Left: The energetic Karen Hudes
The amazing revelations by World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes have stunned many and surely it is pretty mind blowing to hear a veteran World Bank insider validate the core of conspiracy theory: that a small group of bankers controls the whole lot, with the BIS at its apex. On the other hand: she promotes Gold based money as the solution.
The notion that a small group of bankers is controlling the world is mainstreaming like wildfire. And Karen Hudes is no small part of that. She is an experienced career banker who studied at Yale University. She is exposing massive corruption within the World Bank, where she has worked for 20 years, including mass resentment from the rest of the world in the American role in this. And she has no qualms talking about how the Federal Reserve and other major Central Banks and the IMF and BIS orchestrate the whole global economy.
A good overview of her accomplishments by Michael Snyder can be found here, a video by her that has been making the rounds is in there too.
What I really like about her style is, she is in no way impressed, let alone in a panic: she’s on the contrary very optimistic and fighting the bad guys with law suits and whistle blowing. So I, like many, am thrilled to see her take on the whole lot and wish her more power.
More Gold Porn
On the other hand, exposing the Gold racket is and remains necessary. And Hudes does promote Gold based monetary reform. I don’t mean to harm Hudes’ message here, it is an undeniable fact of life that many inspired and brilliant people have fallen for the Gold meme at some point. Let us just be grateful she’s out there and for the excuse she provides to rehash this very pressing and mainly ignored issue.
Promoting Gold as a solution for our current problems is simply promoting Money Power policy. Not that it’s a bad investment, but keeping a little Gold at the side for a rainy day is quite something else than suggesting Gold backed money.
Clearly, the Banks have been preparing a return to some sort of Gold standard. For years now, rumors about a Gold backed Yuan have been gaining momentum. FOFOA has been exposing the plans for some sort of monetary role for Gold with the Euro. Central Banks have been buying Gold in major quantities. It is the Powers that Be that control Gold. All of it.
Many different memes supporting the notion that Gold backed money is fair and will save us have been circulated over the years, to prepare us for what is coming. Nesara comes to mind, promising Gold based monetary ‘reform’. OPPT claims we will all be given some.
Austrian Economics with its great champion Ron Paul is the ultimate Money Power Gold meme, of course. They invested billions in that one, giving the Banks’ plans some sort of ‘scientific’ veneer.
The weirdest of these narratives is ‘Road to Roota’, claiming Alan Greenspan is trying to save the United States by preparing the return to Gold as money. It’s certainly true that Alan Greenspan is the most famous and influential Austrianista of them all, but the idea that he would be interested in the well being of these United States?
Gold vs. Paper is just one of their dialectics. They don’t care whether it’s the printing press or Gold that finances the economy. They own both. Alan Greenspan is just one case in point. They have routinely switched between both in the past. During WW1 most nations left the Gold standard. The Money Power reinstated it in 1925, to create the depression. Which it duly did in the thirties, when most countries again turned to the printing press, the system we have today. Gold is deflationary and deflation causes depression.
They have been getting rich by lending massive amounts of Gold to sovereigns for centuries, millennia, now.
Control of the money supply by the banks is exploited in three main ways: usury, manipulation of volume (money scarcity, the boom/bust cycle) and the power to direct the economy by deciding what to finance and not. Gold solves none of these three.
Some say Gold is ‘debt free’ money, because it is dug up and spent into circulation. But Gold mining adds only a fraction to existing Gold supplies, which would be lent into circulation by the banks at interest.
History shows that asset bubbles were the norm during Gold standards. Prices tend to decline during Gold standards and to rise during Paper standards. Deflation has the Money Power’s preference, as it kills the middle classes through protracted depression and money scarcity. Inflation encourages booms and this is better for the many. The Banking Cartel, creating a global depression, wants to use Gold to look like it’s reforming a bad situation, only to make it worse.
America is badly placed for a new Gold based currency. The Fed owns no Gold at all, is my bet. And this is no coincidence, because it has always seemed that the coup de grace for the dollar would also mean the end of Pax Americana. The end of American supremacy is an integral part of the road to global governance.
Gold prices today are heavily reliant on New York’s Commodity Exchange (COMEX), where prices are set by derivatives like Gold futures. Many players on that market are selling Gold that they have only on paper. This is how prices are manipulated. Should people start calling their bluff and insist on physical delivery, COMEX would quickly collapse and this is the great day of reckoning that seems to be unavoidable. Physical Gold prices would go through the roof, the dollar down the drain and America would be caught with her pants down.
When this happens the results for the United States will be devastating.
The Money Power are the banking families and their control grid, including the Banking Cartel, which is one massive consolidated block. To solve the situation we need to get rid of the banks and print some interest-free credit, while managing the volume properly. The money supply should grow and shrink parallel to economic activity. With local democratic control of credit allocation. This would solve all three main problems with money.
If we do that, we would end the Money Power, war, the depression, Transnationals, poverty, the Jewish Question, environmental destruction, wage slavery, the war on the family and the degeneration of the public domain. Simply by starving the beast and empowering the many.
It would vastly increase the standard of living of the great majority of mankind. It would foster an unprecedented cultural, scientific, political, economical, environmental and spiritual rebirth.
(Left: Did Hitler control Hjalmar Schacht or was it the other way around?)
The article on Hitler’s finances and the myth of Nazi anti-usury activism generated a major response. While rehashing the classic revisionist case for Hitler, none has disproven, or even mentioned, the basic case of the article: that the banks financed most of the Nazi economy and that the Reichsmark, like all other currencies, was created through fractional reserve banking, as an interest-bearing debt to these banks.
And many comments point to a wider malaise: deifying the disastrous Adolf Hitler.
I’m now responding to an article written by Justice4Germans and an interview that Deanna Spingola did with Rodney Martin. I’ll also address a number of issues brought forward by feedbackers here and on other sites. Please let me know if there are other serious rebuttals to the article, I’ll have a look at them too, if needs be.
Some fun was made about my sources, most notably the Virtual Jewish library. This was duly anticipated. Few people realize that the best way to find out about somebody is to listen to his enemies. I make a point of looking at all sides of the story and sources should be be judged on the merit of their message first and foremost, while not forgetting who they are or represent. I have no illusions about Ziopedia or the Virtual Jewish Library, but the onus is on the critics to dispel their message and, as we shall see, they did nothing to do that.
Much of what was brought against the article seemed to suggest that these three people had the impression I am not aware of revisionist history, but this is wrong: I’m very well aware of revisionism and go along with a great deal of it. I don’t believe in gas chambers. Stalin wanted to invade Europe and had assembled a major striking force ready to take the whole lot after Hitler and the Western Powers had destroyed each other. Hitler was far from solely to blame for the war. In fact: the Money Power’s people in the British cabinet made sure there would be a war by guaranteeing Poland. Stalin wanted war. Roosevelt did everything in his power to get his, unwilling, people to join the mayhem.
However, Hitler wanted war too, and his apologists simply do not want to see this. Hitler wanted peace with the West, Britain in particular, and his many peace overtures to the West, both before and after September 1st 1939 are what they use to ‘prove’ Hitler’s desire for peace. But he saw war with Russia as his destiny. We can see that both from Mein Kampf and his actions in the late thirties and most certainly after he started Operation Barbarossa. It is most assuredly true that he found a worthy opponent in Stalin, who had his own designs on Europe, quite similar in their utter depravity to what Hitler was planning for Russia.
And what did Hitler intend to do with Russia? To exterminate her and take her land. And to sell it as this wonderful crusade against the bad Jews and their Marxist front. Nothing more and nothing less.
How do we know this?
Reading Mein Kampf is a good start. It’s all about the bad Bolshevists and how German colonization of the East will solve that.
