Islam. And, of course, it is a constant theme in Kaballah and Talmud.

        Reg Morrison thinks the psychopathy enters into religion from the ancient parliament of genes – the reptilian brain areas of amygdala.

        Michael Bradley’s book “Iceman Inheritance” suggests that Cro-Magnon took on Neanderthal Genes, which then re-made Cro-Magnon genetics, especially genetics of Apiru/Khazar.

    • The Apiru (i.e. Semitic Mercenaries/Raiders/Traders) thesis is interesting, but one point that you should connect it to is the Egyptian use of the Apiru as soldiers to maintain their empire in Palestine (the complete destruction of the Hyksos empire in Palestine by the Egyptians with the aid of some semitic peoples bears a striking resemblance to the conquest of the land in the OT). The religious tenants of Israel have some explicit connections to the religions of Egypt particularly those of the cult of Osiris and Amun-Ra. In particular, the Egyptians practiced circumcision which was connected to the God Ra in the Book of the Dead, did not eat Pork because Seth blinded Horus while in the form of a Pig, and they had the Mosaic Law in the form of the Negative Confession of Osiris.

      At some point in time it appears that the history of Israel was rewritten by Semitic priests who downplayed the Egyptian influence upon their religion while proclaiming a semitic identity for the group. The Old Testament tacitly acknowledges this connection when it talks about how Israel was accompanied by a large number of Egyptian “rabble” in their conquest of the Holy Land. In reality, the Egyptians would have been accompanied by a large group of Semitic mercenaries in the conquest. We known that there were several points in the Old Testament (such as the reign of Josiah for example) where the acknowledged text was lost and was found again by the priesthood.

  14. Liam B Allone permalink

    I am in complete agreement of all the sentiments you have shared here. We have identical views of the spiritual. Thank you for sharing.

    Now just come around to the realization that it is the GAP NOT INTEREST that is the cause of our economic malaise and we will come into complete agreement on economic views too. When you realize that interest is just a form of profit – another B cost – and that it thus contributes to the gap, your vision will be clear. That is not to say theat the elites of international finance are not a huge problem. They are doggedly determined that humanity should not come to discover that their game is the systematic hiding of the real root cause of our diseased economy – the GAP. Why do they want to hide this from us? If the gap gets filled by a guaranteed income to all and the attendant elimination of the welfare state that will no longer be needed, then likewise neither businesses nor individuals will need nearly as many loans and that means less interest and that means less profit FOR THEM and more profit for everyone else!

    I likened this to a man whose foot is being hit by a hammer. He and his physician think you need to outlaw hammers (i.e. interest) but what is really needed is to put the guy hitting you with a hammer (i.e. the banksters) in jail for assault!

  15. Liam B Allone permalink

    Your by-line “Supporting People and the Commonwealth and resisting the Money Power by defeating Usury” would be more supportable if it read as follows:

    Supporting People and the Commonwealth and defeating the Money Power by eliminating the GAP.

  16. Corey permalink

    Lay off the “Jew” and “feminism” bashing. It undermines all your valid points about capitalism, and reeks of right-wing bigotry.

    • Oh, if you still use marxist constructs like ‘right wing’ and ‘bigotry’, than the Matrix still has you Corey.

      I don’t do ‘left’ or ‘right’. I do Truth and Jews are at the heart of the NWO and Feminism has only one purpose: to destroy the family.

      • Moneylender permalink

        Insider Reveals Entire New World World Order Plan!
        Posted: 22 Dec 2014 04:14 AM PST
        Please friend me on Facebook if you are a Truth Warrior! I’m urging all truth warriors to go to Facebook and LIKE the “VT Truth Warriors” page – huge stories breaking there and we are taking ACTION! Also get my free ebook “How to Spread 1,000 Times More Truth” using simple tips. Visit my Youtube channel also for VeteransToday Radio and much more! We are being lied to by our fake news and the lies are increasing every day. We have no more time to waste. If everybody spreads as much truth as possible we can turn this around! Let’s do it together! This video and summary shows you EXACTLY what the new world order has in store for ALL of us if we don’t share more truth

    • Moneylender permalink

      Tolstoy and Gandhi did not have any truck with any religion.
      We are all children of God, but if some people like to claim that they are the only chosen ones good luck and God bless them.
      We all come with nothing and go with nothing, so much for being chosen.
      In my experience in promoting Interest Free Loans for productive capacity, I found keeping religion out helps, except in passing one could point out that all religions forbid usary

    • meecha permalink

      poor Jews …just creaming the goyim and being victims….oh when will it end?

  17. Five Wishes for 2015 (written with a slight hangover):

    1. End of Usury

    I wish that people everywhere are able to understand the mid level mathematics required to unequivocally realize that compounding interest and exponential growth will destroy any society foolish enough to allow usury to be practiced.

    Societies will adopt mores that place those who want to continue usury as being scallywags, bastards and cheap con men. A true era of enlightenment will catapult civilization to peace and prosperity.

    2. Nations Issue Their own Money

    Every nation should issue its own money and stop renting it from the international banking cartel. All central banks will be closed and the buildings will become museums to show future generations how stupid we have been to allow this evil parasite to take over humanity. All assets held by these institutions are to be turned over to the people.

    3. Religions are Properly Understood to be Personal Beliefs

    No more “my God is better than your God” crap. All religious beliefs are understood to be just that; beliefs! Everyone who wants statues, dogma books and special robes can have them but it must be understood that these things are personal and that we must respect everyone’s right to have their own beliefs. No one is chosen or better than anyone else, especially in the eyes of our gods.

    4. Nation State Status Returns as the NWO is Eliminated

    The NWO is ended and its institutions like the masons, bildebergs, council of foreign relations, etc. are disbanded and their members are tared and feathered. Some members should be tried and put in prison for their dastardly acts.

    5. Palestinians get their Rights Restored

    Israel becomes multicultural and the Palestinians have full equal rights under a new constitutional republic. Israel signs on to the non proliferation agreements and opens its doors to having nuclear and chemical weapons audited. Palestinians get their property back but the more recent immigrants can remain also, as equal citizens.

  18. “Well, real costs for a 30 year mortgage of 200k is max 10k Socred. But we pay 300k.

    The idea that Usury has anything to do with ‘costs’ for the bank is purely for us, the ignoramusses, only.” (Anthony)

    And where do you get these numbers Anthony, or are you speaking from ignorance?

  19. “This is a mirage Socred: the bank creates the money when ‘lending’ and ‘destroys’ it when it is repaid. There is no loss to inflation at all for the bank, only for the depositors.” (Anthony)

    No mirage Anthony, what your type of monetary always forgets is that the deposits the loans create are liabilities to the bank, and banks have the obligation to pay cash on demand to depositors, or tranfer reserves to other banks if those deposits flow to other banks. These liabilities are in current dollars, not future dollars (which are of course discounted via inflation). Inflation is a major risk to banks, and that is why they always want to ensure a low rate of inflation.

