The end the Fed movement is a major, long term, well financed psyop.

[ThePythonicCow]

A couple of days ago, I responded to a fine post by Yelik: The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind (Documentary) - Hidden Secrets of Money (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79836-The-Biggest-Scam-In-The-History-Of-Mankind--Documentary--Hidden-Secrets-of-Money-4-Mike-Maloney) with three posts of my own. My first response post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79836-The-Biggest-Scam-In-The-History-Of-Mankind--Documentary--Hidden-Secrets-of-Money-4-Mike-Maloney&p=932384&viewfull=1#post932384) was a long post that began:
In my view, the above video is a deeply deceptive, although rather effective, piece of propaganda.
My third response post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79836-The-Biggest-Scam-In-The-History-Of-Mankind--Documentary--Hidden-Secrets-of-Money-4-Mike-Maloney&p=932432&viewfull=1#post932432) summarized what I was saying, stating:
The opening video of this thread is not making the case to end control of the monetary system by a few occult elite bastards ... but rather making the case to transition from one form of that control (centered around the US Federal Reserve) to another form (more global.)
There has been quite a few such documentaries and books in recent years, many of them well produced, from a number of fairly well known names, saying very much the same thing. This is not an accident; this is deliberate. Good money is being spent to teach us that the way that the US Federal Reserve shuffles money and debt between itself, the big banks and the US Treasury, is convoluted, obfuscated, corrupt, and in dire need of replacement ... with a global scheme.

Here are some of the experts who have taken their turn at "teaching" us this, with a date and link for one of their key contributions (their initial or primary contribution to this topic, in many cases). Items are listed in time order, oldest first.

Eustace Mullins, December 1993, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve (book) (http://amzn.com/0965649210), Secrets of The Federal Reserve (Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul3Iyq1i_30)
G. Edward Griffin, July 1994, The Creature From Jekyll Island (book) (http://amzn.com/0912986468)
Patrick Carmack and Bill Still, 1996, Money Masters (Movie uploaded to Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOoaHSsJQCM)
James E. Ewart, December 1998, Money: Ye shall have honest weights and measures (book) (http://amzn.com/0966357000 )
Edwin Vieira, 2002, Pieces of Eight : The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (out of print book) (http://amzn.com/0967175917)
James Jaeger, 2006, Fiat Empire - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution (Movie, uploaded to Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGe2EcS10I)
Peter Joseph, 2007, Zeitgeist (documentary) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbIu8Zeqp0)
Ron Paul, 2009, End the Fed (book) (http://amzn.com/0446549193 )
Joseph Stiglitz, March 2010, Federal Reserve system corrupt and undermines democracy (Infowars article) (http://www.infowars.com/joseph-stiglitz-federal-reserve-system-is-corrupt-and-undermines-democracy/)
Edwin Vieira with James Turk, June 2011, Pieces of Eight and constitutional money (Youtube interview) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIRQzdLVmes)
Ellen Brown, June 2011, Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free (book) (http://amzn.com/B0057IS4RQ)
Leesa Stanion, March 2012, Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bank? An Uncensored Investigation of the U.S. Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 8, Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M_Rh_fgKEQ)
Foster Gamble, April 2012, Thrive (Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s)
Bill Still, February 2013, Jekyll Island: The Truth Behind the Federal Reserve (DVD) (http://amzn.com/B00F58L0XS )
Frank N. Newman, May 2013, Freedom from National Debt (book) (http://amzn.com/1626520380)
Mike Maloney, October 2013, The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidden Secrets of Money (Youtube documentary) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0)
Antony C. Sutton, February 2014, The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (http://amzn.com/1939438098)
James Corbett, July 2014, Century of Enslavement: The History of The Federal Reserve (Youtube documentary) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk)

Notice that there is a lot of work and a fair bit of money, production and publicity that has gone into the various efforts above. This is no accident.

The above named authors and researchers are some of the best available, and I have read or viewed the work of almost all of them with great interest.

I am confident that more or less all of them hold sincere views on the need to "End the Fed", developed over years or decades of research.

I am confident that they are not knowingly participating in the "major, long term, well financed psyop" I refer to in this thread's title.

Rather, the choice of who gets the money, funding, support and publicity to proceed, and who gets blocked ... is made, on an ongoing basis, by others, more hidden (occult) and far more wealthy, than any of the above.

These authors and researchers are correct in criticizing the Federal Reserve, but (in my view) incorrect in understanding the fundamental role that a debt-based, elite controlled, monetary system has had and continues to have in controlling humanity, for many centuries, at least.

Consequently, these authors and researchers are not sufficiently articulate in opposing the "solution" that will be imposed on us next, after the present Petro-Dollar based, Federal Reserve centered, monetary system collapses ... that solution will combine:

an even bigger, world-wide, system of monetary issuance, more opaquely controlled by the elite bastards, at the national and supranational levels, with
a continuance of the debt based issuance of money at the lower levels, to individuals, businesses, and lower levels of government.

Rather these authors and researchers are being used, as part of a Hegelian Dialectic, to pave the way for the demonization and destruction of the US Federal Reserve, as part of the take down of the present US Dollar based global monetary system, to be replaced by the next monetary system.

[christian]

I think the solution is free-market money as explained by the Austrian School of Economics.

Arguably the definite classic about this was written by Ludwig von Mises.




The Theory of Money and Credit (http://mises.org/library/theory-money-and-credit)

Mises wrote this book for the ages, and it remains the most spirited, thorough, and scientifically rigorous treatise on money to ever appear. It made his reputation across Europe and established him as the most important economist of his age. […]

This classic treatise on monetary theory remains the definitive book on the foundations of monetary theory, and the first really great integration of microeconomics and macroeconomics. As Rothbard points out in his introduction to "the best book on money ever written," economists have yet to absorb all its lessons.

Mises shows how money had its origin in the market, and how its value is based on its usefulness as a commodity in exchange. In a step-by-step manner, Mises presents the case for sound money with no inflation, and presents the beginnings of a full-scale business cycle theory. This edition includes Mises's early blueprint, improved later in life, for a return to a fully backed gold standard and competitive banking.

Friedrich von Hayek was a later Austrian who also produced some useful writings about it.




A Free-Market Monetary System And The Pretense Of Knowledge (http://mises.org/library/free-market-monetary-system-and-pretense-knowledge)

The book begins with Hayek's most excellent essay on money. It is also his most radical. He plainly says that central banks cannot be reformed. There can never be sound money so long as they are in charge. He calls for their complete abolition, no compromises accepted. He wants the market in charge of money from top to bottom.

His words predicting crisis followed by wild swings in valuation are up to the minute. He also relates the quality of money with the recurrence of crisis, showing an excellent application of Austrian theory.

Fortunately, many important "truthers" endorse Austrian economics. Ron Paul, the Thrive Movement, and many others.

It all boils down to, "Let's do away with violently imposed monopolies."

[T Smith]

I think the solution is free-market money as explained by the Austrian School of Economics.



Yes... I agree. That would be the solution for us serfs. But definitely not the solution for the interests controlling the dialectic.

[Snowflower]

I have been reading a not terribly well written book by Michael Tellinger, with what I suspect is a terribly important concept about money. Money did NOT have its origin in the market. There is no indigenous culture on the planet that developed the concept of money within its structure. No, cacao beans were not used as money. No, shells were not used as money. When people wanted to, they used those cacao beans to make chocolate and those shells to make a necklace. They were trade items, not "money."

Money was imposed from the top down: priest-Kings in Sumeria imposed it on the people. Suddenly they were no longer "slaves." They were free to come and go - oh but wait, all the food belonged to the king. So, if they wanted to eat, they had to have these clay tablets that the priests wrote on that said they had done work to earn food.

I've made a complete transition into the belief that money itself is what is evil. As long as money exists, there will be wealthy, poor, and starving to death categories of people. The only solution is a form of Contributionism, whether you call it the Venus Project,the Ubuntu Movement, or anything else.