Another very solid indicator is the despicable fate that the millions of Russian POW’s awaited in the German veritable death camps, where they were worked and starved to death by the millions. It seems about 3,5 of the 5,5 million POW’s died in German captivity. The Germans, cowardly, only started to treat them better once they realized they were going to lose.
Yet another brutal example is what happened in the Ukraine. In Barbarossa’s early days, the German invaders were welcomed by the Ukrainians, who had been starved in the greatest genocide of the 20th century, the Holodomor, by Stalin’s mostly Jewish NKVD. But Hitler unleashed such a reign of terror against them, that within months they started their partisan activities and looked at Stalin for answers. As honest commentators know, had Hitler been a reasonable man, really hoping to fight off an evil Bolshevist invasion, he’d have had the Waffen SS recruit a couple of million of Ukrainians, who would have gladly marched on Stalin’s Moscow for him.
But the most damning piece of evidence for the clear and present fact that Hitler was a genocidal maniac in the same league as his ‘great’ antagonists is the Hunger Plan. The well established policy of the Wehrmacht High Command to have the Wehrmacht live off the Russian lands by the third year of the war while calculating this would starve 30 million Russians. That should have left plenty of room for the German Folk! We can already imagine how Nazi propaganda would have been talking about ‘a land without people for a people without land’.
Hitler never had the chance to fully implement the Hunger Plan, but millions of Russians starved because the Germans took their supplies anyway.
What Hitler did to Russia is despicable and Revisionism, notwithstanding its many achievements, becomes a part of the problem when they aim to replace Allied and Russian war propaganda with Nazi agitprop.
The Jewish Question
And that’s another key point: Hitler’s defenders way overrate the Jewish Question. The Jewish Question is real and Jewish supremacy is incredibly annoying, there is no doubt about that. But is it really true that ‘Jews run the World’? I don’t think so: Trillionaires rule the world. Through their control of money, the Banks and through the Banks the Transnationals too. We are ruled by Capital: a small group of families. And they use Jewish Supremacism. They consider ordinary Jews their ‘lesser brethren’ at best, but more likely like total vermin like the rest of us.
How do we know this? Consider this:
1) It were the Jewish Councils that organized the transports to the camps during the war. These Jewish Councils were dominated by Zionists. They had no interest in ‘saving the Jews’. They had an interest in getting those willing to Palestine and they couldn’t care less about the rest. The Zionists, in turn, are owned by the ultra rich, as can be seen from the Balfour declaration, that was directed at Lord Rothschild. We also know that the Zionists did everything in their power to make the Jews’ plight as bad as possible, to uproot them completely, in order to get them to move to Palestine.
2) Jews are interest-slaves too: wealth distribution in the Zionist Entity in Palestine is among the worst in the world.
3) Anti-semitism is used to control the Jewish masses, who are perpetually kept in fear of the stupid Gentiles, who are supposedly always trying to murder them. Holocaustianity is a key part of this agenda. I believe everybody should see the ‘Defamation’ film to understand how the Jews are being manipulated in this way. Combined with this anti-semitism scare is this nasty ultra nationalism that Jews are programmed with and the strong cultural stigma against intermarriage with non-Jews. All this creates a decidedly narcissistic culture, which is very damaging to both the Jews themselves and the poor Gentiles having to live with them.
But the question now is: does that make the Jew our enemy? Or is it those that are programming the Jews? Those to whom the Jews pay their usurious tribute to? Those that made sure they were ethnically cleansed from Europe?
The simple fact of the matter is: Hitler did uproot the Jews and murdered probably about a million of them in the process. But he did nothing to really threaten the ultra rich. He didn’t end banking. The war he wanted was the war they wanted. They made a bundle from their arms manufacturers and their banks too.
It is not the Jewish commoner that is our enemy, however annoying Jewish tribalism may be and however despicable their whitewashing of their elite’s crimes.
Jesus and Paul were closer to the truth. Jesus when he said: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”
And Paul with his famous, brilliant and very telling: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
The Jews are the most manipulated people of them all and if the Money Power has its way some more will be sacrificed in the Greatest War that they have planned in the Middle East.
More on Schacht and Hitler’s Finances
It is unfortunate that there is so little financial literacy. This never ceases to amaze me: we all know that the bankers are behind all wars, owning both sides of the conflict. So why in the world are we not all studying economics and finance??
It tells in many of the comments too. For instance: in my article I noticed that Schacht oversaw the merger of several companies into I.G. Farben. This is then attacked by Martin as in some way ‘defaming’ Schacht. He says I only mention this because I.G. Farben has a bad reputation for Zyklon B and that it was just some sort of benign industrial giant.
Well I didn’t, because Zyklon B was used to delouse the camp inmates. I don’t see a problem with that. I do, however, see a major problem with massively consolidated industry in the hands of very few people, people who then continue to make an incredible amount of money with war profiteering. I.G. Farben was broken up after the war in its original parts. Agfa, BASF, Hoechst and Bayer. Today these are key components of the Big Pharma Cartel, which is behind chemotherapy, vaccinations and the depopulation agenda. I.G. Farben was closely associated with the Standard Oil Cartel, another issue people like to downplay. It is this close association that actually IS Big Pharma today.
Pharmacy and the eugenics link are also tightly connected, another little something I’m not eager to ignore.
Even worse is that Martin says ‘Schacht only provided a loan for the merger’. And this is why I suggest this financial illiteracy is really killing us. Because what is it that bankers do other than lending? It is by their financing that they control the economy! No financing, no deal. It is this prerogative by which they direct all the economies in the world. It is by the usury on the loan that they get their part of the action.
This blindness to banking, how it works and how bankers influence everything is also telling in the way Justice4Germans describes Schacht: “He spoke perfect English, had spent a lot time in America, had connections, was very egotistical and enjoyed having power and prestige, and to be in the limelight. Thus, Hitler was able to use and manipulate him to make him useful and to act as a kind of firewall against the international bankers while Germany was being reorganized under the NSDAP.”
Well, I’ll venture to suggest it was the other way around: Hitler was rather ambitious and through Schacht the Money Power controlled Hitler. The Money Power wanted Hitler to go to war and they made sure, through Schacht, that he could. They did not want him to nationalize the banks or end usury.
Why was Feder and the Nazi left sidelined after the night of the long knives? The fact is: this already happened in 1931, when Hitler’s financial and industrial backers threatened to cut him loose if he didn’t reign in Feder.
Schacht’s position as Reichsbank President was MUCH more important than Feder’s ministerial position, this is another issue the critics overlook. This position was second only to the Fuehrer himself, in terms of real power.
What was that old (probably debunked) quote about ‘give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws’? It seems that this all important lesson continues to elude many.
I repeat the simple fact that Schacht’s is an absolutely exemplary high level Money Power agent bio. Why try to make this go away? To say that Hitler was forced to appoint him to appease his backers (as both Martin and Justice4Germans suggest) basically admits that the power behind the throne was given what they demanded: control of the economy.
Then about Schacht’s policies, allowing the resurrection of the German economy.
As we know the Money Power rules through control of the money supplies of the nations and exploits this control through usury, the manipulation of the volume of money and to direct the economy by financing those it owns (or wants to own) while starving the rest of credit.
What Schacht did, and this is my basic message in the original article, is solve the volume of money. People are highly impressed by the quick solution of German unemployment. I’m not. People like Major Douglas, but also Keynes, would also not have been surprised. The simple fact is that depressions are caused by deflation, a contraction of the money supply. Provide the economy with sufficient liquidity and it will quickly return to full activity.