    • jim koconis permalink

      socred – off course banks are worried about inflation! – just as everyone else is worried about inflation.

      the disconnect in your rationale is this….

      banks, themselves, CREATE the inflation….NOT the depositors. and they create the inflation via the interest they charge on credit/money/loans.

      the interest is a theft on the purchasing power of ALL the units of currency floating in the money supply – including the borrowers credit/money, the banks liabilities/money and, most unjustly, the common laborer whose wages have been decimated clandestinely.

      any time someone/anyone borrows money/currency/credit from a bank all preexisting money is, in time, consequently inflated (depreciated) by the exact amount of the interest changes of the lending/credit publishing institution.

      this theft is called usury.

      banks are in no way, nor under any conditions, morally licensed to “earn a profit”. the creation of money is the moral duty of the government – not a for-profit cabal of unproductive good-for-nothings (bankers)!

      ‘money’ – or the currency that represents money – is a public trust and should, in fact, be an article of common law. it can/should never be an instrument of private gain.

      • The causes of inflation are more complex than you suggest. Inflation does negatively impact depositors as well as banks, but it must be remembered as well that depositors earn interest on their deposits, just as banks earn interest on their loans.

        If banks cannot charge interest, how do they recover their costs

        • jim koconis permalink

          bank have no costs – sure they are required to have an entire warehouse of props and illusions but these are no different than a gun in the hands of an armed robber. is that gun a legitimate cost???? there are no legitimate costs to illegitimate activities.

          the interest ‘earned’ by depositors is just a secondary layer of usury – the depositor acting with the same propensities as the banker. the depositor, like the banker, is not morally licensed to be on the receiving end of usury either. they’re both frauds.

          • Banks have no costs? jim, I suggest you look at the income statement of any publicly traded bank. Banks have lots of costs which include: Interest paid on deposits, defaults on loans, labour and overhead charges etc…..

          • jim koconis permalink

            correct – banks have no costs.

            i takes very little imagination to recognize that any expenses incurred in perpetuating a fraud can never be construed as necessary. useful or legitimate.

            if a thief spends $4 in gasoline to get to his intended victim’s property, at which he steals $100 worth of carpentry tools – is he then convicted for only stealing $96 in property? will any judge or jury in their right mind offset the gravity of the offense by the thief’s out of pocket expenses related to the theft.

            of course not! you know….the biggest problem with understanding the monetary system is that people tend to assume it’s so very complicated when, in fact, it’s just the opposite – it’s utterly simple. so simple that a child could easily get their arms around it.

          • Wow, if you honestly believe that banks have no costs, then I guess you can either look at a banks income statement, or you can continue to live in a fantasy world. However, the majority of the world understands that banks have real costs, and have to charge a price in order to recover those costs and earn a profit. Thank God.

            You say the monetary system is simple, and to a certain extent I agree, but people have to have a basic understanding of accounting principles in order to understand bank accounting.

          • jim koconis permalink

            socred – you are clearly in the pocket of the banks and, no doubt, have been thoroughly marinaded in the fictions they propagate. your comment….”the majority or the world understands that banks have real costs,,,etc.” is absolutely true. the majority of people also have no idea what they’re talking or thinking about! for you to console yourself with the majority’s consensus is shameful at best and cruel at worst. why not at least try to understand that there’s a better and more honest perspective to entertain?

          • Jim, now I am part of a conspiracy and an agent of the banks

            Anyone can look at the income statement of any publicly traded bank and see that banks have costs. To suggest they do not is absurd.

          • jim koconis permalink

            socred — i don’t think you are part of any conspiracy. but all your comments in firm support of the propriety of the double entry bookkeeping mechanism employed by the banks is a signal indicating that you are in complete harmony with the status quo.

            if i’m mistaken (and i hope i am), then kindly please tell me what it is that you find objectionable about the concepts and mechanisms that prop up conventional banking.

          • That’s not entirely true Jim. Click on my name and it will take you to a link to my blog. The problem isn’t the way banks create money, or the fact that they create money. Nor is the problem that they charge a price (interest) for their service. The problem is an accounting flaw related to the accumulation of capital in a capitalist society. This flaw has noting to do with “money” per se, but has to do with income and prices and their rates of flow to the consumer.

          • Let’s not be facetious, he’s is not referring to overhead costs. Public banks have overhead costs too, but they don’t charge interest. If private banks can compete, let them all fail.

          • Public banks have real costs as well, and no public bank lends money for free. We have a publicly owned bank where I live, the Alberta Treasury Branch, and it operates like any other bank.

            If a public bank did not charge a price (interest) for their service, then that bank would simply be subsiding loans. There are real costs associated with banking. What you are proposing is not that dissimilar to Marxism.

            in fact, the nationalization of all banks is the 5th plank of the communist manifesto:

            “5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”


          • If it charges interest like any other bank then its not a public bank. The Bank of North Dakota has been in operation since 1919 and its does charge interest but its rates are very low (4.83 fixed 1.74 variable) and any profits are reinvested in the state fund. The BND is run by private sector bankers which in my opinion why it charges interest at all.

            A true public bank operates for the public good and loans money accordingly. The don’t make money from money but loan to spur economic growth for individuals and business. Economic power is decentralized by a monetary policy that does not place unearned rents on income, labor services or goods. Money is just a medium of exchange.

            Usury banks operate explicitly to maximize profits for their shareholders. There decision on how money is lent calculated to benefit a select few. this is centralized planning. This is the Marxist communism that you mistakenly confer upon public banking.

          • But who are the shareholders of banks? Are they not individual citizens?

            I agree that the banking industry needs to be regulated, becuase it is a natural monopoly due to the requirement that money be fungible. However, what is required is simply a change in policy, not administration, unless it can be argued that government administration is somehow more efficient (which is highly unlikely).

            Public banks use the same accounting procedures that privately owned banks use. The argument that the “profits” go into “general revenue” can be used as an argument to nationalize all industry. Like I said, the public bank people’s arguments are not dissimilar to Marxist arguments, and as C.H. Douglas once wrote, “But they must not complain if we, and others with us, regard them as propagandists for totalitarianism. ”

            The fact that banks are privately owned, or that banks charge a price for their service (interest), or the fact that banks earn a profit is not the problem. That is the way any business operates in a capitalist system. To rail against these aspects of banking is really to want to turn banking into a socialist endevour. Nationalizing all banking would put the government completely in control of production. Real democracy is economic democracy where $1 = 1 vote. This is the most efficient, and effective means to control production. What we need to do is remove the policy of production from the banks and the government and place it in the hands of the consumer. The worst thing you can do is consolidate the monopoly of credit into the hands of the government.