[Carmody]

Yes, that is the entire idea of money:

The appearance or feel of freedom, for the uninformed and those who cannot encapsulate the requisite level of a data bubble or data volume (and then navigate it).

No matter where one is in such a system, they are still swimming hard (or less hard, milling about, sinking, and so on) toward a pile of non-existent crap.

The more difficult a problem is to solve, the more basic the mistake/error in the formulation of the question.

[robinr1]

The only solution is a form of Contributionism, whether you call it the Venus Project,the Ubuntu Movement, or anything else.



this doesn't work anymore than the system now works....what do you do when 90 percent of the folks who contribute ...don't want to share....force them to by gunpoint like the gov does? no thanks...the answer the no gov. not more government..also what do you do with the group of millions who wont contribute..

just want to be supported by the ones who contribute.

[Kindred]

I agree wholeheartedly with Snowflower in this...

According to the Thiaooubans, the greatest danger to humans is not physical death. The greatest dangers on Earth, in order of importance, are as follows:

1) Money and monetary systems
2) Politicians
3) Journalists and drugs
4) Religions

It's not that 'money' is evil... actually, there is no 'evil' in this world... just ignorance and distractions from what is important. It is what is done With money, and how it is used to manipulate both the individual and collective mind to act in certain negative ways. This influence then filters down into the other aspects in the list.

In Unity, Peace and Love

[T Smith]

I have been reading a not terribly well written book by Michael Tellinger, with what I suspect is a terribly important concept about money. Money did NOT have its origin in the market. There is no indigenous culture on the planet that developed the concept of money within its structure. No, cacao beans were not used as money. No, shells were not used as money. When people wanted to, they used those cacao beans to make chocolate and those shells to make a necklace. They were trade items, not "money."

Money was imposed from the top down: priest-Kings in Sumeria imposed it on the people. Suddenly they were no longer "slaves." They were free to come and go - oh but wait, all the food belonged to the king. So, if they wanted to eat, they had to have these clay tablets that the priests wrote on that said they had done work to earn food.

I've made a complete transition into the belief that money itself is what is evil. As long as money exists, there will be wealthy, poor, and starving to death categories of people. The only solution is a form of Contributionism, whether you call it the Venus Project,the Ubuntu Movement, or anything else.

I prefer to think of money as how it is economically defined, as a means to exchange. Is there a better means to foster human cooperation than an arbitrary abstraction? Perhaps. And even likely. I'm not biased for a money paradigm, but I cannot reconcile with the idea that money itself is evil. In addition, using money as tool is also not evil. Rather, it's the seizing of control of money, and specifically creating an milieu where money is artificially scarce, that introduces the evil. This triggers and exacerbates a very base and unflattering nature of our species. In a sense, we are all in a petri dish here, folks. But this very same dynamic, what we call "evil" can be socially engineered into any human society and imposed on us no matter what system we employ as a means of cooperation.

We need to dig deeper than money. We need to look at how we are all controlled.... IMHO...

[ThePythonicCow]

Arguably the definite classic about this was written by Ludwig von Mises.



The Theory of Money and Credit (http://mises.org/library/theory-money-and-credit)

That book can be obtained from Amazon in one of the better editions (the LvMI edition), well adapted to being read on a Kindle, for a mere $2.99: The Theory of Money and Credit (LvMI) by Ludwig von Mises (http://amazon.com/dp/B004GHNMT4)

Reading economics texts written over a century ago in German, subsequently translated into English, is not exactly light reading. I'm only in the first chapter, and find my mind easily distracted when reading it, so I don't have an independent view of it yet, beyond ... yup ... Mises was a smart dude.

[ThePythonicCow]

Fortunately, many important "truthers" endorse Austrian economics. Ron Paul, the Thrive Movement, and many others.
Ken, over at Redefininggod.com, is making a very persuasive case that such Austrian economists are being groomed to take lead roles in the "next release" of "Money for Humans", to be instituted after the US Dollar Reserve system collapses and we become sufficiently fed up with the subsequent economic devastation to welcome this new world monetary order.

For example, yesterday, at Globalist Agenda Watch 2015: Update 14 – The coming BRICS gold standard, Ron Paul, and the Rockefellers (http://redefininggod.com/2015/02/globalist-agenda-watch-2015-update-14-the-coming-brics-gold-standard-ron-paul-and-the-rockefellers/), Ken wrote:

========



Also worth noting is that the article came from The Mises Institute. I’ve been noticing a lot of positive propaganda surrounding Ludwig von Mises and Austrian Economics, and this leads me to believe that the banksters will impose the Austrian model after the Transition.
========


It all boils down to, "Let's do away with violently imposed monopolies."
You sound like Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot) :)

[Snowflower]

Robin, the only possible way to introduce and develop a moneyless system is in very small population groups. It can grow from small to large, but cannot be imposed from the top down. I live in a community of 18 people. We are planting a garden this summer. 16 people want to be involved. The other two will not receive a share of the food. No pressure to work, and they understand that means no food. I am the garden manager. I will be in charge of who plants, weeds, waters, harvests, distributes food. I will know who actually contributes. This is my passion, and I know I am setting myself up for more time than others. I volunteered. Children will be expected to contribute, but not as much as adults. If someone sluffs off entirely and just "can't" get out there and work, their share will be commensurate with the level of work done.

Now, if this works with the garden, maybe we can expand it into firewood collection. Or animal care and cost. If it doesn't work, we can't just say, oh that's just human failing. Instead, we need to examine what we actually did with the project and what we might change in the system next summer to try again. And again. And again until we figure it out.

One of the consequences of a world conquered by reptilian psychopaths from a different dimension, is the pervading perception of humans as self-serving psychopaths instead of cooperation toward mutual benefit which is the true nature of humans. Humans cooperate. Psychopaths compete. Down there at the very foundation of the psyche, this is probably one of the most important differences in the two.

If we assume the competitive nature of psychopaths to be a human trait, we take on all the rest of their qualities: lack of empathy, no conscience, no connection on an ethereal level (soul) to anything outside themselves. If we recognize the source of this complete lack (reptilian overlords) then we have hope to throw off these non-human shackles and begin recovery. Money, imposed from above, advances the proto-psychopathic regime (that means humans that take on the characteristics of a psychopath but do not carry the DNA structure of one). Money encourages the valuation of humans by "success standards" rather than something far more intrinsic: the right to live.

Now, the right to live carries with it two more concepts that seem to disappear in a money-driven culture: freedom and personal responsibility. I have the freedom to choose to live anywhere on the planet I desire, but that freedom carries with it the responsibility to accept the consequences of my choice. If I choose not to help grow, raise, hunt, trap, gather, or fish for food (or in today's culture, buy it), then I must also accept the responsibility for not having food. Another method of acquiring food while not actually working to get it directly, is to be contributing another service of value to a community, and receiving a share in the food as a result. I use the word "food," as more of a representation of anything and everything needed to make a community of people thrive in abundance thn the actual substance of edible material.

In a money-driven culture, both freedom and responsibility are subsumed under hierarchy, power, and control from others.

[Dennis Leahy]

First, the thanks button click is just not enough when a forum member puts together a forum post like the one that begins this thread. It doesn't even matter if I (or anyone else) agree with the premise, it still deserves kudos for what it is: an extremely well-presented and referenced big-picture analysis of the top-level money gambit. Outstanding, Paul!

Secondly, Paul's analysis makes perfect sense to me. The multi-generational, empire/family, international, banking warlords would never just leave the temple and take up carpentry work - they will always have a plan and strategy to remain in control. And, a fallback plan "B", and plan "C"...

I'm tempted to now launch into a tangential topic about which monetary system (if any) that I believe could work, and be fair for the general population of a country... but it is a tangent to this topic deserving its own thread, so I won't.

Dennis

[ThePythonicCow]

I think the solution is free-market money as explained by the Austrian School of Economics.