Schacht provided this much needed liquidity through his MEFO bills. I did not say, as Martin and Justice4Germans seem to believe, that it was rearmament that solved the depression in Germany. I did say that rearmament was where all the (extra) money went. They tried to downplay this, with some justification, by pointing at the public works program (Tempelhof Airport, Bremer Haven, Autobahns) that Hitler initiated, but here too they succumb to whitewashing instead of objectivity, claiming rearmament began only ‘in earnest’ in 1936. However, the mentioned public works clearly greatly enhanced both German productivity and capacity for war and this should not be overlooked. Moreover, Hitler immediately started reinforcing the Wehrmacht, there can be little doubt about that. It was his growing confidence because of the rebuilding Wehrmacht that gave him the nerve to remilitarize the Rhineland in 1935, not because Autobahns provided his troops with an escape route should the French have called his bluff.
German public debt stood at 18 billion in 1939 and total outstanding MEFO bills were at 12 billion Reichsmark.
And this is why it is so important to understand that the Reichsmark was created by the banks through fractional reserve banking, as an interest-bearing debt to them.
Martin says I destroyed my own case when I ‘admitted’ I have no hard data on real interest rates in the Nazi era. Nonsense: I was simply pointing at missing statistics that would further elucidate the situation. Let Martin show these statistics with 0% and I’ll be the first to recant. I provided plenty of evidence of Usury in the economy, including Nathan’s very informative essay (which all ignored), the legal Weimar interest rate of 4,5% that Hitler never changed and the fact that rising interest rates were used to cool the overheating German economy in the late thirties.
Justice4Germans, in his completely bogus ‘bottom line facts’ in his rebuttal to my article (claiming Germany had no debt, while it stood at 18 billion before the war broke out) makes the point that “Under the National Socialists, Germany’s money wasn’t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government.”
Completely ignoring that Germany left the Gold Standard in 1931, in the final years of the Weimar republic. In fact: most nations would leave the Gold Standard during the thirties. It’s completely irrelevant, whether money is backed by Gold or not, I’ve done more than my fair share in exposing this crucial fact here at Real Currencies over the last few years. What matters is, is the money circulated as an interest-bearing debt or not? Money today is not backed by Gold, that is the whole point: the German monetary system, the Reichsmark, was exactly the same as most nations have today and at the time. That is where the claim of ‘the myth of Nazi anti-Usury activism’ comes from!
The real question is: who owned the banks that lent the Reichsmark into existence during the Nazi era? Only the much maligned (by Hitler apologists) Henry Makow asked this question and my answer can be found under the article on his site. ‘Could it have been the Jews’, Makow wondered? And I’m willing to bet a fiver it were indeed the Jews. I have seen no data whatsoever that the owners of the banks were disowned and it’s a sure bet the Jews owned the banks during the inter bellum.
So Schacht solved the problem of deflation and money scarcity, but he did nothing to address usury. And Hitler didn’t either. Nor did Walter Funk, who succeeded Schacht in 1939.
Martin also makes a very favorable description of the European Economic Zone that the Nazi’s had in mind. Martin explains there were real elections in the occupied Western territories (Holland, Belgium, France). He also mentions the Japanese Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, calling it ‘similar’. Well, this is just a typical example of an all too credulous take on Nazi and Japanese benevolence. Both Empires aimed at a sphere of influence that would put their own countries at the center and the others as suppliers of raw materials and markets for the products of German and Japanese industry. Europe was to become a German dependency. To believe that the occupied territories would have been anything else but vassal states is really a very typical example of taking this Hitler worship way too far.
National Socialism, the Protocols and the Public vs. Private dialectic
Hitler brought the entire economy, including finance, under State supervision. As I described extensively, domestic capital markets were tightly controlled by the State and only the State had real access to them. All available financial means were gobbled up by the rearmament effort, especially after 1935.
And this is something very important, because there is this tendency to think that the problem is that banking, and especially central banking, is private, and that all will be solved if the State takes over. The fundamental mistake underlying this notion is the idea that the State is the Commonwealth or at least represents the public.
Personally, I’m completely cured of that idea. The problem of money and tyranny is NOT going to be solved by having the State take control. Most certainly not if the State does not provide interest-free credit, not just for itself, but also for the commoner, because the key problem is centralization of power and Usury is the ultimate centralizer of power. Capitalism is the concentration of power in private hands, the Plutocracy. But the Plutocracy itself intends to consolidate this power in State hands: they want World Government and the Protocols explain this all too well. Marxism is their tool in the Public vs. Private dialectic, showing they have absolutely no problems consolidating power in State hands. The question is always the same; ‘who owns the State’? And the answer is always the same too: the Plutocracy.
Where the Protocols are famous for their explanation of the conspiracy that is undermining the Gentile peoples and States, their emphasis in the final chapters, say Protocol 18 and beyond, are more focused on how they will manage their Kingdom, once the conspiracy to take over the world has come to fruition.
And this is where it gets really interesting. Because a closer look shows that there is no mode of Government closer to the Protocol’s ideals than………..National Socialism. I know full well that this will sound insane, or even worse, irrelevant, but I strongly suggest reading the latter part of the Protocols again with this idea in mind. I’d be most interested in anybody dispelling this notion.
Here are a few examples:
The Protocols claim that the King who needs a body guard is weak. People will think he has enemies to fear. The Protocols say that their King will walk in public without guards, but encircled by hundreds of people ‘who just happen to be there’, but in fact serve as a shield. This is exactly how the Fuehrer moved in public before the war.
The Protocols also have a strong focus on race although they make it clear that in the end everything will be decided by numbers. Again: this is exactly the same in Nazi Germany, where the German people were more or less God in name, but behind the scenes it were the wealthy that ruled, just as everywhere else.
Another example is the focus on the King as embodiment of the popular will. It’s hard not to think of the Fuehrer here. They also succinctly describe how unemployment is the greatest threat to government and that public works will be used to prevent unemployment and unite the interests of the King (who decides what will be built) and the workers, who will have a job and associated sustenance.
But the most important thing is the way the Protocols describe the State as the center and source of public life. The complete subservience of the individual to the State as the embodiment of the greater whole, being the Nation.
All these crucial issues are clearly at the core of National Socialism. For instance: point 25 of the NSDAP 25 point program says: “For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation.”
What was it with Hitler and Britain?
Just think about it: Anglo-German economic rivalry was the one of the key drivers behind European politics after 1900 and a fundamental reason for the Great War. Germany was industrializing and historians nowadays agree that it would have dominated the European mainland within years, were it not for the war. It is this rivalry that was to drive British business interests in the Greater war too.
And yet Hitler had this incredibly naive notion about the British as Aryan brothers in Mein Kampf.
How is it possible that he would not have known that Jewish Money and the British Aristocracy had merged throughout the 19th century and that the Money Power’s capital was London? Why did he ignore the lethal struggle between German and British economic interests? Why did he make this ridiculous speech about the ‘need’ for the British Empire and its ‘civilizing force’ after insanely letting the British Expeditionary Forces (BEF) escape the continent at Dunkirk? Why did Nazi propaganda only in the late thirties begin in earnest to expose Western Capitalism in the same vein as they had been attacking Marxism, as the Jewish Money Power fronts that they both are? Why did Hitler arrogantly, stupidly and suicidally attack Poland, knowing this would mean war with the Brits?
Was he fooled to believe there would be an Anglo-German entente, allowing him the continent and Russia?
If so, how did this happen? It must have been going on since the early days, because it was already prevalent in Mein Kampf. It would explain a great deal, including his many hopeless peace proposals with the West and Hess’ inexplicable flight to Britain. Just last week it was reported he brought with him a detailed peace treaty, offering to leave Western Europe in exchange for a free hand in Russia.
The idea of Hitler falling in a British/Money Power trap like this is speculation, but it most certainly would be very typical of perfidious Albion.
The Money Power has always pitted nation against nation. The British against the Germans, the French and the Russians. The Dutch against the French and the British, The Americans against most others and the Jews against all.
They get away with this, because people over identify with their nation. It aggrandizes their brittle ego. They are easily fooled with silly propaganda about the bad other. Then they gleefully join in the rape, the plunder and the genocide. Not unlike the Talmudists, they believe they can take the other’s stuff and even lives, if they’re not part of the same race or nationality. Or because we believe they are hopeless and bad.