            Economic democracy can be created by ensuring that the consumer has enough purchasing power to defray the cost of production, which includes capitalized costs that represent past consumption for whichno associated purchasing power is evercreated. The labour theory of value and Say’s Law are myths.

          • How can you be so completely ignorant of all the examples the failure of private usurious banking? LIBOR , Control Fraud , MERS, High Frequency trading , derivatives, interest rate swaps (, …ect have cause crash in 2008 and will cause another on a global scale in the near future. I don’t know, should we keep trusting this failed paradigm. Insanity says yes.

            Government isn’t the problem its the lack of regulation. The private sector was given a free reign with deregulaion, repeal of Glass steagal by Clinton, and the forgoing was the result. A nationalize Bank would have prevented all of the fraud.

          • PM I agree that banking needs to be regulated. I would probably disagree with you on the causes of the defaults on banking investments in derivatives, but that’s not the point. I agree that banks should be regulated and a policy imposed on them which is consistent with the betterment of the economies in which they operate. I just don’t believe they need to be publicly owned in order to do this. This is fundamentally the difference between a change in poiicy vs a change in ownership/administration. I believe the former is necessary; wheras, the latter is not. In fact, I think the latter is quite dangeroous.

            What needs to be agreed upon is the change in policy that needs to take place. Interest rates are not the issue. The fact that a bank charges interest on loans is not a problem in and of itself. Nor is the fact that banks are privately owened a problem in and of itself.

            First we have to identify the problem, then we need to determine the policy change that is necessary for banks to comply to. The cart cannot be put before the horse. Merely changin ownership/administration is no guarantee of a change in policy. The publicly owned bank in my provice, the Alberta Treasury Branch, is a prime example of this.

          • Settle the issue by the free market. Let private banks compete against public banks, which is currently outlawed. who do you think will survive. Banks that charge interest on loans or banks that do not? Interest is only necessary for profit driven business. Public banks issue loans to help the public so there is no need to make a profit. The people get to keep the full fruit of their labors, leading to universal prosperity.

          • “Settle the issue by the free market. Let private banks compete against public banks, which is currently outlawed. who do you think will survive. Banks that charge interest on loans or banks that do not?”

            That’s ridiculous PM. That’s like saying let private railways compete against government railways that do not charge for thier service and see which one lasts. Of course the government owned railway will drive the other one out of business, because the government owned railway is being subsidized if it’s not charging a price. Just like a government owned bank that does not charge for its service is being subsidized.

            This is economics 101. Do you know why companies charge a price? Do you know why prices are important market indicators in terms of the efficient allocation of resources?

            Banks have real costs associated with their activities. The income statement of any bank will demonstrate this. Just as government owned central banks have real costs associated with their activities. Private institutions recover their costs through prices, government institutions recover their costs through taxes. Banking is not “free”. Those who think they can eliminate interest on loans are deluding themselves. Banking has real costs, and if the bank is issuing interest free loans, then it’s merely recovering its costs through taxes; and hence, being subsidized with taxpayer money.

          • Banks should be operated as a utility because money creation and control is crucial to the welfare of all its citizens. if you give private enterprise monopoly control of a nations money, the incentive for maximizing profits for corporate shareholders, not present in public/nationalized banking, will distort incentives leading to fraud, looting of the people, contrived boom/bust cycles, and economic crashes. That has always been the history of usury banking — commodity backed and fiat. Corruption is inherent in usury: that to exact fees without labor or providing anything in return except debt is legitimate.

            Public banking has NEVER failed or caused economic ruin. The only times it has failed is through sabotage (British counterfeiting of colonial script) or termination via banker sponsored legislation (Greenbacks). Tally sticks had a run of over 500 yrs of interest free banking, yet this knowledge has been suppressed so that the people never realize how they are being enslaved by false debt.

          • “Banks should be operated as a utility because money creation and control is crucial to the welfare of all its citizens. ” (PM)

            Actually, PM, I absolutely agree with this statement. In most jurisdictions, utilities are regulated by the government, but they aren’t owned by the government.

            “Public banking has NEVER failed or caused economic ruin. ” (PM)

            I totally disagree with this statement, and the Soviet Union is a classic example of the fallacy of the above statement.

            “Tally sticks had a run of over 500 yrs of interest free banking, yet this knowledge has been suppressed so that the people never realize how they are being enslaved by false debt.” (PM)

            Tally sticks are an example of when producers issued their own currency. That is not the way the current monetary system works, nor could it work that way now with the division of labour and the fact that producer issued money simply lacks fungibility.

          • The shareholders of the private Fed cartel are other banks — not the people.

            The shareholders of a public or nationalize bank is the people.

          • That’s simply not true PM.

            Here is a list of major shareholder’s for Canada’s largest bank, The Royal Bank of Canada.


            These can be found for any publicly traded organization/

          • “The Fed is privately owned.
            Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government….”

            If the public are the shareholders why is the fed allowed to refuse to tell congress which foreign banks their 27 trillion tax dollar bailout went?

        • jim koconis permalink

          one might argue that inflation is also caused when a borrower fails to repay a loan. but all that actual happens in this instance is that the lending bank must write off its books this amount (thereby removing the amount from circulation). but this write-off is immediately reflected in higher interest charges to everyone else.


          • Also consider that banks can take real assets when people, business’ and govts go into receivership. That there will always be defaults is baked into the usury cake. It’s also why banks have been purposely negligent on due diligence: CEOs make short term gains on the sale of toxic loans to pension funds and long term they are repossessing homes that have been defaulted on, and paid for many times over to other counterparties that these mortagages have been fraudulently sold to. If you deed has a MERS number the odds are great that its a clouded title and you are only paying rent.

          • pm, banks do acquire collateral from the loanee when the loanee defaults on a loan, but that collateral is never worth the value of the loan (otherwise the loanee would sell the collateral and pay off the remainder of the loan himself, and pocket the difference). A banks net worth decreases when someone defaults on a loan because their assets are decreased, but their liabilities are not.

          • i would think that real assets are worth more than loans, given the fact that it costs the bank nothing to issue the principle and then add interest charges. How is the bank at a loss when the money issued is conjured up by keystrokes on a computer?

          • If the real asset was worth more than the loan, then the loanee would simply sell the real asset, pay off the loan, and pocket the difference (unless he was an idiot). The only way the bank would come into possession of a real asset is if the real asset was worth less than the loan, then the loanee would simply default on the loan, and the bank would control the asset.