Arguably the definite classic about this was written by Ludwig von Mises.




The Theory of Money and Credit (http://mises.org/library/theory-money-and-credit)

...
Mises shows how money had its origin in the market, and how its value is based on its usefulness as a commodity in exchange.



I have been reading a not terribly well written book by Michael Tellinger, with what I suspect is a terribly important concept about money. Money did NOT have its origin in the market. There is no indigenous culture on the planet that developed the concept of money within its structure. No, cacao beans were not used as money. No, shells were not used as money. When people wanted to, they used those cacao beans to make chocolate and those shells to make a necklace. They were trade items, not "money."

Money was imposed from the top down: priest-Kings in Sumeria imposed it on the people. Suddenly they were no longer "slaves." They were free to come and go - oh but wait, all the food belonged to the king. So, if they wanted to eat, they had to have these clay tablets that the priests wrote on that said they had done work to earn food.

I've made a complete transition into the belief that money itself is what is evil. As long as money exists, there will be wealthy, poor, and starving to death categories of people. The only solution is a form of Contributionism, whether you call it the Venus Project,the Ubuntu Movement, or anything else.
That much of Mises, that money has its origins in the market, is in the first chapter that I've read already. It is a very popular explanation for the rise of money, as an increasingly generalized replacement for common barter. I agree with Tellinger that this explanation is likely false.

I would not however agree with Tellinger that, therefore, the only solution is some form of contributionism.

Rather I would recommend a layered approach. Once we get to the point where our human technology is sufficiently well advanced that the basics of food, clothing, shelter, energy, health care, transportation, and "information technology" can be economically provided to all humans, then I recommend:

an underlying layer that provides for these common needs, relying on some form of monetary system to impose a self-discipline on those markets, capital investments, and transactions,
while, at the same time, relying on a bazillion, small, specialized, contribution-based groups to create and share more interesting stuff, be it music, art, finer furniture, custom software or (as in the case right now on the Avalon forum) moderation and computer server administration of a web forum.

That actually how I have been, in essence, living my life for about 15 years now. In the last 7 or so years of my professional computer programming career, I was working almost exclusively on open source projects that happened to be worth my salary to my employer. That salary covered my living expenses, while my day to day life was focused on entirely voluntary and shared work, with others scattered about the world (France, Japan, ...) who happened to share the same interest I had in improving the management of Linux on massive (10's to 100's of thousands of CPUs) multi-processor systems.

And now for the last four years, I've been involved in another contribution effort ... supporting this forum ... and relying on my Social Security check to cover the basic needs.

The "contribution" model does work ... for the interesting stuff, while I anticipate that we will remain better off depending on a monetary system to handle the essentials, including my Internet connection, over which (so far, thankfully) my Internet Service Provider doesn't much care what I send (so long as they don't get complaints that I'm downloading stuff copyright protected by some big corporation.)

It is entirely fitting and proper, in my view, that I have a finite of some kind of money that I can choose to spend on nice food, faster computers, or art for my wall ... as I choose and as my budget allows. If I choose to have a half dozen working computers, but zero televisions ... that's my choice, but I don't get to have that 18 core Xeon core, 256 GByte RAM system that I lust after, for the simple reason that spending $20,000 on a computer is outside my budget. Money works, to throttle such flows of goods and services, while potentially leaving control in the hands of individuals and businesses, within those limits.

That said ... centralizing the control of the issuance of money to any human controllable bank or institution has been a huge problem for humanity for a long, long time, and I am afraid will remain so. I do not endorse that.

[Zanshin]

Pardon me for being simplistic - would not the removal of usury and fractional reserve lending be a good start?
[as espoused by many of the writers Paul has listed}

I believe the practice of usury was once a hangable offense - now it's so ingrained in 'fiscal policy' it has become
the elephant in the room when viable alternatives are debated.

Of course limited corporate charters would make sense also - ie: disband the incorporated structure once the
bridge over the river was complete.
The road to the next town? > New project - new charter.

Of course the mill/indust. complex Ike warned everyone of, is such a behemoth now it would take some disbanding.
Not to mention the grossly overpaid swathe of paper traders suckling at the teat of the usurious sow.(or should that be goat?)

[Snowflower]

Nah. Goats are way nicer than pigs. I have both. Both stink, but pigs stink worse.

[mgray]

As a larger and larger percentage of the US population receive federal government payments -- many in the form of digital currencies such as debit cards -- the idea of moving to an alt system outside of centralized control appears more difficult.

[ThePythonicCow]

Pardon me for being simplistic - would not the removal of usury and fractional reserve lending be a good start?
[as espoused by many of the writers Paul has listed}
Debt based monetary systems are a bitch - yes. And we ordinary humans get to be the elite bastards bitches, thanks to the use of such by the elite to control humanity.

I tend to focus my "how can I make it better" thinking time on those areas where I sense I have a decent chance of having an impact. I don't get that sense with the world monetary system.

However I do get the sense that by understanding what's going down, I can help myself and those with whom I share insights to improve our own lots in life, even if we can't fix the planet.

So I continue, as I have pretty much all my life, spending most of my effort on figuring out what's really going on, and less often making a move, when I see an opportunity.

As to whether debt is necessarily harmful ... I don't think it is so. If I loan you $5 for lunch, and you pay me back $6 the next day, by mutual agreement, then I see no harm done.

It is the use of debt to control the creation of money, in economies dependent on money, that is a major control mechanism of the elite bastards over humanity. Eventually, we ordinary humans end up owing our entire productivity to the elite (debt and taxes, as the saying goes), and "our children are waking up homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson once said (http://www.barefootsworld.net/prophesy.html):


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
What matters more, in my view, is not the mechanism of interest payments on lent money (harmless in small amounts in my view), but rather the control by the private banks of the issuance of essentially all our money, which they do by lending it into existence.

The banksters do not just print money. That would be less dangerous. Rather they exchange (1) money now for (2) either future income streams or loss/foreclosure/impounding/privitization of collateral/security later.

However they use their control of the money issuance to always negotiate (2) to be bigger than (1), so we end up with the entire economy, from the impoverished individual to the very largest corporation or nation, and all individuals, businesses and governments in between, all deeply in debt, owing more to the banks than they could ever possibly pay off, forfeiting their land, resources, capital equipment, public institutions, and future income streams to make debt and tax (your government's debt) payments.

The amount of physical goods and services committed to be paid back in the future grows exponentially, until the entire planet could not satisfy the promised payments (the present situation, pretty much.)

That which cannot grow exponentially forever ... won't ... as humanity is about to observe.

[Snowflower]

Paul's key phrase, "lending money into existence" is vitally important to the whole mess. The very fact that "they" create money from nothing and then use it to get from us things that exist - that is what's behind the "greatest wealth transfer in recorded history," which is how the 2008 crash has been described.

At the very least, if money is going to exist at all, it should at least exist. No one: no company, government, or entity, should be able to magically bring it into existence with fancy words like, "fractional reserve banking."

¤=[Post Update]=¤

It would help my life a great deal if that collapse were to happen sooner rather than later, as long as it takes county govt down with it!

[wnlight]

So, what should the average, debt-slaved, American worker do? Voting does not help because the ballot box is broken. Can these people do what I did? Work my way out of debt by controlling my spending? Before I left the states to become an expat in Ecuador, I owned a nice house and two cars and was debt-free. This accomplishment was very difficult.

[christian]

Money did NOT have its origin in the market. There is no indigenous culture on the planet that developed the concept of money within its structure.

If there was no money, I'd invent it. Whoever had that idea had a useful idea, I'd say. It's a means of exchange.