We are all in this together and this is what we must come to terms with.
The Revisionists don’t understand money and don’t understand how Germany’s monetary system operated in the thirties. What is worse, instead of seeking truth, they are seeking to whitewash National Socialism and Hitler.
It is understandable, considering the insane lies that have been spread about both. Germany must be rehabilitated. Not as a poor victim of the mean Jews, who attacked from all sides, but as no greater part of the problem than we all are.
We are not going to solve the Jewish Question, let alone the real issue, Plutocratic High Priests of the Synagogue of Satan, by becoming them. By taking over the world from them with their own means.
We all suffer from Usury and degeneration brought upon us by the Money Power’s henchmen, among them Organized Jewry. Throughout the war, all the nations suffered immensely, including the Jews. The sole victors were the Plutocrats.
In all this, Hitler was part of the problem and not the solution.
Last Saturday Jason Erb interviewed me. We discussed the basic issues and the last half hour we talked a little about the article and its backlash.
(Left: the Emperor wears no moustache……)
There is the widespread notion that Hitler was fighting the Money Power and that he was a problem for the Bankers because he created a Usury free economy. But there was no Usury free Third Reich economy. The German taxpayer continued to pay interest over the substantial national debt and commercial banking received interest for its fractional reserve banking based loans, which to a large extent financed the war.
“Our greatest social task is the abolition of interest slavery. This responsibility to abolish interest slavery towers above all other issues of the day. It is the only solution to the greatest problem of our time. The breaking of interest slavery is the most important moral imperative in social terms, it rises in its general significance far beyond all questions of the day, it is the solution of social questions, it is the only way out of the terrible confusion of the time. The abolition of interest slavery will deliver us from ultra-capitalist domination while avoiding both Communist destruction of the human spirit and Capitalist degradation of labour. The abolition of interest slavery opens the way to a truly social economy, by liberating us from the overwhelming domination of money. It opens the way to a state based on creative work and genuine accomplishment.” – Gottfried Feder 1919
Where does Hitler’s reputation for anti-Usury activism come from? It was more Nazi propaganda to get him to power than his actual policies after he did. It was not Hitler, but Gottfried Feder who was the anti-Usury man of the Nazi. Hitler in Mein Kampf: ” For the first time in my life I heard (through Feder, AM) a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had found a way to one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party.
To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest.”
“The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.”
Point 11 of the NSDAP 25 point program, a manifesto that officially (but not in practice) expressed Nazi policy:
“Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.”
Hitler put it this way: “Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.
Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.
Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.”
But as we shall see, Hitler did not implement any serious monetary reform after he came to power. He did make finance completely subservient to the State and, more specifically, rearmament. But he did not nationalize any banks and the Reichsbank was already nationalized by the Weimar Republic by the time he came to power. He did not end interest payments to ‘the issuing houses’, who must have made an uncanny fortune throughout the war. He did nothing to decouple the Stock Exchange from the economy.
Feder was made Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, but was from day one sabotaged by Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht and replaced by him in August 1934. It was Schacht who was to manage the Nazi economy, not Feder.
Schacht’s and Hitler’s policies allowed full control of the economy, which was used to maximize production for the sake of war. But it did absolutely nothing to limit in any way massive war profiteering by the financial and industrial classes that brought him to power.
The Reichsmark was created 1924 after its predecessor, the Papiermark, had been inflated into oblivion. 1 Reichsmark was 1 Trillion Papiermark. The Reichsmark lasted until 1948, when it was replaced by the Deutsche Mark. So Hitler simply used the monetary system that he inherited from the Weimar Republic. The Reichsmark, like any other banking unit, was lent into circulation. It was a Gold backed unit until 1931, when the depression forced the Reichsbank (the Central Bank) to implement exchange controls, which effectively took Germany off the Gold Standard. A Gold peg remained in place. There were 1, 2 and 5 Reichsmark silver coins.
Hitler inherited the official Weimar 4,5% maximum interest rate. He ruled by decree, but never changed this. In fact, after the Nazi economy began to boom due to heavy spending on rearmament, it seems interest rates were raised to combat inflation. I’ve been unable to find any data on real interest rates during the Nazi era.
Who was Hjalmar Schacht?
Schacht was born in 1877 as the son of an aristocratic family. He joined Dresdner Bank in 1903 and already in 1905 was meeting people like JP Morgan and Theodore Roosevelt. He studied Hebrew to advance his career. In 1908 he joined Freemasonry. He oversaw the financing of Belgian/German trade during WW1 and used his former employer Dresdner Bank for this. This blatant conflict of interest led to his dismissal, but the revolving door was not invented recently and he was taken back by Dresdner Bank after this.
In 1923 he joined the Reichsbank and played a key role in ending the hyperinflation of the day. A little later he was made President of the Reichsbank and remained in this post until 1930. Since at least 1923 he was actively resisting the war reparations that were destroying the German economy and called for resurrection of German power. In 1926 he became involved with the NSDAP and supported their rise to power, although he never became a member.
He oversaw the formation of I.G. Farben in the twenties.
Schacht was a member of the Keppler Circle, a small group of businessmen that were at the heart of the Nazi movement and which financed Hitler’s rise to power. Wall Street was very influential in this group and contrary to what many Hitler apologists claim, played a heavy role in both financing him and war profiteering.
Shortly after Hitler came to power he was reinstated as President of the Reichsbank and when he replaced Feder as Reichscommissar for the Economy, he basically gained full control over the economy. This lasted until he was fired in 1939, when the German economy was overheating and Schacht wanted to limit spending on rearmament and was accused of ‘mutiny’ by Hitler.
Banking in Nazi Germany before the war
After becoming President of the Reichsbank, Schacht immediately started implementing policies aiming at giving the State full control of financial markets. This was known as ‘the New Plan’:
“(1) restriction of the demand for such foreign exchange as would be used for purposes unrelated to the conspirators’ rearmament program; (2) increase of the supply of foreign exchange, as a means of paying for essential imports which could not otherwise be acquired; and (3) clearing agreements and other devices obviating the need for foreign exchange. Under the “New Plan”, economic transactions between Germany and the outside world were no longer governed by the autonomous price mechanism; they were determined by a number of Government agencies whose primary aim was to satisfy the needs of the Nazi’s military economy.”
Foreign exchange controls were implemented to manage shortages in foreign currencies. Rules for credit creation by the Reichsbank were cancelled, aimed at potentially limitless credit creation to provide the economy with the liquidity it needed to get back at full employment.
All policies were aimed at 1) making sure the Government was basically the only borrower at domestic capital markets and 2) to make sure there was always enough credit available.
Price and wage controls and indeed rising interest rates were used to combat rising prices that would have resulted from these inflating policies.
Between 31 December and 30 June 1938, the national debt of the Reich rose from 10.4 billion Marks to 19 billion Marks.
There was no nationalization of banks. In fact: some banks that the Weimar republic had nationalized during the early days of the depression, were again privatized. Private banks played a crucial role in financing the rearmament effort. They were put under close Reichsbank control to make sure their lending was what the State wanted, but nothing was done to limit their profitability.
The Stock Exchange
While railing against this typical exploitative instrument of finance during his rise to power, Hitler did nothing to limit the stock exchange’s scope and operations once he had the chance. The stock exchange system in the Reich was superficially reformed: a number of its outlets were merged and the number of exchanges declined from 25 to 9 as a result. But volume of trading was never threatened and during the early Hitler years it saw annual double digit rises until 1937, when the Reich’s economy started faltering and the stock exchange lost about 10% of its capitalization between 1937 and 1939. After the war broke out the stock market saw a massive boom, rising 50% between the falls 1939 and 1941.