            Loans are an asset to the bank, but the corresponding deposit they create are a liability.

            Net worth = Assets – Liabilities

            If a banks has to write off a portion, or all, of a loan, then their assets decrease, but their liabilities remain unchanged, which means that their net worth decreases.

            Banks do not want people to default on their loans.

          • you missed my point. Where is the loss for the bank if a loan isn’t repaid? They didn’t loan you anything they had on reserve. They didn’t loan you anything they produced with work. They gave you an advance on what your would create via your labor. Your signature on the loan created the money and then the bank charged you interest on that. The bank is entitled only for a return of principle.

          • Every loan creates a deposit. The loan is an asset to the bank, and the deposit is a liability. Together, they net to zero. It’s a contract. The bank is liable to pay cash, or transfer reserves to another bank, on demand. Creating a loan does nothing to the bank’s net worth because their assets and liabilities increase by the exact same amount. If a bank has to write off a loan, then it’s assets decrease by the amount of the write off, but it’s liabilitiers remain unchanged. This decreases the bank’s net worth.

            Banks recover their costs and earn a profit from the interest on the loan. Banks have real costs associated with their activities which include, default on loans, interest paid on deposits, labour, overhead etc…

            Look at a bank’s balance sheet and income statement. There are lots available online since they are publicly traded companies.

          • You accounting mumbo jumbo didn’t address anything I said.

            Where does the money come from to make the loan? Banks don’t loan from deposits. they create the money as an interest bearing debt.

          • I never said banks loan from deposits. Every loan creates a deposit, and every repayment of a loan destroys a deposit. The loan is an asset to the bank, and the corresponding deposit it makes is a liability. This activity, in and of itself, does not increase the net worth of the bank, nor does it increase the banks profitability.

            If a bank makes a loan for $100,000, the assets of the bank are increased by $100,000 and the banks liabilities are increased by $100,000 via the deposit created. In other words, the net worth of the bank (net worth = assets – liabilities) does not change, because assets and liabilities increase by the exact same amount (in this example $100,000).

            The profit if the bank is revenues – expenses. A major portion of a banks revenues is the interest received on a loan. Expenses include: interest paid on deposits, defaults on loans, labour, overhead etc…

            You can view a banks income statement and balance sheet online if you google for it since their publicly traded companies.

            Most people are stunned when they find out that banks create money and do not loan deposits. This has actually been known for some time, and is simply double entry accounting, and an ingenious method of creating money. Most money is credit, and is a contractual relationship.

            Interest is merely the price of the loan. All goods and services have a price in a capitalist system in order for companies to recover their costs and earn a profit. Interest is not the problem. The debt virus theory, which claims that 10 cannot pay for 11 is a fallacious argument based on the fact that the theory ignores reciprocal spending by banks, which increases the money supply without increasing overall indebtedness.

          • How is 100k a liability when its created from nothing? And why should we pay interest on this?

          • Every loan creates a corresponding deposit. The deposit is a liability to the bank, and the loan is an asset.

            In the case of the example I gave you, the banks assets increase by $100,000 (the loan, because the loan is an asset), and the banks liabilities increase by $100,000 (the deposit created by the loan, which is a liability to the bank). There are some easy examples of how this works if you google fractional reserve banking money creation.

          • so private banks create their own deposits? where do they get the money to create these deposits? And again, why should we pay them interest for this magick trick?

          • What do you mean where do they get the money to create their own deposits

            Deposits are created every time a bank makes a loan. Banks have to maintain a certain amount of reserves (whether cash on hand, deposits and the central bank) which are ultimately obtained from the country’s central bank.

            The reason you pay interest for banks to create money is because the creation of the deposit is not the end of the story. The deposit is a contract. The bank has to not only pay interest for deposits it has with it, but it has the obligation to convert any deposit into reserves. If the loans you $100, and you withdraw $100 in cash, the bank has to have that cash, which again is obtained via the country’s central bank. Further, if you write a cheque against that $100, and it ends up as a deposit in another bank, then the bank that made the loan has to transfer reserves to the other bank in the amount of the cheque through the central bank which is the clearing bank, or the bankers bank.

          • Your logic is circular and quite frankly full of risible non sequiturs. We need to charge interest so we can create the money as a deposit so it then can be loaned? You are a lunatic or worse, take me for one. seriously this is the crazies attempt to rationalize white collar crime yet.

          • What are you taling about PM? I never said, “We need to charge interest so we can create the money as a deposit so it then can be loaned? ” Show me where I said that or even suggested it.

            Interest on loans is charged because banks need to recover their costs and earn a profit, like any other business

          • That’s exactly what you said. I don’ t blame you for disowning it. I would too.

          • PM, I know what I said. You show me, via a link to the post, or though quotes, where I said that

          • I highly doubt all inflation is caused by interest. There’s two types of inflation: cost push and demand pull. Demand pull is certainly not caused by interest, but by the creation of too much money relative to the supply of consumer goods at that point in time. Cost push inflation I’d argue is caused by the increasing ratio of overhead charges relative to income as labour is displaced in production by capital coupled with a policy of full employment.

    • Ross N. permalink

      Douglas understood that credit returns to ledger in an accounting cycle. But, let’s really look at that accounting, and see if it is legitimate.

      When you take out a loan, you are hypothecated and your credit is then spent into the money supply. Your debt instrument can then be on-spent into markets, and thus can vector in path away from money supply. Douglas never understood this concept and reality of debt instruments. That channeling paths may deny instruments from finding their credit. Overseas exchange rates can also change the mirror between debts and their credit, and Douglas didn’t get that concept either.

      A loan is structured so that when you start paying it back, the principle is NOT paid down very fast. In a 30 year home loan, you may pay 15-20 years of usury before principle starts to decline. This is interest seigniorage, or first use of money. Bankers get to use this usury first and they spend it back into the supply on wages, buildings, and whatever they want. First use is a form of rents, where money has more purchasing power now, rather than later.

      Let’s look a little deeper: The usury, or first use that bankers take, also changes the form of credit. Usury money changes its attributes as it passes through your double entry ledger, and then lands of the bankers. The banker now has first use, and this money has NO DEBT INSTRUMENT CALLING IT. It has morphed and become floating money.

      Floating money of this type is now trapped in banker channels, and they can keep it unless taxed. Keeping it helps them during depression harvesting, similar in action to Gold money systems. Did Douglas recommend taxing bankers for this rent scheme and to give velocity to floating money? NO. He only recommends sales tax.

      Douglas had a blind spot when it came to pumping floating money. He thought way too much about credit as money, and then didn’t quite get the accounting cycles right. A lot of sales taxes are regressive too so he was weak on fiscal policy.