The only scenario in which money would be useless would be when there's enough social capital and knowledge so that people would voluntarily produce, take, and give in perfect moderation. You would have to have an enlightened society (or a very small group with strong shared values). Or you would enforce it at gunpoint. I think using money is a good and realistic option for now…

By the way, here's what Wikipedia says about money: "Anatolian obsidian as a raw material for stone-age tools was distributed as early as 12,000 B.C., with organized trade occurring in the 9th millennium." That was way before Sumeria. I'd strongly assume that people would come up with a means of exchange by themselves, seems like perfectly natural common sense action.


The only solution is a form of Contributionism, whether you call it the Venus Project,the Ubuntu Movement, or anything else. […] just want to be supported by the ones who contribute.

Does that imply the absence of money? Or does it mean voluntary exchanges on the market?


Ken, over at Redefininggod.com, is making a very persuasive case that such Austrian economists are being groomed to take lead roles in the "next release" of "Money for Humans", to be instituted after the US Dollar Reserve system collapses and we become sufficiently fed up with the subsequent economic devastation to welcome this new world monetary order.

Doesn't really make sense to me that the 'elite' would want free-market money. The only tangent which I would find conceivable in this regard is that in face of the avalanche coming from the masses in the information age, the 'elite' wants to do damage control. That would be introducing free-market money while shifting the focus from how many of the 'elite' got their wealth in the first place. This is something that many Austrians miss, in my opinion. They want the total free market, which is a good thing, but in order to start this you have to process how the property situation on the planet came about. Otherwise psychopaths and criminals have a huge unfair advantage from the start.



It all boils down to, "Let's do away with violently imposed monopolies."
You sound like Stefan Molyneux (https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot) :)

Like any straight Austrian, Anarchist, Libertarian, Voluntaryist, I'd say… :)


I'm tempted to now launch into a tangential topic about which monetary system (if any) that I believe could work, and be fair for the general population of a country...

One essential idea of Austrian Economics is that one person (or a party, government, etc) always has an information deficit against the market participants. That's why they say you're free to have your ideas about what could work, but you may always only suggest it as an offer on the free market. People will either see it as useful or not, they will accept it or not. No force ever.


I would recommend a layered approach. Once we get to the point where our human technology is sufficiently well advanced that the basics of food, clothing, shelter, energy, health care, transportation, and "information technology" can be economically provided to all humans, then I recommend:

an underlying layer that provides for these common needs, relying on some form of monetary system to impose a self-discipline on those markets, capital investments, and transactions,
while, at the same time, relying on a bazillion, small, specialized, contribution-based groups to create and share more interesting stuff, be it music, art, finer furniture, custom software or (as in the case right now on the Avalon forum) moderation and computer server administration of a web forum.


I'd contend we can provide all necessities already. The root of the problem why it doesn't work is complacency within the general population and cunning force by psychopaths. Holding them accountable and establishing a true free market with empowered participants is all it takes to optimize the flow of goods and services, I'd reckon.


And now for the last four years, I've been involved in another contribution effort ... supporting this forum ... and relying on my Social Security check to cover the basic needs.

The "contribution" model does work ...

That's not exactly how Contributionism works, though. What you get through social security is not voluntarily given to you, it's collected and handed out through force.


No one: no company, government, or entity, should be able to magically bring it into existence with fancy words like, "fractional reserve banking."

How about: Everyone should be able to magically bring it into existence!

But no one should be forced to use it. :)

The Fed could print fiat money all day in a free-market money system. Nobody would want to use it, nobody would use it. Only as toilet paper, maybe…


So, what should the average, debt-slaved, American worker do? Voting does not help because the ballot box is broken.

Fix what you can fix in the short run and hope for the best in the long run. It's pragmatic, it's tedious… It's the only thing that realistically makes sense in my reckoning.

---

One final thought: I think a major obstacle to the transition to an actual free market is the lack of imagination of people who can't see how well a market could work without government regulation and intervention. They say, "How could you organize this and that, how could you pay for this and that?" Many people just can't seem to imagine what a heavy load would be off their backs when a government would be gone. No compulsory anything. Can people imagine that?

[robinr1]

this was a very well written post.... and I truly appreciate you taking the time to respond..... I feel the key statement in this post is very small population groups.....I feel and agree the only way it works is like u stated..very small groups....in todays society

esp in the usa I cannot see how without major major population reduction society could operate in small groups like u describe.




Robin, the only possible way to introduce and develop a moneyless system is in very small population groups. It can grow from small to large, but cannot be imposed from the top down. I live in a community of 18 people. We are planting a garden this summer. 16 people want to be involved. The other two will not receive a share of the food. No pressure to work, and they understand that means no food. I am the garden manager. I will be in charge of who plants, weeds, waters, harvests, distributes food. I will know who actually contributes. This is my passion, and I know I am setting myself up for more time than others. I volunteered. Children will be expected to contribute, but not as much as adults. If someone sluffs off entirely and just "can't" get out there and work, their share will be commensurate with the level of work done.

Now, if this works with the garden, maybe we can expand it into firewood collection. Or animal care and cost. If it doesn't work, we can't just say, oh that's just human failing. Instead, we need to examine what we actually did with the project and what we might change in the system next summer to try again. And again. And again until we figure it out.

One of the consequences of a world conquered by reptilian psychopaths from a different dimension, is the pervading perception of humans as self-serving psychopaths instead of cooperation toward mutual benefit which is the true nature of humans. Humans cooperate. Psychopaths compete. Down there at the very foundation of the psyche, this is probably one of the most important differences in the two.

If we assume the competitive nature of psychopaths to be a human trait, we take on all the rest of their qualities: lack of empathy, no conscience, no connection on an ethereal level (soul) to anything outside themselves. If we recognize the source of this complete lack (reptilian overlords) then we have hope to throw off these non-human shackles and begin recovery. Money, imposed from above, advances the proto-psychopathic regime (that means humans that take on the characteristics of a psychopath but do not carry the DNA structure of one). Money encourages the valuation of humans by "success standards" rather than something far more intrinsic: the right to live.

Now, the right to live carries with it two more concepts that seem to disappear in a money-driven culture: freedom and personal responsibility. I have the freedom to choose to live anywhere on the planet I desire, but that freedom carries with it the responsibility to accept the consequences of my choice. If I choose not to help grow, raise, hunt, trap, gather, or fish for food (or in today's culture, buy it), then I must also accept the responsibility for not having food. Another method of acquiring food while not actually working to get it directly, is to be contributing another service of value to a community, and receiving a share in the food as a result. I use the word "food," as more of a representation of anything and everything needed to make a community of people thrive in abundance thn the actual substance of edible material.

In a money-driven culture, both freedom and responsibility are subsumed under hierarchy, power, and control from others.

[ThePythonicCow]

I would recommend a layered approach. Once we get to the point where our human technology is sufficiently well advanced that the basics of food, clothing, shelter, energy, health care, transportation, and "information technology" can be economically provided to all humans, then I recommend:

an underlying layer that provides for these common needs, relying on some form of monetary system to impose a self-discipline on those markets, capital investments, and transactions,
while, at the same time, relying on a bazillion, small, specialized, contribution-based groups to create and share more interesting stuff, be it music, art, finer furniture, custom software or (as in the case right now on the Avalon forum) moderation and computer server administration of a web forum.


I'd contend we can provide all necessities already. The root of the problem why it doesn't work is complacency within the general population and cunning force by psychopaths. Holding them accountable and establishing a true free market with empowered participants is all it takes to optimize the flow of goods and services, I'd reckon.
Well, as currently organized, the human civilization on this planet isn't close to actually doing that. Perhaps if all we humans were trying to do was to live a decent life, here on earth, respecting and sustaining our environment long term, we have sufficient technology to support the current human population here. That might be.

However, there are some elite bastards who apparently (or should I say occultly) have other and additional and sometimes conflicting objectives in mind. It seems that they sometimes look down upon us more as an unruly resource to be managed and harvested, than as fellow human colleagues.