In 1934 heavy taxes were levied on dividend payments higher than 6%, but the aim of this was not to limit profiteering, but to enhance self-financing of publicly traded corporations. They were expected to recycle more of their profits into their own operations, to make them independent of capital markets, which the State intended and managed to completely dominate for its own financing needs. There were loopholes to evade this measure and shareholders were not damaged, as it implied deferment of dividend payments and not real limitations.
The Reich’s policies also made sure the common man did not enter the stock market, as they were expected to lend to the Government and not to speculate. But still, the amount of funds being diverted to the stock market were not invested in the war and “It was then (1942, AM) that the government stepped in and destroyed the last relatively free market in the economy. Loans for the purchase of stocks were prohibited. Shareholders had to file a declaration with the government of all shares purchased since the outbreak of war if their market value exceeded 100,000 Reichsmark. The government could, at any time, request that any of these shares be delivered to it for cash and that the proceeds be invested in securities to be specified by the government. (Nathan)”
While every effort was made to assure the State’s domination of capital markets, there was simply not enough liquidity in the economy to create full employment and unlock the German Folk’s full productive capacity for rearmament. This could have been solved by having the State go massively into debt, in typical Keynesian fashion. But this would have created both political and economic problems and, equally important, would have shown the full extent of rearmament to the Reich’s enemies.
Instead, Hitler, right after coming to power, fired Reichsbank President Hans Luther and reinstated Hjalmar Schacht, who was willing to build on Luther’s Oeffa’s: Government promissory notes aimed at creating employment that would create the extra liquidity needed to finance Hitler’s plans.
Schacht created a special purpose vehicle (SPV, a dummy corporation) called MEtallurgische FOrschungsgesellschaft (MEFO), which was used to accept bills of exchange drawn by German weapons manufacturers and received by all German banks for possible re-discounting by the Reichsbank. The bills were guaranteed by the Reich for five years and were thus (indirectly) convertible to Reichsmark.
MEFO bills of exchange were a pure bookkeeping operation and there were no actual paper certificates. They circulated between MEFO, the Reichsbank, commercial banks and manufacturers, not in the wider economy. At its peak there were about 12 billion worth in circulation. Key was that they were kept off the Reich’s books as all transactions were logged at the MEFO SPV. Because of this, nobody really knew the extent of spending on weaponry.
While they solved the depression and allowed for the Nazi war machine, they also created fairly serious inflationary pressures. And while this kind of construct may sound ‘innovative’ to the uninitiated, they would have been a no brainer for an experienced banker like Schacht. As said, they were based on certificates (called Oeffa) that the Weimar Republic was already circulating and national treasuries had been circulating their own certificates routinely, when pressing political issues forced them to increase their financial clout. The US Treasury had its Treasury notes before the Civil War. The UK printed ‘Bradbury Pounds’ (debt free notes) to finance WW1. The Canadian Treasury printed its own debt free money as of 1935 and during the twenties and thirties advanced monetary reform programs were widely discussed throughout the West.
Hitler was heavily indebted to Feder’s anti-Usury stance in coming to power. But early on during his reign he got rid of Feder and relied on Schacht for the financing of his war plans. Unlike Schacht, Feder was not heavily involved with the top bankers and industrialists of the age. The German economy was directed completely to rearmament. Consumption levels were kept low through taxation and wage controls. Imports and production of luxuries were severely restricted.
Schacht made sure the financial industry was focused solely on war preparation and in effect allowed only the State to borrow on the domestic capital markets. International trade was primarily reliant on (scarce) foreign currencies and while there was some international bartering, it was far from dominant. The Reich’s financial industry did not decouple entirely from international finance, although foreign exchange controls were strict. For instance: the Bank of International Settlements continued dealings with the Reich.
There was no usury free economy. The common man or small business actually would have next to no access to credit at all. Even manufacturers were forced to become self financing, so the State could monopolize borrowing on the capital markets. The stock market boomed like never before.
Instead, all policies were directed at securing sufficient funds for rearmament, not at minimizing financial exploitation by the parasitical class that Hitler so vehemently attacked with his rhetoric. Finance was a matter of volume, not cost. Schacht’s MEFO bills have been wrongly jumped upon to claim Hitler was an anti banker man, while Schacht himself has the typical bio of a high level Money Power operative. He was a life long friend of BoE chief Montague Norman and was acquitted at Neurenberg, where the Soviets wanted a conviction while the British made sure he was released.
The myth of Nazi anti-Usury activism is damaging, not only because of its mythological character, but because it allows the Money Power to defame anti-Usury activism through ‘guilt by association’. In fact, many Austrians and Mainstreamers, call usury-free monetary reform programs ‘fascist’. Fascism itself is being rehabilitated because of its supposed stance against finance capitalism. But as we have learned from Bolton’s ‘The Banking Swindle’, the twenties and thirties saw many monetary reform programs throughout the West, far from all associated with fascism. After the war they were relegated to a memory hole because of this false association with fascism.
War profiteering by the industrial and financial class was in no way restricted. As a result, they profited immensely from the war. This was indeed the main reason for them to enable Hitler’s rise to power and their loyal support of his policies during the rearmament and the war. Even today, the main culprits like the Thyssen family, Krupp and the Goebbels step-children owning BMW are among the richest people in Germany. The same banks that financed the Reich’s war are now among the biggest in the world.
(with special thanks to Niels Verduijn and Ad Broere)
Let me be the first to admit I, until recently, believed much of what was said about Hitler’s ‘usury-free’ economy and have inadvertently contributed to the harnessing of this meme.
I agree with much of revisionist history. Post war historiography is just wartime propaganda. The Holocaust needs serious revaluation. Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill were psychopaths who committed horrible crimes, against the Japanese, their own people, the people the colonized and against the Germans.
I do feel that at this point many in the Alternative Media go overboard, making Hitler a hero. This is unwarranted. The current article shows, in spite of what many believe, he was far from a renegade in a financial sense. There is also the Hunger Plan: Hitler and the Wehrmacht High Command intended to have the Wehrmacht live of the Russian land they were to occupy by robbing the farmers of their harvests. They cynically calculated this would starve 30 million Russians. Thankfully they never had the chance to fully implement this, but still millions of Russians starved because of the Wehrmacht taking their supplies.
The fact is that Hitler always wanted to invade Russia and his explanation that it was to save the world of Marxism, which he well analyzed to be a Jewish front, is irreconcilable with his take that Britain was a nation of Aryan brothers and the British Empire ‘necessary’ and a great civilizing force in the world: even at that time it was well known that the British Aristocracy had merged with Jewish Money and that the City of London was the Money Power’s capital.
Hitler was an imperialist who wanted to conquer Russia for the third Reich and intended to kill untold millions of Russians to take their land. His rise and fall gave the Money Power everything it wanted, including the war itself, the Zionist Entity in Palestine, the EU, Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, the destruction of the British Empire, the UN and the Cold War.
We will probably never know whether he was a useful idiot or willing stooge, but while he may have been no worse than his antagonists, he certainly also was no better.
Hitler and the Banksters, by Ingrid Rimland
Nazi War Financing and Banking, by Otto Nathan
Ziopedia on MEFO’s
Jewish Virtual Library on Schacht
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony Sutton
The notion that volume is irrelevant in Mutual Credit, as long as it is asset-backed, is quite widespread.
It’s a mistake and a serious one. It is badly damaging the credibility of Interest-Free Mutual Crediters and stalling the development of a platform. Usuronomics is the only winner.
Clearly the issue of Volume needs serious attention. Management of Volume is one of the key arguments Usuronomists of various persuasions use to rationalize their pseudo-science. Rising interest-rates dampen demand for credit and thus stops inflation, they will say. And although we know this to be a half-truth, rising interest rates in fact cause rising prices, albeit not through inflation but through higher cost for capital, it’s far from complete nonsense. The notion that endless credit creation is possible under Interest-Free Mutual Credit, whether we call it LETS, MPE, Bartering, Hours or whatever, is simply wrong and destroying our case vis a vis the open-minded.
