On Interest

1. 
   Jamie permalink

   GREAT POST……..PARASITISM SUCKS

   Reply
2. 
   Jack permalink

   There is no mystery to projecting the pattern of failure engendered by any purported economy subject to interest.
   As interest multiplies debt in proportion to a circulation, ever more of every existing dollar is dedicated to servicing multiplying debt, and ever less of every existing dollar can be dedicated to sustaining the commerce which is obligated to service the multiplying debt. Everything around you can be understood from the obvious consequences.

   Solution here: http://endtheecb.ning.com/video/mathematically-perfected

   by Mike Montagne: http://www.perfecteconomy.com

   Reply
3. 
   mike montagne - founder PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy permalink

   You have a lot gall, pretending to resolve the ramifications of interest here at the eleventh hour of failure.

   If you were the least informed researcher, you can hardly be unaware of my work, which published a) a mathematic proof that any purported economy subject to interest inevitably engenders its own failure under terminal sums of insoluble debt; and b) that there is one and one only integral solution for 1) inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest.

   In other words, the problems were solved thirty years ago. I even provided the Reagan Administration with computer models, complete with source code which you can still download from my pages, which projected the present failure would transpire at approximately 2010 AD. You can still run early 1980s data and the relevant pattern of de-escalation of interest rates to reproduce that projection.

   Margrit Kennedy, for your information, is one of my major plagiarists. Ditto for Ellen Hodgson Brown; Stephen Zarlenga; Jacques Jaikaran… the list has been growing for almost 20 years. You show me one thing these people have demonstrated since I introduced all this material — already proving solution 30 years ago.

   Reply
4. 
   mike montagne - founder PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy permalink

   PS.

   1. In public debates at OpEd News, your friend Ellen Hodgson Brown has even denied interest is the problem!

   2. Zarlenga, even after thoroughly plagiarizing my theses, likewise proved he doesn’t even understand the central issue: He advocated a “Chicago Plan” (Depression era measures) which is basically comprised of higher rates of interest than we can even presently endure. Iin other words, he advocating lowering interest *some*, instead of solving the problem — and he is proven wrong by the fact interest rates have *necessarily* already been lowered below the ceiling he ineptly recommended. The failure continues to precipitate then, because as I had explained so long ago, *any* rate of interest which must be re-borrowed to maintain a vital circulation can only multiply debt in proportion to a vital circulation until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt.

   3. Jaikaran begins the first page of “his” “Debt Virus” plagiarizing my *PARABLE* of Perfect Economy — an even which never happened, and which features MY words, issued from the mouth of Benjamin Franklin. Great job Jacques.

   4. Ellen Hodgson Brown wouldn’t even “know” about “the Pennsylvania Currency” if it weren’t for my same parable. She couldn’t even explain how this currency was not inflationary; much less how it might not be deflationary either (which she didn’t claim); and when she was informed that Franklin’s words were mine, what did she do after claiming “it” (my story) was the most brilliant banking model in our history?

   She retracted her assertion that it (my story) was the most brilliant banking model in our history!

   Now (or last I was informed by supporters) she advocates a Nebraska state banking model, which of course has no power to solve the categoric faults of pretended economy.

   Oh, and why does she say the interest has to be introduced with the principal?

   That’s the best she can do without even more flamingly obvious plagiarism, because she can’t even explain why interest inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt in proportion to a vital circulation.

   She even DENIES interest is the problem!

   Oh, but as my 30-40-year-old thesis proves her wrong, “her” solution will morph into mine.

   Little doubt.

   5. You know about Margrit Kennedy, and you don’t know about mathematically perfected economy?

   Baloney. Show me anything she’s published which pre-dates 1979 — when I published proof of inevitable failure and singular solution.

   And WE *NEED* (yet) innovation?

   You mean so you or one of these phonies can publish solution as your own?

   Or are you ready to debate solution right now?

   Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     Mike, are you still following this thread?
     I have not been paying sufficient attention to your posts and would like to get in touch with you.

     I just mailed Ellen Brown this article, and was rereading it and its comments and only now I heard what you were saying.

     Let me put this straight: I’m not saying ANYTHING new. I’m not plagiarizing either, I’m on a crusade and just arming myself with the knowledge and experience of my predecessors, of which most have gone down in history as total nobodies.

     I did not hear of your MPE, simple as that, but I’m pretty sure your used to that, annoying as it may be.

     Contact me at info@gelre-handelsnetwerken.nl

     Reply
     • 
       Mike Montagne permalink

       Anthony, no I haven’t followed this thread. The only reason I’ve visited it is that many of my followers have insisted I post back. I don’t mean to denigrate your blog — I only mean to say I just don’t have the time, particularly as so many of the points are revisited again and again, without either assimilation or disproof of fact and its only solution.