It might be, in my view, that another dramatic step upward in the (publicly recognized) technological capabilities of our civilization will make the basic provision of food, water, air, raw materials, and energy so cheap and ubiquitous that such cease to become such points of violent contention. I do anticipate that much of the black technology of which we've seen hints for the last 50 or 100 years, such as "free energy" and a radically different physics, will become publicly visible over the next decade.

Actually, it was rather Polyannish of me to even suggest such a two layered approach, contributionist overlaying commercial, and I was stepping well past my usual position of trying to understand and accept on the large scale while I change and adapt on a local scale.



And now for the last four years, I've been involved in another contribution effort ... supporting this forum ... and relying on my Social Security check to cover the basic needs.

The "contribution" model does work ...

That's not exactly how Contributionism works, though. What you get through social security is not voluntarily given to you, it's collected and handed out through force.

Yes - agreed - I was recommending a two layer approach - a layer of Contributionism over the top of a layer of commerce, where the commercial layer uses money to regulate flows and where the commercial layer provides the global infrastructure sufficient to enable individuals, friends, families, neighbors, communities and organizations to obtain and share the basics of life in satisfactory amounts.

Nor, for that matter, was I recommending Social Security. I use it, I paid into it, and I am now taking out of it. But if we had no such, I certainly would not vote for it, and I would support phasing it out at some point in the future, so long as we did the reasonable best we could by those who were already dependent on it and who, unlike myself presently, were no longer healthy enough to go back to work even if they had to.

Social Security is my current income, but it will not be possible for the younger generation to continue to pay my generation at the current levels. One way or another, gently or abruptly, partially or entirely, the various social benefit programs paid out by the US Federal Government to its various citizens and other residents will have to be cut back. That's the practical and necessary reality, and if done sensibly and compassionately, the appropriate reality.

[christian]

It might be, in my view, that another dramatic step upward in the (publicly recognized) technological capabilities of our civilization will make the basic provision of food, water, air, raw materials, and energy so cheap and ubiquitous that such cease to become such points of violent contention. I do anticipate that much of the black technology of which we've seen hints for the last 50 or 100 years, such as "free energy" and a radically different physics, will become publicly visible over the next decade.

There is certainly much more possible, and I also think that more will become visible that has been hidden. But the basic necessities could already be met at affordable prices. If humanity would be able to work and share without restrictions (i.e. do business on a free market) I can't see how anybody would have to suffer shortages. That's major good news, I think.


I was recommending a two layer approach - a layer of Contributionism over the top of a layer of commerce, where the commercial layer uses money to regulate flows and where the commercial layer provides the global infrastructure sufficient to enable individuals, friends, families, neighbors, communities and organizations to obtain and share the basics of life in satisfactory amounts.

Yes, I think that's all encompassed within a free-market economy. Essentially it's sharing without using money. Families do it all the time, friends do it, communities do it. That's a given in a free (and at least somewhat compassionate) society, I figure.


Social Security is my current income, but it will not be possible for the younger generation to continue to pay my generation at the current levels. One way or another, gently or abruptly, partially or entirely, the various social benefit programs paid out by the US Federal Government to its various citizens and other residents will have to be cut back. That's the practical and necessary reality, and if done sensibly and compassionately, the appropriate reality.

I think when you look for example at the defense budget of the US, social security is no big problem. I don't see how society couldn't take care of those who can't in some way provide for themselves. There are enough resources, there is a big enough workforce, there is sufficient technology, and I also think there is enough compassion. The problem is an entirely rigged market. Governments and big corporations in collusion. And a public that still let's it happen.

Corporate welfare is also way bigger than social security. I think a voluntarily organized social security system would work just well. When people have the opportunity to voluntarily pay companies that efficiently help those that the givers want to help in a particular way. I think that's simple, straight-forward, and efficient. Pretty much the opposite of the current system.

[dim]

natural evolution
whatever wont work is dismissed
but must be implemented first
all systems eventual dysfunction must be seen and realized directly
how else the human collective psyche would evolve ?
this "psyop" is the greatest catalyst in evolution keeping the forward speed at maximum

eventually all systems will collapse and only what's natural remains
but without the collapse we would stuck in the idea that it might worked out
it's a checklist.

[Zanshin]

I'm not sure I agree that 'money is lent into existence' or 'created out of thin air'.

Everything I have studied indicates they are monetizing our energy, where the birth certificate bond is a mortgage on
everything we will produce over our lifetime. The world is in a bankruptcy reorganization.
All corporations only operate in bankruptcy - the books have to show 0 balance at the the end of trade for the day.

The trick is that, as we are the source of the energy, we are the creditors and the banks and corporations are the debtors.

We are the creditors in the real world but in the fictional corporate legal world everything is in the mirror.
Think of double entry book keeping - every unit of our energy ledgered in the real world [the republic] has a corresponding liability
ledgered against it in the fictional maritime world [the military democracy] in order to balance the books.

So all the liability funds incurred as debt only apply to the corporate vessels - ie: the citizen created when our berth into the admiralty
system is certified - not us, unless of course, we think we are the vessel not the captain of the vessel.
Hence Obama (captain of the good ship UNITED STATES CORP) standing in front of the gold fringed admiralty flag

What is the value of a life? If it is unlimited then it follows that the hypothecation of said value is also limitless.

The rub is how to compel these corporate officers to disperse the quadrillions of hypothecated debt notes according to the will
of the creditors (us).

If the settlor of the trust (the one who puts in the energy) doesn't instruct the trustee as to how to proceed then the existing
indentures of the trust must be followed. What else is the trustee to do?

Obama was telling it how it is when he said the private sector (the republic) would have to step up to save the economy.

[ThePythonicCow]

I'm not sure I agree that 'money is lent into existence' or 'created out of thin air'.

Everything I have studied indicates they are monetizing our energy, where the birth certificate bond is a mortgage on
everything we will produce over our lifetime.
Lending money into existence is exactly how they monetize our lifetime productivity.

We sign away our future productivity and property, as well as that of our children and grandchildren, in exchange for money now.

[ThePythonicCow]

David Stockman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, one of the sharper minds in Washington, and one of the better "mouth pieces" for the counter-official views (the views that seem to run counter to the US government's official position, but which are likely endorsed by covert powers and hence often anticipate future events) has just posted on his Contra Corner blog (http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/) an article entitled Audit The Fed——And Shackle It, Too (http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/audit-the-fed-and-shackle-it-too/), that states (a few words selected from the middle of a longer post):

=========



...
And here’s their even bigger fear. When this current massive financial bubble comes crashing down for the third time this century—-and that may happen any time soon—the torches and pitchforks are sure to come out.

At length, there will be legislation, but not merely an audit. In the fullness of time it will become evident that the problem is, in fact, undue influence and “capture”. That is, capture by Wall Street and the subordination of monetary policy to the palpable fear in the Eccles Building of a hissy fit in the casino.

And that goes to the heart of the matter. Congress not only needs to audit the Fed; it should shackle it entirely by abolishing the FOMC and eliminating its discretion to peg interest rates, expand its balance sheet and intervene proactively in the financial markets.

...
In short, what the nation really needs is not an “independent” Fed, but one that is shackled to a narrow and market-driven liquidity function. The rest of its current remit is nothing more than the self-serving aggrandizement of the apparatchiks who run it; and who have now managed to turn the nation’s vital money and capital markets into dangerous, unstable casinos, and the nations savers into indentured servants of a bloated and wasteful banking system.

Yes, the monetary politburo has every reason to fear Rand Paul’s demand for a “policy audit” of the Fed. An honest one would show that its so-called “independence” has been monumentally abused in a manner which is deeply threatening to both political democracy and capitalist prosperity.

Needless to say, we can’t have that audit soon enough.
=========

I consider the above to be consistent with, and confirmation of, what I have been quoting from others, such as Ken of RedefinningGod.com (http://redefininggod.com/), and have been agreeing with myself.

I consider it significant that David Stockman would present that same view.