      Douglas is one of my favorites, but he didn’t quite get it in a few areas.

      Benjamin Franklin’s State credit was simple interest. If I recall, debtors had 8 year loans, and paid off principle at 1/8 per year. Usury on the loan was more like a fee, and it was promptly spent back into the supply, offsetting taxes. Note that Franklin’s credit system would be reasonable in a Social Credit system.

      Even better is what Anthony envisions. Rules in place simply change credit ceilings as needed. The level of credit in the system is then volume controlled, and therefore an “interest” rate knob is unnecessary. Banks can earn fees from merchants to then pay employees. Private banking corporations have a selfish interest to make loans for their profit. This is rent seeking by definition, especially when the money supply is part of the commons. The commons should never be yoked for private profits.

      • “:Your debt instrument can then be on-spent into markets, and thus can vector in path away from money supply” *Ross”

        Money supply in and of itself is irrelevant. The only things that are of concern to consumers is income and prices. The quantity theory of money is a myth.

        “Douglas never understood this concept and reality of debt instruments. That channeling paths may deny instruments from finding their credit. ” (Ross)

        This statement is rather cryptic, and doesn’t make any sense.

        “Overseas exchange rates can also change the mirror between debts and their credit, and Douglas didn’t get that concept either.” (Ross)

        Douglas spoke of foreign exchange rates quite regularly, and the simple fact that it’s completely unnecessary to borrow money from a foreign country. In fact, Douglas pointed to the fact that the financial flaw identified in his A+B theorem forces countries to seek a favorable balance of trade which in turn forces net importing nations to have a capital account surplus.

        “A loan is structured so that when you start paying it back, the principle is NOT paid down very fast. In a 30 year home loan, you may pay 15-20 years of usury before principle starts to decline. This is interest seigniorage, or first use of money. Bankers get to use this usury first and they spend it back into the supply on wages, buildings, and whatever they want. First use is a form of rents, where money has more purchasing power now, rather than later.” (Ross)

        Banks don’t need to wait until they receive revenue from interest in order to spend money on wages, building etc… Banks simply create those numbers by expanding deposits in payments. These of course represent costs to the bank, and have to be balanced by revenues which interest represents, but in terms of causality, they do not have to wait until interest revenues are claimed in order to spend. Of course, in reality, these processes are dynamic and going on simultaneously. Most of the interest is paid in the first part of the loan, and most of the principle is repaid in the latter half of the loan. Of course, most of the insterest paid on the deposit the loan created is paid in the first part of the loan as well, so what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Loans create deposits. Loans are an asset, deposits are a liability. Interest is the price of the loan, banks have real costs that need to be recovered through the charging of interest, ;plus they need to earn a profit.

        “The banker now has first use, and this money has NO DEBT INSTRUMENT CALLING IT. It has morphed and become floating money. .”

        Interest payments on a loan are cancelled out of existence in that it forms part of the bank’s working capital. What you seem to misrepresent, or misunderstand, is that banks can create money by spending. When they buy a building, or pay for wages etc.., this increases the money supply. In the ccase of a building, they have acquired a depreciating asset for their liability of the deposit created. In the case of wages, they have acquired not asset for the liability created. Interest on loans represents a major portion of their revenues.

        “Floating money of this type is now trapped in banker channels, and they can keep it unless taxed. Keeping it helps them during depression harvesting, similar in action to Gold money systems.Did Douglas recommend taxing bankers for this rent scheme and to give velocity to floating money? NO. He only recommends sales tax.”

        This would increase the banks working capital and is often used to write down the real value of assets for risk purposes. Douglas did speak to this in his testimony before the New Zealand Banking Commission. No he did not recommend a tax on banks, because it is completely unnecessary. What he recommended is monetizing this money withdrawn from banks in order to write down their assets via a dividend and price rebate given directly to consumers.

        “Douglas had a blind spot when it came to pumping floating money. ”

        Not true. I think you may have a blind spot to Douglas. I recommed reading his testimony before the New Zealand Monetary Commission.

        it can be found here:

        • Ross N. permalink

          Socred, You degraded yourself with this comment:

          “Money supply in and of itself is irrelevant. The only things that are of concern to consumers is income and prices. The quantity theory of money is a myth.”

          The entire thesis of movie “princes of yen” proves volume principle, and this is real historical evidence -Japan post WW2. Also, read the book confessions of an economic hit man, this clearly shows how credit can vector away from money supply. There are channels of flow that are non-productive; for example seigniorage funding of oligarchial elites (bankers) who spend credit on consumption. Credit as money, if it has usury on it, should not be used for consumption.

          Income and prices are affected by volume. Today, volume is controlled obliquely by interest rates.

          Floating money stays in the supply, and just dumping it in willy nilly, and then not being concerned about where it channels or gets stuck, or if it vectors into monopoly, is not being realistic.

          • Ross, correlation does not prove causation.

            Read my article on the quantity theory:


            And the following is from the Alberta Reconstruction Committee in regards to the quantity theory of money:


          • Your article does not at all negate the causative relationship between the volume of money and prices Socred.

            In the first place: credit IS money. Growing credit in the housing market inflates prices there. Witholding credit ends the boom. Oldest trick in the book.

            Credit money DOES circulate. True, not by token changing hands, but by the numbers going from account to account.

          • The article demonstrates that the direct relationship between the quantity of money and prices is based on the fallacy known as the “quantity theory of money”. It demonstrates: 1) that the continuous increase in prices is caused by the fact that overhead charges increase relative to direct labour charges as industry capitalizes, combined with a policy of full employment, and 2) that money can be increased and prices can be decreased via a price rebate mechanism.

            The fact that the money supply is increasing during the first process is simply due to the fact that the capitalization of industry is mostly financed through loans which increases the money supply. Most inflation is “cost push” inflation.

            Credit does not circulate because credit is destroyed when it is repaid to the bank. Credit operates via flux and reflux.

          • Credit does circulate Socred. Before it is destroyed upon repayment, it is used in the real economy for any number of transactions.
            For instance: when going into debt with a businessloan, the money (credit) circulates as long as the business remains in the red.

            I agree, of course, that most ‘inflation’ (read: rising prices) is ‘cost push’: the eternally growing money supply and associated interestdrain make eternally rising prices unavoidable, as businesses must pass on these growing interest-charges in their prices.

            This is the essence of the P<P+I equation.

            In general the money supply is growing because of the P<P+I equation: new people need to go into debt to finance the payment of the interest charges.

    • Not at all Socred: in inflation, the NOMINAL liabilities do not change! That’s the whole crux!

      • Their nominal liabilities do change Anthony, because a bank has to pay interest on deposits, and the higher the inflation rate, the higher the nominal interest rate.