       I could not in just a few words explain well (and with full accountability) what I mean by plagiarism in every literal and legal sense of the word. But I can give two perfectly self-evident accounts:

       My 1975 Parable of Perfect Economy spoke the words of mike montagne through the fictional mouth of Benjamin Franklin. I used to explain this when I gave my presentation, asking a question about the two *conflicting* monetary cases it presents to a usually stunned audience.

       The first of the two propositions embodies the rightful role of promissory obligations in a the only possible pattern of a just economy.

       The latter of these two conflicting propositions was an embedded fault, which has Franklin offering a phenomenal answer to a (hypothetical) question, how to fund government with promissory obligations.

       Franklin (actually yours truly) in turn explains how to do so without taxation at all. Only to lend false credibility to *my parable* (which I would eventually explain was false), did I suggest these facts descend from the *actual* Franklin’s essay, “A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency.” If you read that paper (best taken from its most pristine source at the University of Virginia pages), you’ll find in fact that the real Franklin only mused about solution and even so, by quite casual questions which would have steered the young Franklin to the answers with little refinement of their form and context.

       Today then, it is certainly quite unremarkable that monetary imposters argue against me now, that Franklin had advocated “spending” (or purportedly even “gifting”) “money” into circulation, for the proposition comes strictly from my work. In my 44 years of research, I discover that no prior source even presented a case for this proposition — and yet of course, while eleventh-hour pretenders will claim to have dug up one or two possible cases, the fact is they would never even understand such cases if they weren’t looking for them, owing to the proposition I assert through the fictional mouth of Benjamin Franklin. The *story* likewise compelled all the not-so-quite-true stir about usury being the actual cause of the American revolution.

       Why?

       Because so many plagiarized the story *as if their research turned up the account from history*, that it became a common myth. Every replication, approximation, adulteration, or dependence upon that story is plagiarism. Jacques Jaikaran (who wrote me beforehand) plagiarizes the story from the first page of “his” “Debt Virus.” I was informed just days ago, that Ellen Hodgson Brown plagiarizes it in “her” “Web of Debt” — proclaiming what she wrongly calls “the Pennsylvania Currency,” to be the most brilliant “banking model” in history.

       Quite a few years ago I was asked by MPE-supporters to engage EHB in online forums at OpEd News. She claims to have done 6 years of research — merely kludging work out of her realm of expertise (or development) into a fabrication of purported authority. When I asked her to explain how this “Pennsylvania Currency” was the most brilliant banking model in history (knowing of course it was mine — from the same Parable of Perfect Economy), she couldn’t cite a single principle. She replied that it was a “land bank.” Of course, such a bank existed in the approximate era of the fabled parable; but when I asked her what principles of this bank made it such a brilliant model… neither could she answer this question (I’ll debate it with her this very second).

       Finally I informed her that her only source for such a brilliant model (after all, she’s advocating spending money into circulation right this moment, isn’t she? [and the source of that proposition is a tale of a Pennsylvania Currency, which is just a parable — not history at all])… after I informed her the story was a parable — that it was my *fictional* explanation of mathematically perfected economy™, issued through the fictional mouth of Benjamin Franklin… what did she do?

       Likewise without citing a principle which achieves the vital objects which can only be achieved by mathematically perfected economy™… she simply ceased commending what inadvertently referred to the work she only plagiarized to pretend she’s an authority she most certainly is not. Her very book proves so. (Quite indelibly in fact.)

       So there are several things going on which incontrovertibly trace from my work (often imitated by eleventh hour pretenders):

       Uniformly, almost all plausible monetary reform efforts today (including Ellen’s preposterous proposition of spending interest into circulation!)… practically all these efforts share a common attribute of eradicating interest, without proving how and why. My work is not only the original such proof — it is still the only such proof. My original essay, “Interest IS Usury,” nonetheless is plagiarized prolifically around the internet and conventional literature (by folks such as Ron Paul right-hand man, Edwin Vieira for instance), as if it argues for gold. On the contrary, it is a proof that any rate of interest which requires re-borrowing interest back into circulation (thus above principal), inherently and irreversibly multiplies every prior sum of falsified debt by so much as periodic interest on an ever greater sum of falsified debt, until we succumb to the present terminal failure.

       Although this work has been published in various forms since 1968, it was certainly the first monetary reform presence on the Internet (what eventually became the Internet), in computer models, source code, and documentation of dual theses a) of inevitable monetary failure as a consequence of the present obfuscation of our currency, and b) of a singular (one and one only *possible*) integral solution for three only possible categoric faults of any prospective monetary thesis. Volumetric improprieties (circulatory inflation and deflation) thus may exist in some combination with “maldisposition” (inherent multiplication of falsified indebtedness by interest, dedicating ever more of the circulation to servicing an escalating sum of falsified debt, as opposed to sustaining the industry and commerce which are compelled to do so. Thus these improprieties may exist in the potential combination of 1) volumetric aberration, 2) volumetric aberration in combination with maldisposition, and 3) maldisposition — with the literal expressions for these three only possible categoric faults then being 1) circulatory inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) maldisposition, presently engendered by inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of falsified indebtedness by the present obfuscation of our promissory obligations into falsified debts to a purported banking system, in turn subjected to an unwarranted imposition of interest.