Whether the Fed is "Ended" (no such institution by that name continues) or "Shackled" in the sense that Stockman explains in his post, is a minor distinction. Either way, the Fed as it is currently constituted seems unlikely to continue in that role for much (many years) longer.

[ThePythonicCow]

James Jaeger, 2006, Fiat Empire - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the US Constitution (Movie, uploaded to Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGe2EcS10I)
Yesterday, The Daily Bell posted an interview, by Anthony Wile, of James Jaeger: James Jaeger: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Hollywood Economics – and More (http://www.thedailybell.com/exclusive-interviews/36084/Anthony-Wile-James-Jaeger-Everything-You-Ever-Wanted-to-Know-About-Hollywood-Economics--and-More/).

James Jaeger goes on quite a few rants, on a number of topics relating to money, economics, politics and financials ... the interview is not just focused on the Federal Reserve.

Here are Anthony Wile's comments on this interview, at the end of the above linked post:

==============



Thanks to James for this extensive interview. He makes many interesting points but several in particular stand out to us. He speaks about how QE has "stopped" but that all the digital currency that has been printed will eventually leak out. And eventually price inflation could soar, choking off any recovery.

This is certainly possible, but right now – as he notes – a little bit of those funds are pushing stocks higher and that is a trend that can continue for the long or short term. We call it the "Wall Street Party."

He also points out that the "state always grows. It never shrinks." Here he has a good point as well, though we do agree that "The US Global Empire isn't going to go away unless it rots itself out from within the core -- another end-game. This would be a Roman Empire-type end game."

From our perspective this sort of "rot" is well underway, and it is actually feeding an extension of the Wall Street stock party, one that is spreading worldwide. Central banks are inflating in tandem, and the Great Inflation of the 2000s has been underway for over a half-decade.

This is a central problem of the world economy, as James knows. It must eventually end in a great asset inflation that may spark calls for a global political and economic realignment.

From a global financial fiesta to a worldwide equity wipeout ... the path increasingly seems clear. Investors need to protect themselves. James would surely agree with that as well. Look to The Daily Bell for innovative solutions (http://www.thedailybell.com/special-reports/) along these lines.

==============

[Snowflower]

Everywhere I read about this impending collapse. I just wish it would get on with it!

[ceetee9]

I have been reading a not terribly well written book by Michael Tellinger, with what I suspect is a terribly important concept about money. Money did NOT have its origin in the market. There is no indigenous culture on the planet that developed the concept of money within its structure. No, cacao beans were not used as money. No, shells were not used as money. When people wanted to, they used those cacao beans to make chocolate and those shells to make a necklace. They were trade items, not "money."

Money was imposed from the top down: priest-Kings in Sumeria imposed it on the people. Suddenly they were no longer "slaves." They were free to come and go - oh but wait, all the food belonged to the king. So, if they wanted to eat, they had to have these clay tablets that the priests wrote on that said they had done work to earn food.

I've made a complete transition into the belief that money itself is what is evil. As long as money exists, there will be wealthy, poor, and starving to death categories of people. The only solution is a form of Contributionism, whether you call it the Venus Project,the Ubuntu Movement, or anything else.I agree. As long as we have a system that enables a few to manipulate, control, corrupt, and/or steal the exchange mechanism used for goods and services, we will forever be enslaved and there will always be poor and starving people and, naturally, those who pervert the system.

[ceetee9]

One final thought: I think a major obstacle to the transition to an actual free market is the lack of imagination of people who can't see how well a market could work without government regulation and intervention. They say, "How could you organize this and that, how could you pay for this and that?" Many people just can't seem to imagine what a heavy load would be off their backs when a government would be gone. No compulsory anything. Can people imagine that?So instead of us being enslaved and controlled by governments, we'd be enslaved and controlled by those who own/control the "free markets." This doesn't seem like any improvement to me and is certainly not incapable of being manipulated and corrupted.

[christian]

So instead of us being enslaved and controlled by governments, we'd be enslaved and controlled by those who own/control the "free markets." This doesn't seem like any improvement to me and is certainly not incapable of being manipulated and corrupted.

The essence of the free market is that nobody owns it. It's an abstract place, it means that people can come together to do business as they please as long as they don't harm a third person in the process. The free market is thus controlled by those who freely act on it. You, me, everybody. How could more freedom than this be possible? Honestly?

A free society (and a free market) can always be corrupted if there's no sufficient amount of vigilance among its people. There's no fail-safe insurance against that other than hard work and cleverness. This appears to be bad news for the involuntarily inactive and the intellectually challenged, but if enough of the people have a heart, they will be supported. However, the purposefully lazy, greedy and ungrateful ones surely wouldn't prosper…

[ThePythonicCow]

David Stockman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, one of the sharper minds in Washington, and one of the better "mouth pieces" for the counter-official views (the views that seem to run counter to the US government's official position, but which are likely endorsed by covert powers and hence often anticipate future events) has just posted on his Contra Corner blog (http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/) an article entitled Audit The Fed——And Shackle It, Too (http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/audit-the-fed-and-shackle-it-too/) ...
David Stockman is on a roll ... he has an excellent (if detail filled) interview with Chris Martenson at David Stockman: The Global Economy Has Entered The Crack-Up Phase (http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/91810/david-stockman-global-economy-has-entered-crack-phase). See that link for (1) overview (2) Youtube audio and (3) transcript.

I recommend paying particular attention to the part beginning with Stockman's words "And then, finally, clearly, demand has run smack up against peak debt", starting at 29 minutes, 44 seconds into the Youtube video (http://youtu.be/-VYAzxHcQLM?t=29m44s).

Stockman is the youngest person in the entire 20th century to hold a Cabinet level position in the U.S. government, and has been working at the highest levels of finance ever since. He knows his stuff. He is the consummate insider and speaks with experience.

[Dennis Leahy]

So instead of us being enslaved and controlled by governments, we'd be enslaved and controlled by those who own/control the "free markets." This doesn't seem like any improvement to me and is certainly not incapable of being manipulated and corrupted.

The essence of the free market is that nobody owns it. It's an abstract place, it means that people can come together to do business as they please as long as they don't harm a third person in the process. The free market is thus controlled by those who freely act on it. You, me, everybody. How could more freedom than this be possible? Honestly?

A free society (and a free market) can always be corrupted if there's no sufficient amount of vigilance among its people. There's no fail-safe insurance against that other than hard work and cleverness. This appears to be bad news for the involuntarily inactive and the intellectually challenged, but if enough of the people have a heart, they will be supported. However, the purposefully lazy, greedy and ungrateful ones surely wouldn't prosper…In theory (and probably between individuals and small cooperatives) the "free market" might work, but in reality, it's a game of monopoly. Whoever is successful doesn't just do a little bit better job than their competition, they hire them, buy them out, or crush them. Ray Kroc (the brains behind McDonalds and owned one of the baseball teams, I think) once said, about his competitors, "if they were drowning, I'd give them a hose." That's the real free market. Monsanto is the free market. They legally bought-out many many other seed companies, paid millions in bribes, er, I mean campaign donations, and got federal laws favorable to Monsanto, and "somehow" they get judges (and even Supreme Court justices) to always rule in their favor.

I'm perfectly willing to trade a bag of my organic carrots for a bag of Stephan Molyneux's or Larken Rose's organic onions - but that one-on-one low-level freetrade or free market is NOT the national or international market, which is much more akin to "legit" Mafia gangsters who control politicians, police, and judges to keep out of legal trouble.

[Dennis Leahy]

...but what made me come back to this thread was the inclusion of Bill Still in the initial list (hey, he even has a new book called On the Horns of the Beast: The Federal Reserve and the New World Order), because I read his book No More National Debt, and he did and does propose a solution that is not just to let the international banking cartel change into a new ballgown: Bill proposes ending the Federal Reserve, and having the US treasury print money, AND ending fractional reserve lending. He also sees the fallacy of backing money with gold (because the ultra-rich control gold, not ordinary citizens and not even politicians elected to high office.)