The goal is not to insult those Interest-Free Crediters holding this position, men I highly respect and consider colleagues. The goal is to make a viable case for Mutual Credit and ridding ourselves of mistaken notions hindering the fulfillment of its promise. As long as serious doubts remain about the Volume issue, it will never happen. It is better to work these things out amongst friends than to get bludgeoned by Austrians, let alone the simpletons of the Mainstream.
Having said that, I had a bit of a problem getting a good handle on the take Mathematically Perfected Economy has to offer and I’m grateful to Australia4MPE for taking up the gauntlet and arguing MPE’s case on the matter. Our dialogue can be found at the comment section of the article on Money as part of the Commons.
MPE’s take and its problems
You’ll have to read the dialogue in its entirety to see what happened, but I’ll discuss it as fair as I can in my own words here.
MPE doesn’t talk about interest-free credit, as it offers promissory notes. The reason they stress this is because people assume they borrow from the bank, which is obviously nonsense. The bank doesn’t lend anything. The money is created by a promise to pay and the bank does the bookkeeping. Hence ‘debit’ and ‘credit’. But while the promissory note is a more pleasant notion than debt, it’s no different: the promissory note has to be repaid. The key is to understand that a Mutual Credit Facility (MCF) is not the creditor. It represents the creditor, which is really the community. That’s why it’s called Mutual Credit: we allow each other to buy now and pay later. By not charging interest to our neighbor, we obtain interest-free credit ourselves too. The MCF just organizes this, keeps the books and makes sure outstanding credit is good and repaid. It takes a fee to cover its costs.
MPE believes that volume is irrelevant, because the money is in fact circulating credit and this credit is backed by assets. Hence the value of the money, they say, is in reality the value of the underlying asset. In MPE, the ‘debtor’ repays the promissory note at the rate of consumption. So if a house is expected to be end of life after a hundred years, the interest-free mortgage can be repaid over a hundred years too.
But the problem with this is, that MPE only looks at the credit side of MPE. But once the promissory note has been spent into circulation, it starts to behave as money. It will be used in other transactions. And while the value of credit is the underlying asset, the value of money is a function of volume. If the volume increases, when more money will chase the same goods, prices will increase.
And the volume will increase in MPE. Catastrophically. Because people will be issuing more and more promissory notes. And these will fuel asset bubbles. And people will issue more promissory notes, backed by assets at already inflated prices. Ultimately it would be unsustainable and we would have a crash and then there would be many promissory notes in circulation no longer fully backed by assets.
MPE simply overlooks this and vehemently denies it.
The reason is, that MPE has a mistaken, or at any rate incomprehensive theory of inflation. It says that rising prices under usurious credit is not a result of growing volume, but because of escalating cost for capital, interest. And this is true of course. John Turmel calls this ‘shift B inflation’. Because the principle is created but not the interest, someone else must go into debt to finance these interest payments. But for this second debtor the interest is also not created, so a third must go into debt. Etc. This explains eternal growth of volume in all the post war economies. And also the need for ‘economic growth’, as ever higher interest charges require monetization of ever more natural resources and human activity.
However, while this is certainly correct in terms of the longer term development of the money supply, it completely ignores the horrible asset bubbles that have been the norm throughout the post war boom and beyond. The current real estate boom and bust was fueled by low interest rates. This actually is a clear and patent example of exactly what we’re talking about. Only higher interest rates (to stop the easy credit and growing money supply as a result of it) to kill the bubble would have prevented the crash.
Furthermore, early Government debt-free units also saw horrible inflation through overprinting. MPE may say that that was because there was no asset behind the debt-free notes, but that’s not (only) why they lost value. They lost value because the money supply was growing too quickly and more dollars were after an equal amounts of goods.
It matters not, whether the money is debt-free, commodity backed or asset backed credit. What matters is volume. This is what experience shows in all sorts of relevant examples. It is also well known by all economists. They don’t understand the effect of interest on prices, but they do know volume.
So how to manage volume?
The volume must develop in parallel to the value of transactions in the economy.
Next, the money supply must always be as big as possible without raising prices. This is critical, otherwise there will be scarcity of money.
This means that the MCFs can dole out credit in limited amounts. There is a greater demand for credit than there is for money. We will probably need more credit than we can get from the money creation process itself. This can be comfortably solved with JAK Banking and some kind of Brokerages, which could turn out similar to Islamic Banking: sharing both in risk and profit and not on an interest basis.
This leaves the need for some kind of a Monetary Authority (MA) that regularly measures the money growth and decides how much more or less credit can be allowed. There should also be some policing, weeding out rent-seeking in the system, or for instance withdrawing large sums from circulation by rich players.
However, this can be well managed. The MA could be well restricted with a strict charter. It should make education a key target, so that every able bodied citizen understands by what (easy to comprehend) basic parameters the MA operates.
The MCFs should have equitable rules in place sharing the credit that the system can handle, so that each commoner gets his fair share in the Commons. Basically everybody would have a right to a certain amount of credit every so often. Extra credit can be obtained in many ways, as already mentioned.
Money will be abundant and stable. Rents would be decimated, because they are almost all based on cost for capital. The bottleneck in production will swing from capital to labor, meaning that labor will dominate the market place, as it should. Many people will be self employed again. No more wage slavery. They would be doing what they thought either comfortable or worth while, not what they must to survive. Incredible abundance would become the norm.
It’s just like land reform. We cannot just say “ok, go out there and take what you will”. We need reform that gives the commoner good access to his share of land.
The Commons must be free, meaning everybody can take his share, no more and no less. I don’t know how that should be done with land, although I have ideas, but in terms of Interest-Free Mutual Credit it’ll have to look something like the above.
Mutual Credit units are undoubtedly a viable and crucial model. Demurrage money may even be (slightly) better, but Mutual Credit’s great boon is its familiarity. It’s pretty much like what we have now, but completely at the service of the community, instead of the other way around.
Cheap, plentiful and stable.
Helping us to tap into a common abundance that we should probably fantasize more about.
It’s a given that State money is better than money provided by private bankers. But ultimately Private Monopoly and the State are competitors for power and both a threat to the individual and the commonwealth. Transcending a dialectic does not mean choosing sides, it means addressing the issues both forces have in common. Like Materialism and the Concentration of Power.
Surely it’s a no-brainer to say that the Government at this stage must urgently retake the monopoly on currency from the Money Power. The US Government pays 450 billion per year in interest payments to international banks and other Governments to service its National Debt. With the BIS now openly calling for higher interest rates it will quickly get much worse. Government money allows for a reasonable financing of the State and is the very least monetary reform should aim for.
But to say something is better is not to say something is ideal. And Government money can be designed in good and bad ways. The good ways decentralize power, the bad ways centralize power. Usurious Public Banking ends interest payments on the National Debt but continues interest-slavery for the many and keeps capital scarce and expensive for small business.
Interest-free Public Banks would be much better as they would completely end the uncanny power centralization through Usury. But it would still mean that technocrats would decide who would be financed and who not. Meaning technocrats would decide the direction in which society develops. It’s also not clear whether Government would really properly manage the volume of money. Both inflation and too scarce money would be risks.
How should Government be organized?
At this point it seems fair to say that there is no known reasonable way of organizing State Power.
Democracy has failed and has been exposed as a pleasant curtain to hide behind for the monied classes. According to the Protocols it has given them ‘the power of appointment’: they just put some of their useful idiots in front of the public to choose between.
They describe how they want to give everyone a vote, both to dilute the vote of those actually knowing what they talk about and to be able to say: ‘you wanted this, you voted for it’.