        • You’re not getting it: if I borrow 100 from the bank, it creates it and retires it when I repay. The nominal value of the debt remains the same, no matter what the inflation.

          So the bank risks absolutely nothing from inflation.

  20. jim koconis permalink

    socred – thanks for connecting me to your blog. i read the introduction 4 times yet completely failed to understand the concepts that you/Douglas are offering. it’s very unintelligible and delivered with a pedantic and self referential boorishness – (kind of how bankers talk -isn’t it?)

    the purpose of communicating is to deliver information. who knows, you may very well have something useful to say – why not learn how to put it in an approachable context so that it can actually be shared, digested and then judged?

    and then again, you may very well have nothing useful to share. none of us average people would ever really know. the onus is on you to deliver the goods. based on your consistent mantra that ‘banks are entitled to profit from their services” and “of course, bank have costs” – i have no confidence that you have anything useful to share or are a serious student of monetary dynamics. i do, however, recognize your intelligence.

    • Jim, I don’t really have an introduction to the blog, so I’m not sure what article you’re referring to. If its the article “A+B: A Mathematical Reply to an Objection “, that is not meant to be an introduction to Social Credit, but in fact a fairly technical reply to a certain objection to the theorem.

      You’re correct in stating that the blog itself probably needs work in having a systemic order of the articles written. There was a reverse chronological order in the beginning, but I have just posted random articles on the subject since, and use it mostly to have links to Social Credit writings on the net.

      The point I was trying to make is that I’m not some banker coming on here trying to lead people astray. If you are looking for an introduction to the subject, I would probably recommend the Wikipedia article:

      I’m not trying to confuse anyone. There is a certain amount of knowledge of basic accounting knowledge that people have to understand in order to understand the mechanics of money creation in banks. It’s not rocket science, but I watch so many people promote policies based upon a poor understanding of the mechanics. Interest is simply the price of a loan. Banks have costs that they need to recover, and they need to make a profit in order to operate. Those who want to end interest on loans are not taking these truths into consideration. A bank cannot lend interest free unless it is being subsidized. That’s a simple fact.

      • jim koconis permalink

        thank, socred, for your careful clarification. you have great patience:)

        i, and many other agree, that……

        obviously banks need to charge interest on loans to make a profit within the current paradigm. obviously there is no real difference between interest and a service fee within the current paradigm. obviously there is a certain amount of accounting knowledge required to understand the mechanics at play in the current paradigm.




        usury (interest) is a fraud because at its root it is a humble symbol (currency) making the majestic claim that it, in and of itself, HAS value – when, in fact, it can only REPRESENT a value.

        a symbol can only represent something – it can never ever be the very same thing it claims to represents.

        when a symbol is commonly acknowledged to be the very same thing it represents it has succeeded in consummating a fraud. and usury depends upon this fraud to acquire legitimacy. to charge interest on money, money itself must be deemed valuable. but money has NO value – it might only REPRESENT a value.

        to say money itself HAS value is no different than every other forms of idolatry – something dead claiming it has life.

        to understand money at any useful level you first must face down the idiotic claim claim that money HAS value. usury relies on this fraud to animate itself.

        if you’re not against usury for this singular reason then, sad to say, you just don’t get it.

        • Jim, money has no value in and of itself. Where did I ever make this claim? I have simply stated that there are real costs to banking, whether the banking takes place under the guise of public or private administration. It makes no difference. The bank has to recover those costs or else it will have to be subsidized. I do not believe in subsidizing loans, therefore, I do not believe that loans should be issued interest free.

          The charging of interest on loans is not the issue. The issue is that consumers are forced to pay mounting capital charges in the price of consumer goods for which there was never any income released to defray those charges. This forces us into contionous economic growth (or the alternative – economic collapse), exponentially increasing debt, inflation.

          The only mathematically correct solution to this problem is to give consumers purchasing power which is both debt free and has not been costed in industry. This can be done through a dividend and price rebate paid directly to consumers.

          The charging of interest on loans does not factor into this whatsoever. People will have more than enough money to pay interest and the price for a whole host of other goods and services.

          Orthodox economists only recognize three factors of production: land, labour and capital. They believe that only owners of these factors should receive “rent” or economic benefit from their ownership (in the case of labour, this “rent” is a wage or salary). Douglas realized that there was a fourth factor, and the primary factor, which he called the “cultural heritage of society”. Our cultural heritage is the knowledge, technique and process that have been handed down from generation to generation. This has been appropriated by the banking system (for reasons probably too complex to elaborate upon here). That is the essence of the fraud of the banking system: not that they charge interest on loans. Citizens should be given a dividend, based upon the “rent” for this factor of production (our cultural inheritance). This would be equitable (everyone would receive the same amount), reduce the disparity in the distribution of income, and eliminate the need for social security, welfare etc… Labour is rapidly becoming a decreasing factor in production, and if we don’t find a way to give people a source of income not tied to labour, we will increasing look for useless jobs to give to people in order to distribute income (they may as well dig holes and fill them back up again).

  21. Tim permalink

    Truly an interesting and intelligent blog and comments Anthony.


    “Wars and rumors of wars…… must all come to pass.”

    “And leave the rest to Him,…”

    So are you saying ….. Believers should wait for the messiah in faith and hope, that there can be no justice until the savior comes, and (ironically) destroys the planet because humans are fundamentally bad, you screwed up, and need saving?


  22. jim koconis permalink

    can anyone shed some light on this perplexing question….

    given that money/currency is a ‘medium’ facilitating the exchange of services and goods, and given that these services and goods must, of course, first actually exist in the real world BEFORE a medium could possibly be attached to them as a REPRESENTATION/SYMBOL/TOKEN – how then is it legitimate/principled or honest to issue any amount of credit at all?

    or put another way – what mysterious concept allows the ‘medium’ to proceed or come into existence before the object it represents?!?!

    it seems to me that the answer to this question is at the very core of every problem and injustice within not only the current monetary system but also anthony’s talent alternative.

    what entitles ANYONE to either receive credits or speculatively issue them? this question is never addressed satisfactorily or even approached by monetary theorist. it’s alway taken for granted that ‘credit’ is a necessary component of any monetary system and to question the propriety of such an assumption is silly or inconsequential musings of a fool.

    perhaps, i’m that fool…but i just do not see how a symbol can proceed the substance. in theological jargon this magic is called transubstantiation and is obviously a lie. how is it then allowable in the world of monetary exchanges?

    • There no justification for theft. Usury is unambiguously condemned in the Bible and for the first 1500 years of the Catholic Church it was considered a mortal sin on par with murder. Kings of nations throughout Europe outlawed the practice, until the Medicis and Fuggers reintroduced into the Vatican under Leo X. In contradiction to the Bible, usury was permitted if it wasn’t excessive and benefitted the poor — as if the proceeds a little theft were any different morally than a lot.