I don't know enough about the others on the initial list to know if they are being duped into anti-Federal Reserve rhetoric without a plan and strategy to actually box the bankers out. Bill Still seems to have done just that.

[christian]

In theory (and probably between individuals and small cooperatives) the "free market" might work, but in reality, it's a game of monopoly. Whoever is successful doesn't just do a little bit better job than their competition, they hire them, buy them out, or crush them. Ray Kroc (the brains behind McDonalds and owned one of the baseball teams, I think) once said, about his competitors, "if they were drowning, I'd give them a hose." That's the real free market. Monsanto is the free market. They legally bought-out many many other seed companies, paid millions in bribes, er, I mean campaign donations, and got federal laws favorable to Monsanto, and "somehow" they get judges (and even Supreme Court justices) to always rule in their favor.

Not the free market, but collusion between state and corporations is a game of monopoly. McDonald's only got to where it is because of collusion with government, i.e. exemptions from taxes and regulations, high barriers for competitors to enter the market and so on. That's anything but the real free market. Same is true for Monsanto. You said it yourself, they bribed their way to the top.

[ThePythonicCow]

...but what made me come back to this thread was the inclusion of Bill Still in the initial list (hey, he even has a new book called On the Horns of the Beast: The Federal Reserve and the New World Order), because I read his book No More National Debt, and he did and does propose a solution that is not just to let the international banking cartel change into a new ballgown
Yes, Bill Still, and perhaps others on my original list (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79879-The-end-the-Fed-movement-is-a-major-long-term-well-financed-psyop.&p=932908&viewfull=1#post932908), such as the first one I listed, Eustace Mullins, may well have an understanding that is well above the anti-Federal Reserve rhetoric.

Eustace Mullins, December 1993, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve (book) (http://amzn.com/0965649210), Secrets of The Federal Reserve (Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul3Iyq1i_30)
Patrick Carmack and Bill Still, 1996, Money Masters (Movie uploaded to Youtube) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOoaHSsJQCM)

Bill Still, February 2013, Jekyll Island: The Truth Behind the Federal Reserve (DVD) (http://amzn.com/B00F58L0XS )

However, they also end up being used for the end-the-Fed psyop. The portions of their work that fit that psyop are promoted, and the rest is "adapted" or ignored.

Yesterday, Ken, over at RedefiningGod.com, posted an update that provides strong confirmation, backed with historical evidence, of my thesis in this thread. I encourage those interested in this topic to read his update
Globalist Agenda Watch 2015: Update 15 – Like it or not, here is more on the Rockefeller connection to Austrian economics (http://redefininggod.com/2015/02/globalist-agenda-watch-2015-update-15-like-it-or-not-here-is-more-on-the-rockefeller-connection-to-austrian-economics/)

Here are a few snippets of that update:

Fred Koch founded the John Birch Society in 1958. Ed Griffin was educated there. He later wrote a famous book, “the Creature of Jekyll Island”. This was a rehash of Eustace Mullins’ brilliant ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’, with one exception: it left out all Mullins’ analysis of the Gold Standard as a Banker operation and how Britain’s demand for taxes payed in Gold were the cause of the war of Independence. Instead it called for the reinstatement of a Gold Standard. This is a key part of the story how Austrian Economics managed to take over the ‘Truth Movement’.

If we look back at the two books, Mullins’ works on the Federal Reserve were published in 1952 (Mullins on the Federal Reserve) and 1983 (Secrets of the Federal Reserve). Griffin’s works came in 1993 and 1994 with first a movie, then a book, called The Creature from Jekyll Island. Given Griffin’s connection to the John Birch Society and the Kochs, it makes sense that his work was meant to co-opt Mullins’ work.

To add one more tidbit on how far back the connection between Ludwig von Mises and the Rockefellers goes, have a look at this passage from page 144 of an economics reference text titled the Elgar Companion to Hayekian Economics…

http://redefininggod.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/rockmises.jpg
There can be no mistake about who is behind the promotion of Austrian economics, but I will continue to write more on the subject nonetheless.

[gripreaper]

There can be no mistake about who is behind the promotion of Austrian economics, but I will continue to write more on the subject nonetheless.

Keynesian on one side, Austrian on the other; both sides of the dialectic controlled by the same central source. When are we going to get this lesson? I see it everywhere, and this thread is helping to illustrate that.

All those that are aflutter over the BRIC alliance need to take a closer look.

[christian]

There can be no mistake about who is behind the promotion of Austrian economics, but I will continue to write more on the subject nonetheless. Keynesian on one side, Austrian on the other; both sides of the dialectic controlled by the same central source. When are we going to get this lesson? I see it everywhere, and this thread is helping to illustrate that.

This is guilt by association. The fact is, Austrian economics advocate freedom. Austrian economics and Keynesian economics is thus not like the Democrats and the Republicans. It's more like the difference between freedom and regulation by the state.

There is no hard evidence that Austrian economic thought or theory is controlled by the state or other sinister groups, it rather tends to be promoted by independent thinkers and actors critical of the state and the corporatocracy we live in. Austrian economics don't serve the interests of monopolists.

Austrian economics is a simple theory of the application of freedom. I don't see a conspiracy here or a controlled dialectic.


All those that are aflutter over the BRIC alliance need to take a closer look.

Now, that has nothing to do with Austrian economics. The BRICS don't advocate that. BRICS and the Western establishment is indeed more like Republicans and Democrats.

[Baby Steps]

Paul, you are a genius!

We see this pattern where existing democratic accountability and transparency although weak and compromised , at the national level is hard to dismantle, and one strategy is to put a new layer above them without these checks and balances. The EU is an example, and I don’t doubt that however bad the Fed may be, any global currency tyranny would be worse.

I remember hearing that in Australia, a friend mentioned that their new finance minister appeared to be implying that he was being forced to take on new national debt above and beyond necessary. The friend asked me why would this be happening. My answer was that there is a global plan to crash all national currencies, and one component of this is to build up national debt until individual Governments are all insolvent. If hyper-inflation hits, there cannot be a safe haven. In this way the ground is laid for a new global phoenix currency that of course will be fiat and issued by the cabal.

A great advocate of the Austrian School is Ron Paul. He points out that the Dollar has been historically devalued. This of course is by design. I think the system works to sweep assets continually into the hands of the elite, so their position is constantly strengthened even as the common man creates wealth by his sweat. The elite firstly produce fiat currency and charge interest. They then sweep up mounds of cash. It can then be used to buy the actual assets. The common man is then encouraged to keep his wealth in the form of currency which devalues and is anyway deposited with the elite at a low interest return.

Ideas I associate with the Austrian School are control of the money supply, and the idea of asset-backed currency.When Christian, another genius, talks about free market money I think he means that currencies are issued and the users decide which one to use/hold based on their security & long term value.
The problem with asset backed currencies are that if the backing asset is a scarce and finite commodity like Gold, there is an incentive to salt away the paper as it will clearly appreciate. This could cause deflation and economic stagnation. So the model we have today is pro-growth with currency issuance trying to shadow growth so we get a gentle inflation. In a fiat scenario this of course affords the issuing entity the opportunity to run a perpetual deficit. This is why that entity needs to be publicly owned.

I do not believe we have had a true Gold standard since paper promissory notes began to be issued (by the Templars). Although the British currency used to say ‘ I promise to pay the bearer on demand’ they clearly issued more paper than they had gold. Everybody isn’t going to knock on the bank’s door simultaneously. This is why what Jefferson said is right, because the business of building a vault, and issuing paper backed by gold 1:1 at interest is not a great money-maker.

The Dollar is the first global reserve currency where there was no pretence of any underlying asset backing. The Fed was in the position where it could lend valueless paper to the USA at interest, and this would not inflate USA too much because all the world wanted to fill its vaults with this stuff. So there is the fundamental weakness for the Dollar, and TPTB can crash it when they need to. (Thanks Putin) But to launch the phoenix currency tyranny they need to destroy the others. That is harder because broadly they have been issued in line with the size of the economic area that they cover. So those individual areas need to be crashed. Debt among other things being the weapon.