Voting is not a ‘right’, it’s a sacred responsibility and it should be left to the competent. And who are the competent? God only knows. I’d say, let only 50+ year old heads of households vote. But perhaps 60+ is better.
Because of Democracy’s denouement, some call for more autocratic methods. Monarchy, or even Fascism. But a strong leader is grand, as long as he is strong. A monarchy thrives with a good king but history shows they are far from the norm.
In short: it’s not clear how Government must be run and automatically assuming that Public is better is risky without a clear cut appraisal of the who, what and how of Government.
For sure, a mountain is not built top down and we need models of self-governance.
Furthermore, behind the public vs. private dialectic there are bigger questions, for instance: what drives people?
Part of the dialectic is the fact that ‘private’ is associated with the profit motive and public with the public interest.
But both are wrong.
It’s a disgrace that economic theory promotes the despicable lie that people are solely driven by ‘self-interest’. By profit. This is an utterly materialistic world view and one of the key lies upon which the whole house of cards is built.
Memehunter’s ‘The Satanic Core of Libertarianism‘ explores how de Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits ‘pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.’ (Mises).
Keynes and the Libertarians eulogized it. It provides the rationale to claim ‘greed is good’. Because de Mandeville created the illusion that ultimately society is served when individuals relentlessly seek self-interest.
Public workers, on the other hand, are supposed to serve the public interest. They don’t. They serve the interests of the State. The State is not the Commonwealth! It is not the Sovereign. But historically it has always usurped sovereignty. So the State does not serve the public interest. It serves private interests: its own. That of its workers. And, of course, that of those bribing the politicians and civil servants.
It’s not black and white, the public gets something in return for putting up with the insolence of office. But the point is clear.
Both public and private workers serve other aims than the public interest and these aims and the paradigms associated with these aims are materialistic in nature.
For true liberation for mankind, we need to get rid of this materialistic outlook. The notion that there can be such a thing as ‘private interests’.
There is no permanent happiness in private gain. Private gain creates the fear of loss. The great joy of mankind is in service of both each other and the One. Both within in the family and in the world.
Rudolf Steiner said that a society can only thrive if people are willing to give away the added value of their production to society. Jesus said to give away everything to follow Him. We can own anything that furthers the Kingdom of Heaven, as long as it does so. No more, no longer and not as a goal in itself. The great paradox of this is, of course, that we would all live in far greater abundance and security.
Altruism is truly enlightened selfishness and not that stupid great satanic turn around we are brainwashed with.
Of course, this always was and remains a radical proposition. Many will not agree. Others will say it’s a nice idea, but it’s certainly not what we have now.
And since it certainly is true that our current ways are very different, we must be careful of power centralization in either public or private hands.
All this may sound ‘philosophical’ or ‘idealistic’ or even irrelevant, but ultimately it’s fundamental to the entire equation and we as a species will either have to move on and start living more from this mindset, or continue to put up with the selfishness of Bureaucracy and the cruel banality of the ‘market’.
Perhaps the simplest thing to say is that Money is part of the Commons, like Water, Air and Land.
We see how the Transnationals are now attacking Water as part of the Commons. Water is ‘not a human right’. Land has long ago been privatized. But Land and Monetary Reform are in many respects the same fights and we can add Water to the equation too.
Money has never been fully appreciated as an intrinsic part of the Commons. Because so few people actually realized that the nature of Money was something we could think about. And those that did were mostly led astray by the silly ‘theories’ the Money Power keeps inventing.
The rape of the Commons, our Human Heritage, must end and we must reclaim what rightfully belongs to us. Why are we paying rents on Land and Money and soon Water to ancient families, Corporations and Governments?
Instead of benefiting from our fair share we are simply exchanging ever more of our labor for it. The invisible slavery to artificial scarcity.
The Commons by nature should serve the individual, families, tribes and the Commonwealth and no one can own them or exploit them for their own purposes.
The Commons are public and they must be exploited in the public interest. Meaning they provide all commoners equitable access to their fair share.
When we look at monetary reform, we want interest-free, stable money. We need local communities to be able to have a say in where the money is going to. We need equitable individual sovereign access to capital.
This is what it means to optimally exploit Money as part of the Commons in the mutual interest of all individuals.
Relating to the public vs. private issue this means the question is never that private entities can ‘own’ the Commons. That kind of private is not to the point and to be rejected.
The Commons are, or should be owned by none. Not by the Government, nor by private interests. Government perhaps has a mandate to protect the Commons from private usurpation. But that is not ownership.
Exploitation of the Commons in the interest of the commoners can be done by both private and public entities. Private entities don’t automatically serve private interests, nor do public entities automatically serve public interests. They should have a clear charter explaining their goals: low cost Water, Land or Money services to the commoner.
Both can have their place and have their own problems. Bureaucrats love rules, Businessmen love cutting costs, hurting quality. They like rents. Both will continue to try to grab control beyond their needs.
Ultimately the commoner needs to know his rights and duties and the Money Power’s mind controllers have a great grip on our collective consciousness. It remains a great challenge coming to terms with all of this.
Money is part of the Commons. This is what I suggest is behind the Public vs. Private dialectic.
There is a great struggle going on in which the Money Power is privatizing more and more of the Commons. Land was robbed from the commoner long ago and nowadays they’re after Water.
But in reality the Commons cannot be really be privatized. For instance: Land should be reasonably made available to the commoner. This is the basis of Henry George’s work.
Money never was a conscious part of the Commons as most people didn’t realize it was possible to even consider its nature, let alone come to sound conclusions. But its crucial importance, the very fact that it depends on the agreement of those using it for its existence, makes it so.
The question is how to manage the Commons. Practice shows that having the Government do it leads to problems. The Government takes rents, centralizes power and is usually just a big &^%$%^&$# to deal with, especially for the less credulous.
It’s usually certainly better than private ownership of the Commons or control for profit. But to firmly entrench Money Power in the Commons, we need to look beyond Government and rationally look at what role private market players have to play in providing the necessary services to the commoner.
Because everything that centralizes power in the hands of the State will simply empower Leviathan. And Leviathan will always look to turn against its master.
In an amazing development, the Daily Bell editor Anthony Wile has just announced the Daily Bell is over. He’s pulling the plug, moving on to other ventures.
Of course, they have their own agenda and we can’t tell why, but the simple fact is: the Daily Bell never recovered from the fierce debates that raged in the first half of 2012.
When the first discussions started in December 2011, they were growing explosively and already close to the top 30,000 on Alexa, which is very high for high class conspiracy sites.
When I at the time picked them for some serious chatting about the basic Austrian propositions I did so for a simple reason: they were the leading outlet offering high end analysis of the NWO from an Austrian perspective, combined with a rational, courteous tone of voice. Rockwell and other outlets avoid outright conspiracy theory, even though very influential in the Alternative Media. The Daily Bell was very much directed at the Truth Movement itself and many freethinkers were attracted to it.
In the beginning far from all was clear to me, it was a great test for myself first and foremost: to see how interest-free economics would hold up against Austrianism in a head on dialogue with some highly competent people. This was long before we established the incredible amount of money and effort behind Austrianism as a mind control operation. After all: it was their insistence in the face of the facts about usury and deflation that made Jason Erb, Memehunter and myself wonder about what was behind it all. The rest is history.
The Daily Bell was a multi million dollar operation. Considering what we’ve been reporting on, the millions behind Rockwell.com, Mises.org and and the thousands of ‘independent’ ‘free market’ think-tanks and the simple fact that they had four paid elves with a hundred years of experience with Austrian Economics between them, located in Switzerland, this is absolutely fair to say.
With hindsight I have no qualms to suggest that the Daily Bell was purposely built up to further colonize the Truth Movement and to co-opt the whole thing through Libertarianism.