      Prior to usury the people did prosper; serfs for example could obtain enough for their families for an entire year within fourteen weeks. Jus Pauperum, an moral command of the Catholic Church within this period, demanded that it was a sin to horde anything beyond this amount and that it should be given to those in need. Imagine what this world would be like if this edict still was practiced? I believe it would resemble in a much larger was the notion of Basic Income. Upon cursory reflection, our world represent the diametric opposite state of affairs — and usury is the root cause.

      • jim koconis permalink

        pm – it appears you have the heart of an angel. however it is that you’ve come to your convictions, i love your earnestness and would to share a meal with you. thanks for being there/here.

    • “given that money/currency is a ‘medium’ facilitating the exchange of services and goods” (Jim)

      Jim, faulty assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. It’s not “given” that money is a medium of exchange. This is a property of money that economists have dreamed up based upon their false beief that money is a commodity.

      That vast majority of money, even in a gold standard, is credit. Money is creditary in nature.

      Read Mitchell Inness, “What is Money”.

      A small excerpt is below:

      “The misunderstanding that has arisen on this subject is due to the difficulty of realizing that the use of money does not necessarily imply the physical presence of a metallic currency, nor even the existence of a metallic standard of value. We are so accustomed to a system in which the dollar or the sovereign of a definite weight of gold corresponds to a dollar or a pound of money that we cannot easily believe that there could exist a pound without a sovereign or a dollar without a gold or silver dollar of a definite known weight. But throughout the whole range of history, not only is there no evidence of the existence of a metallic standard of value to which the commercial monetary denomination, the “money of account” as it is usually called, corresponds, but there is overwhelming evidence that there never was a monetary unit which depended on the value of coin or on a weight of metal; that there never was, until quite modern days, any fixed relationship between the monetary unit and any metal; that, in fact, there never was such a thing as a metallic standard of value. ”

      • jim koconis permalink

        socred –

        you’re making my point for me. of course – not only is most money ceditary – ALL money is creditary. it’s also debt-itary (is that actually a word!?)

        regardless….you haven’t quite addressed the question i’ve asked. so here it is again…

        how can a symbol spring into being claiming to represent something that hasn’t yet come into existence?

        and, furthermore, why should anyone’s life be hinged to such a phantasmagoria. aren’t we smart or honest enough to develop an exchange mechanism devoid of such nonsense?

        • “how can a symbol spring into being claiming to represent something that hasn’t yet come into existence?” (Jim)

          I answered this in my other post, but I thought I’d highlight it.

          “A money of account comes into existence along with debts, which are contracts for deferred payment, and price lists, which are offers of contracts for sale or purchase. ” (J.F. Henry, “Say’s Economy”)

          • jim koconis permalink

            socred – what o’ what is ‘a money of account’? are there other types of money? is some money ‘of account’ and other money ‘not of account’? this linguistic bs serves no purpose, does it? if there is a purpose what o’ what might it be?

            the answer to my question…

            how can a symbol spring into being claiming to represent something that hasn’t yet come into existence?

            is this….

            IT CANNOT.

            it’s a rhetorical question designed to exhibit the folly of anyone diluted enough to take the question seriously, evidenced by them inventing an answer in the affirmative. it’s similar to the question…..

            if no one is standing in front of a mirror, whose image is reflected?

            to understand money one must recognize that money is an art form. it is all about the RELATIONSHIPS between symbols and the substances they claim to represent. if there are no substances then obviously there can be no legitimate symbols. if symbols exist for things not actually present they then are frauds. your ‘money of account’ is fraudulent when it is created in advance of the services rendered or the goods produced which it hopes to one day represent. every credit issued in advance of its substance depreciate all other preexisting money/currency/credits whether it’s eventually retired thru the bookkeeping process or not

            usury on these published accounts/credits/ money/currency (call them what you will) intensifies the fraud to such a degree that even the simple minded, uneducated, working slobs on planet earth acutely sense the wretchedness of the system. of course, these people will never engage you with a conversation about ‘a money of account’ or ‘deferred payments’ or ‘offers of contracts for sale’!

            the utility of money rest solely upon its nature as an honest medium of exchange. and to be a ‘medium’ it must mediate the value of that which already exists. you cannot exchange that which doesn’t exist. it’s almost embarrassing to actually have to say something so obvious, but there it is….you cannot exchange things that do not exist – thru a medium or not!

      • jim koconis permalink

        socred – money is, among other things, most definitely a medium for exchange. i employ money for this purpose and so do you. admit the obvious. why quibble over common experiential realities? the little essay you submitted about gold and currencies pegged to metals misses the point. hopefully, you recognize that i’m trying, as best as i can, to elevate this conversation unto a platform that transcends conventional notions of monetary gooble-gook.

        • “In a monetary economy, the objective of the economic process is not the production of products (use values) as in Say. Rather, it is the production of profit. This requires the exchange of commodities so that the potential income contained in the product can be realized in money form. The economic process starts with debt (money) advanced to labor and the owners of purchased machinery, etc., prior to the creation of output. Use values are then created, but these are useless in themselves to capitalists (or entrepreneurs, in Keynes’ terms).”

          and further:

          “For Keynes, money is not a medium of exchange (though it may serve that purpose); it is debt:
          A money of account comes into existence along with debts, which are contracts for deferred payment, and price lists, which are offers of contracts for sale or purchase. Such debts and price lists . . . can only be expressed in terms of a money of account.
          Money itself, namely that by delivery of which debt contract and price contracts are discharged . . . derives its character from its relationship to the money of account, since the debts and prices must first have been expressed in terms of the latter. . . . Money proper . . . can only exist in relation to a money of account (Keynes, 1971 [1930], p. 3; emphasis in original).” (J.F. Henry, “Say’s Economy”)

          Money is credit/debt. It is contractual, not a commodity. It is not a “medium of exchange”, but a means to accounting. The idea that money is a medium of exchange comes from economists fallacious story where the economy started as a barter economy, and because of the inefficiency of this process, a commodity (ie. gold, silver, cowrie shells etc..) developed which served as a “medium of exchange” because it became accepted as money. Whereas, the actual history of money tells a different story. Money developed as a contractual relationship (a debt/credit relationship), not as a “medium of exchange”.

          • jim koconis permalink

            how on earth can you have a debt/credit relationship denominated in ‘money’ without first employing money as a medium of exchange?????????????????

            your great depth of understanding of the inconsequential has handily betrayed you.