So Paul I totally agree with you. Nationalise the Fed and regain your sovereignty.

I think Bitcoin has been co-opted from the start. I remember hearing that it is structured such that each transfer is recorded-like a list of owners. If this is the case how can it be stolen? I guess it was designed that way unfortunately.

[christian]

Ideas I associate with the Austrian School are control of the money supply, and the idea of asset-backed currency.

Austrians don't wanna control the money supply, they want the market to do it. Free-market money is an Austrian concept. Within that framework, currencies can be issued and existing assets can be used as currencies. The market actors will decide which currency they will find practical. Thorsten Polleit (http://www.thorsten-polleit.com/3Feb2011.pdf) argues that a generally accepted currency would have to be:


scarce
durable
homogenous
coinable
valued
transportable

Precious metals meet these standards, so it would be likely to see currencies based on those. Of course there would then always be some monetary inflation because of mining.


The problem with asset backed currencies are that if the backing asset is a scarce and finite commodity like Gold, there is an incentive to salt away the paper as it will clearly appreciate. This could cause deflation and economic stagnation.

When there are competing currencies, the most valuable ones would be salted away. Gold rather than paper, for example. This principle is called Gresham's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law). You would want to keep what's precious, take in what's precious, and pay with what's not so precious.

If there is no expansion of the money supply during an increase of goods and services, this would lead to deflation indeed. However, that's nothing more than an increase in purchasing power. An increase that can't be taxed, so governments hate it. Everything would be cheaper. That's not an issue. I'd get less for the potatoes I sell, but I'd also need less money for the apples I buy. Deflation in and of itself does not cause economic stagnation.

The expansion of the money supply, however, does cause economic distortions that may lead to stagnation. The reason for that is that market actors are affected by an expansion of the money supply in different ways. The ones who get the new money first benefit the most. This is called the Cantillon Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon#Monetary_theory). If they use that money for example to destroy and control, this will lead to stagnation or recession.

Austrians like Ludwig von Mises argued that even an equally distributed expansion of the money supply doesn't benefit the economy as a whole. In his seminal Theory of Money and Credit (http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msT9.html#Part%20IV,Ch.23), he concludes that the continuous state-run expansion of the money supply can only be sustained if it develops into some form of centrally controlled world currency or world central bank. He was opposed to that. He was in favor of a gold standard, but not one that would be imposed by law. He simply assumed that people would agree on trading with gold if they had the right to actually choose. In general he was in favor of people's right to choose a currency.


Cynics dispose of the advocacy of a restitution of the gold standard by calling it utopian. Yet we have only the choice between two utopias: the utopia of a market economy, not paralyzed by government sabotage on the one hand, and the utopia of totalitarian all-round planning on the other hand. The choice of the first alternative implies the decision in favor of the gold standard.

[ThePythonicCow]

Yesterday, Ken, over at RedefiningGod.com, posted an update that provides strong confirmation, backed with historical evidence, of my thesis in this thread. I encourage those interested in this topic to read his update
Globalist Agenda Watch 2015: Update 15 – Like it or not, here is more on the Rockefeller connection to Austrian economics (http://redefininggod.com/2015/02/globalist-agenda-watch-2015-update-15-like-it-or-not-here-is-more-on-the-rockefeller-connection-to-austrian-economics/)
Thanks to some source links in Ken's article, I have now started reading Anthony Migchels' Real Currencies (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/) blog. Excellent material.

Here are some of his best postings, based on his own list of "Top Posts" here (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/), and a bit of my own filtering and reading:

Who is Ed Griffin? (January 18, 2012) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/who-is-ed-griffin/)
Top Ten Lies and Mistakes of Austrian Economics (January 25, 2012) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/top-ten-lies-and-mistakes-of-austrian-economics/)
How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics (February 17, 2012) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/how-the-money-power-created-libertarianism-and-austrian-economics/)
the Power of Demurrage: the Wörgl Phenomenon (July 2, 2012) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/the-power-of-demurrage-the-worgl-phenomenon/)
The Dying Dollar and the Rise of a New Currency Order (April 7, 2013) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/the-dying-dollar/)
Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? (July 15, 2013) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/does-rothschild-own-all-central-banks/)
Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity (October 7, 2013) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/cause-and-effects-of-money-scarcity/)
Capitalism Is Jewish Usury(June 5, 2014) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/capitalism-is-jewish-usury/)
The BRICS Bank: Next Stop On The Road To World Currency (August 20, 2014) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-brics-bank-next-stop-on-the-road-to-world-currency/)
The Plane Truth: Usury And The Rise Of The Bankster Dictatorship (August 27, 2014) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/the-plane-truth-usury-and-the-rise-of-the-bankster-dictatorship/)
How Usury Encloses The Commons (November 15, 2014) (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/how-usury-encloses-the-commons/)

I fundamentally agree with Anthony Migchels' view that it is usury in the hands of the money masters (those empowered to issue money) that destroys civilizations.

Such usury requires us to pay back more than was borrowed, compounded exponentially. When our primary, almost exclusive, source of money is by such usury, then eventually we end up owing the shirt on our back, the bed we sleep in, the ground we walk on, and the fields we plant our food in ... to these money masters.

By means of usury, in the hands of the money masters, the "commons" ... the natural property, land and resources, that were here before us humans and that we humans share the benefits of with each other and with other life on this planet ... are taken by the money lenders and placed under the full control and ownership of their corporations, governments, courts, banks, military and other institutions of their bidding.

[ThePythonicCow]

Austrians don't wanna control the money supply, they want the market to do it. Free-market money is an Austrian concept. Within that framework, currencies can be issued and existing assets can be used as currencies. The market actors will decide which currency they will find practical.
To be clear to other readers of this thread, I am becoming increasingly inclined to support the analyses of such as Ken of RedefiningGod.com (http://RedefiningGod.com) and Anthony Migchels of Real Currencies (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/), who are concluding that Austrian economics is the counter to Keynesian economics, and both are deliberate distractions from the real dynamics of what is enslaving humanity.

Paintings of the Elysian Fields are of little benefit to someone trapped on a ridge in the high mountains.

[christian]

I am becoming increasingly inclined to support the analyses of such as Ken of RedefiningGod.com (http://RedefiningGod.com) and Anthony Migchels of Real Currencies (https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/), who are concluding that Austrian economics is the counter to Keynesian economics, and both are deliberate distractions from the real dynamics of what is enslaving humanity.

Austrian economics are the counter to Keynesian economics. As such, Austrian economics are the theory of applied economic freedom with no or with a minimum of state intervention. They're therefore pointing out one aspect of what's enslaving humanity as well as a solution for that aspect.

However, if all I choose to strive for is the immediate implementation of Austrian principles without considering the bigger picture, then I'm at fault, not Austrian economics. Humanity certainly has more issues to cope with than economic models, and I think it's appropriate to look at the state we're in, ways of reconciling our history, and ways for a future framework and development in a holistic way. No one part of that holistic view is then something that distracts from a bigger picture, but something that complements it.

I do sometimes observe a reluctance or even rejection of information out of the "truth movement" from within the ranks of Libertarian (Austrian) thinkers. I reckon that this is genuine in some cases and orchestrated in others. The establishment certainly has a fear of these two groups—the Libertarians and the "truthers"—coming together. It fears groups coming together in general, but a merger of these two has a uniquely high leverage, I think.

[ThePythonicCow]

Keynesian on one side, Austrian on the other; both sides of the dialectic controlled by the same central source. When are we going to get this lesson? I see it everywhere, and this thread is helping to illustrate that.

All those that are aflutter over the BRIC alliance need to take a closer look.

Yes ... and this is so whether it is their left wing, or their right wing, that flutters the most :).