It all got a little ugly pretty quickly. It was not always pleasant. In fairness: I don’t mind a big fight, but I don’t like kicking a floored opponent and the simple fact is: I tried to disentangle myself in a friendly ‘let’s agree to disagree’ kind of way, when they started to clearly and purposely misrepresent my positions.
In the spring of 2012 Memehunter spent weeks on end in all out clashes in their comment sections with the elves and they tried everything to spin his positions into obscurity. It was his sheer determination in patiently rebutting everything they threw at him that eventually busted them. Their Alexa rating started dropping massively at the time, and somewhere around May last year they shut down their comment section altogether. But this was no solution as it cost them even more readers.
Several times Memehunter and I decided to leave them alone, Memehunter actually retired, but they kept coming back. Reopening the debate, looking for ways to recover past glory. It got so stupid and annoying that Memehunter ended his retirement and opened up the Daily Knell. Ravaging whatever was left of their economic credibility.
Their fury was palpable. Both from their tone of voice when (indirectly) attacking us, calling us ‘bought and paid for websites attacking those defending Freedom’. And from the enraged Abu Aardvark, whom ultimately forced me to implement a comment policy to end his trolling. He also angrily commented on other websites, claiming we were lying and attacking the Daily Bell because they were opposing evil. His handle was probably used by the elves or maybe even Wile himself.
Intellectually speaking this was a struggle to the death. It had to be. When writing my last two articles, I was not even sure I was doing the right thing responding to their final challenges. On the other hand: no opponent more dangerous than a wounded one.
So now they’re actually closing down. Undoubtedly this is a major defeat for Austrianism and a big victory for Interest-Free Economics and the Truth Movement, which needs a clear picture on the monetary.
They will be back though, the vehicle is gone, Gold buggery will remain with us.
This was purely business, never personal. I wish Anthony Wile and the Elves all the best in their further pursuit of happiness.
Here are the main articles, in order of publication. The articles link to the main DB challenges and responses.
Discussing Gold and Interest with the Daily Bell
Daily Bell: wrapping up
The Daily Bell tolls for another round in the debate
Meanwhile, at the Daily Bell……they might have a point about Ellen Brown and OWS
The Daily Bell: Usurious Commercial Banking is Good, Interest-Free Government Money is Tyranny
The sulking Elves from the Woods of the North
See the Daily Knell for Memehunter’s great work on Libertarianism and the Daily Bell.
Here is his ‘the Daily Bell Hoax?‘, exposing the crucial Agora connection, tying the whole Libertarian Leadership together as basically a small clique.
Controversy continues to rage about Central Bank ownership. Most major Central Banks, except for the FED, are publicly owned. However: this is not really important. Control is what matters and Central Banks are the Money Power’s centralized controllers, private or publicly owned.
The shocking realization that the Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned by its member banks is one of the defining moments in any Truthseeker’s path. Eustace Mullins, coached by the indefatigable Ezra Pound, wrote ‘the Secrets of the Federal Reserve’, listing the banks owning the system. Ed Griffin then infamously plagiarized this book with his ‘the Creature of Jekyll Island’, to push the John Birch/Libertarian poison of the Gold Standard as a solution. We’re still dealing with this today, as seen in the ‘End the Fed’ movement.
The FED itself is now starting to move against its critics, claiming they ARE a Government institution, although partly independent. As Central Banks should be, which is today’s conventional wisdom in the Mainstream.
Here’s some text from the link, from the FED itself:
“The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”
So while the FED tries to downplay private ownership, it does not deny it. Its stock cannot be traded, but this is not a limitation, it’s a sure way of keeping outsiders out. After all, it’s a club, and we’re not in it.
Furthermore, a dividend of 6% per year is not bad. It depends on the value of the stock, of course.
On the other hand, after paying its shareholders, the Federal Reserve returns what remains to the US Government, so it’s not entirely fair to say that the FED is printing money and then has the State pay interest on it. It paid the State 89 billion over 2012.
Nowadays the situation is even further confused by the fact that people like Tom Woods from the Hate the State crowd openly call Central Banks ‘statist’ operations, messing up the ever so fair ‘free market’ operations of the banks. They will say funny stuff, for instance claiming or implying that Central Banks are responsible for ‘money printing’, their dreaded enemy of ‘inflation’. However, it is the private banks that do by far the most of the money creation. They are the ones lending, after all, and they lend freshly created ‘credit’.
It becomes even more complicated when we realize that all European Central Banks are completely publicly owned. They are corporations with 100% Government ownership. They do operate as ‘independent’ entities, though. Before the ECB they set interest rates and managed the volume without Government interference. Nowadays this is done by the ECB, which in turn is owned outright by the national Central Banks.
Before the second World War, all European Central Banks were owned privately. But the massive upheaval caused by the Great Depression and the powerful monetary reform movements that shook the Money Power had raised awareness about private ownership of the financial systems of the West and nationalizing the Central Banks was a handy way of diverting this attention. After the war all major European Central Banks became publicly owned.
It is therefore simply wrong to state that Rothschild owns all Central Banks!
This is important, because getting straightforward facts like these wrong is clearly damaging the credibility of conspiracy theorists.
Control vs. Ownership
Central Banks were created by the Banks for the simple reason that Fractional Reserve Banking is incredibly unstable. There is an eternal incentive for the banksters to loan out more than they can cover with fractional reserves, leading to all sorts of destabilizing busts. This was hurting the Money Power’s control over the money supplies of the World and Central Banks were created as ‘lenders of the last resort’: in case of a panic a Central Bank could keep busted banks afloat, maintaining sufficient confidence in the system.
Furthermore, they were useful tools for Sovereign borrowing. The basic contract between Sovereigns and the Central Banks was, that the Central Bank would always provide the State with all the money it would ever need, in return for guaranteed interest payments through taxation.
Also important was the monopoly on national currency that is closely associated with Central Banking. In earlier days, both in Europe and the US, free banking and local Sovereign money created a diverse monetary environment, more difficult to control for the Money Power. By ‘legal tender’ laws their units became the sole accepted way of paying taxes, giving the banking units a massive advantage in the market place. These were the early steps in further and further monetary centralization in ever fewer units, with World Currency as its final goal.
And finally Central Banks have the opportunity to ‘regulate’ banks. This is a simple trick: make regulation incredibly complex and expensive, and it becomes impossible for the vast majority of market players to comply. It’s the same deal as the Pharma maffia has with the FDA: new drugs are so incredibly expensive to test that it is impossible for low cost natural cures to go through the process, as they will never provide the return necessary to cover the cost. Exit competition and another excuse to keep prices artificially high for the cartel.
Public vs. Private is just another dialectic. It matters not whether money is managed privately or publicly. What matters is whether we have stable and cheap (interest-free) money. If a private interest-free Mutual Credit facility can provide it, grand. If Government can do it, fine. A mixture of both is probably the way forward.
Central Banks are a mixture of both: they have public and private aspects. But the bottom line is that Central Banks do the bidding of the Money Power’s banking cartel. They keep competition out of the market. They prop up busted banks, maintaining some kind of ‘stability’. They oversee private usurious credit creation and maintain the banks’ ability to rake in trillions per year in interest. They allow the banks to create the boom/bust cycle.
High time for a new paradigm.
Several people have brought to my attention that it is simply wrong to state that all major CB’s except the Fed are private: the situation is far more mixed. Some European CB’s are (partly) privately owned and also a major CB like BoJ is publicly traded (and thus privately owned).
However, the basic proposition of the article, that it is wrong to say that Rothschild owns all CB’s and that it’s about control more than it is about ownership, still stands.
Nonetheless, this is an annoying slip, partly explained by the fact by my geographic location: the Dutch CB and the Bundesbank for instance are completely publicly owned.
The Daily Bell: Usurious Commercial Banking is Good, Interest-Free Government Money is Tyranny
End the Fed: a Trojan Horse destroying the Truth Movement from within
Why Tom Woods is wrong about the Greenbackers