          • It’s not “inconsequential” at all Jim. The idea that money is a “medium” of exchange derives from the idea that the economy started out as a barter economy, and some “medium” (gold, silver, cowrie shells etc…) is exchanged for a good or service, which is then held by the claimant of the money until they want to exchange it for a good or service, and then this money is transferred to someone else etc…. This is where the erroneous belief that money “circulates” comes into existence.

            In reality, money is created as a debt. This money flows to the consumer as income and is reclaimed from the consumer in the form of prices or taxes and then flows back to the bank to cancel the debt outstanding. This is how production and consumption is facilitated by the banking system which creates money as a debt. You asked, “given that money/currency is a ‘medium’ facilitating the exchange of services and goods, and given that these services and goods must, of course, first actually exist in the real world BEFORE a medium could possibly be attached to them as a REPRESENTATION/SYMBOL/TOKEN – how then is it legitimate/principled or honest to issue any amount of credit at all?”

            It is legitimate because money is a contractual relationship which implies future obligation. The bank loans the company money so that it can pay wages and other costs in order to create a good or service. All of these payments go into costs and along with profits, form the price of the good or service sold. The consumers use their income to pay the price of the good or service, and then the company uses this revenue to pay back the debt to the bank and either reinvest the surplus or pay dividends to shareholders.

  23. jim koconis permalink

    socred –

    you have very elegantly describe the mechanics at play in a ‘monetary economy’ in which the biggest prize will always go to those who are simply the scorekeepers of the purported debts and credits of others.

    imagine the absurdity of claiming that in every athletic competition the real winner is always the scorekeeper because he owns all the points used in publishing the score!

    but, i do agree with you 100% – that’s exactly what we have as an economy. the only winners are the scorekeepers who, conveniently, never have to train or build up a sweat during the game.

    thanks for the back and forth – i’ve learned much from all your comments 🙂

    • Hi Jim:

      Thank you. I agree with you that banking is not like any other business. They have costs and have to earn a profit like any other business, but because they have the responsibility of monetizing the nation’s assets, they have a public trust.

      Douglas defined the real credit of the community as “the ability to deliver goods and services when and where required”. Financial credit should facilitate the use of the real credit of the community. The real credit is developed outside of the banking system. The banks are just the world’s accountants. They do perform a vital function in a private enterprise system, but without that private enterprise, they do not create any wealth in and of themselves. Although, in conjunction with that private enterprise system, they do create wealth. In other words, the community can exist without banks, but banks cannot exist without the communtiy. However, if we did not use bank’s services, it would be a very inefficient system.

      My point was that the idea that money is a “medium of exchange” has led to many erroneous conclusions by economists. Money is just a system of accountancy. Douglas defined it as a “ticketing system”, where consumers are given a certain amount of tickets to draw on the pool of wealth created by the community. It is merely a distribution mechanism.

      The problem is not that banks charge a price for their service (interest); albeit, sometimes they charge an exhorbitant price. The problem is that capital charges are showing up in prices for which no income is available to defray those costs. Zero interest loans will not solve this problem. The only way to solve the problem is to either increase consumer’s purchasing power, or decrease prices, or both. Social Credit seeks to do both via a National Dividend and and Compensated Price Mechanism. Numbers, in and of themselves, are meaningless. Income is only meaningful relative to prices and vice versa. Douglas demonstrated that incomes and prices are in a permanent state of disequilibrium, and the only way to bring about equilibrium is to increase consumer’s purchasing power and decrease prices. This would go a whole lot further to solving the problem of increasing debt, inflation, and the necessity to continuously grow the economy than interest free loans ever would.

      In fact, when you factor in inflation, the real interest rate is pretty much zero right now, and we still have all these problems.

    • jim koconis wrote:

      “you have very elegantly describe the mechanics at play in a ‘monetary economy’ in which the biggest prize will always go to those who are simply the scorekeepers of the purported debts and credits of others.

      “imagine the absurdity of claiming that in every athletic competition the real winner is always the scorekeeper because he owns all the points used in publishing the score!”

      Thanks for this great analogy!

  24. KSS permalink

    “If we carefully consider the human soul in its nature, we see two different regions in it: the one belongs to the sensible order, the other to the supersensible or intellectual order. The sensible part of the soul is that which is common to men and animals; it includes the external senses and the internal senses which comprise the imagination, the sensible memory, and the sensitive appetites, whence spring the various passions or emotions which we call sensible love and hatred, desire and aversion, sensible joy and sadness, hope and despair, audacity, fear and anger. All this sensitive life exists in the animal, whether its passions are mild like those of the dove or lamb, or whether they are strong like those of the wolf or ox. Above this sensitive part common to men and animals, our nature likewise possesses an intellectual part which is common to men and angels, although it is far more vigorous and beautiful in the angel. By this intellectual part our soul towers above the body, and this is why we say the soul is spiritual. True intelligence which alone deserves the name of “intellect unqualified”, is a faculty which, if it not be hindered as a result of insubordination on the part of the lesser faculties, its appointed handmaids, will fly straight to the mark. It does not think. It sees. The catalyzing of this power to see, which everyone bears within himself, whether he be aware of it or not, is the aim of spiritual method in every man.”
    – Marco Pallis

  25. KSS permalink

    “To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance.”
    – Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita

  26. KSS permalink

    “It is often of the greatest importance, that you should understand this truth, namely that God dwells within you and that there we should dwell with Him…Let us not imagine that the interior of our hearts is empty…And to understand how God is always present in our soul, let us listen to St. John of the Cross, another distinguished master of the science of the saints: “In order to know how to find this Bridegroom, we must bear in mind that the Word, the Son of God, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is hidden in essence and is present in the inmost being of the soul…And this is why St. Augustine, speaking to God, said: ‘I do not find Thee without, O Lord, because I had no right to seek Thee there, for Thou art within.’ God is therefore hidden within the soul.” (A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza I).

    To explain this, it must be observed that there are three ways in which God is present in the soul. The first is His presence in essence, and in this respect He dwells not only in souls that are good and holy but likewise in those that are bad and sinful, and indeed, in all creatures; for it is this presence that gives them life and being, and if it were once withdrawn they would cease to exist and would return to their original nothing. Now this kind of presence never fails in the soul. The second manner of god’s presence is by grace, when He dwells in the soul pleased and satisfied with it. This presence of God is not in all souls because those who commit a mortal sin lose it. The third kind of presence of God is by means of spiritual affection; for God is wont to show His presence in many devout souls in diverse ways of refreshment, joy and gladness.

    Of the first kind of divine presence we can never be deprived. The second we must procure for ourselves with all the powers of the soul, and we must guard it at any cost. The third isn’t within our power. God gives to whom he pleases.”
    – St. Teresa of Avila

Leave a Reply

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