       So my work has argued for 44 years now against interest — proving in fact that we do not borrow money from purported banking systems which in fact (because they give up no lawful consideration commensurable to the purported debts) only publish further representations of the promissory obligations of the people. My work thus unravels the ancient riddle of “the money changer.”

       No credible work therefore can dispense with interest without citing these original proofs — however much of course the idea is bantered about without apprehension and accountability for all the ramifications of interest — which these facts alone uncover and account for. Anybody who pretends to resolve these things afterward (from a general tendency to believe interest is unwarranted), has always done so for the wrong reasons (only pretending to dredge some wayward concept up); and, uniformly, as they are proven wrong in the reasons they attempt to dredge up to justify an already-proven fact; their position generally morphs ever moreso toward mine — while the general tendency of pretended authorities and plagiarists of course is to pretend the original realizations which preceded them are theirs.

       So, although I do see that much of my original terminology (which is indispensable to conveying the original ideas) has leaked into your work, still, (as you may well know) no one who rightly accredits their sources plagiarizes. So long as you do so, your own work is credible to whatever further degree you can justify it. I would caution you then to merely assert that my proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ is somehow imperfect or incomplete (as one of your articles does); and I would be instructive then to add that to make your assertion credible, you must at least demonstrate in a plausibly comprehensive way that your assertion is indeed correct. To avoid embarrassment on that matter (as I must of course defend my work against such assaults, if I myself am to be deemed credible), that we have a gentlemanly discussion of the matter. That’s what genuine authorities do. They don’t always agree right away; but given a fact of one truth, those who remain credible ruminate out the work they would otherwise carelessly disparage — which in this case for example, may precipitate in 10,000 families a day losing their homes in just the United States.

       The matter is serious; and our best attention to it is imperative. There is a reason that Bill Still, Ellen Hodgson Brown, Stephen Zarlenga, and so forth won’t debate me publicly; and we don’t have to look very far to uncover it.

       Folks like Ellen Hodgson Brown, Bill Still, Stephen Zarlenga, and Gary North are another matter. They only produce the most notorious of many trivial, imitating works.

       Ellen of course would never have advocated spending interest into circulation, if it weren’t for my (only) invalidation of interest, and its inevitably terminal consequences (which she can’t even articulate). No one who uncovered these supposedly obvious facts would ever call them a Ponzi Scheme. Neither would we suggest spending interest might “solve” the consequences — particularly after proving interest is unjustified (and unjustifiable).

       Like Ellen now, Stephen Zarlenga is now advocating spending money into circulation. Where did this idea come from, if, as he originally advocated, reduced rates of interest (in a “Chicago Plan” which he neither authored) would save us? His own pupils have insisted he have me speak at his purported conferences. Interest has fallen below the interest rates he advocated, and, as my essay “Interest IS Usury” proved 35 years ago — any rate of interest which must be borrowed back into circulation is inherently (nonetheless) terminal. Zarlenga wrote me upon completion of “his” book to help him promote it(!) —saying we were of like mind. When I asked what was this prior science he had resurrected (likewise existing only in my parable); and when I further asked how he claimed to resurrect a lost science without invalidating my proposition of mathematically perfected economy™ (which has always claimed by the way to be a *singular* integral solution for our three only prospective faults)… when I asked how he could know we were of like mind without being aware of all this; and how he could resurrect a science preceding him without disproving my work, he simply never answered; and has never responded to a single call or email since.

       Bill Still is an even sorrier case. American Underground Network Radio and TV has an outstanding invitation (request actually) for Mr. Still to debate monetary solution with me. He won’t come to the table. TNS Radio has the same outstanding “invitation.”

       Who is Gary North?

       Gary called me back in the late 90s, interested in MPE™, and complaining himself about going broke. We had a seemingly pleasant discussion, but after learning I had 100,000 unique visitors a month to my web pages, the next (and last) thing I heard of Gary is he had a profit-making scheme in which if you paid a fee, he would disclose the faults or mathematically perfected economy™. He was telling people that Lincoln had already done the same things (not true at all; and in fact, there’s no evidence Lincoln even pursued the necessary thinking but to its very beginning). In the end there might be relatively obscure differences, but those are the differences which account for all the matters at hand as Lincoln never did.

       We don’t have to look very hard at any of this therefore… to see to the bottom of it.

       Reply
       • 
         Anthony Migchels permalink

         Well, to be honest I can see why you are critical of debt free money. It is not quite as good as interest free credit and would know many problems. Not just the ones you mentioned. But it is much better than the current ways and it would be a major blow the Money Power. Also, it is deeply rooted in American Populist traditions, and that’s also important.

         But I can see you would feel like you’re the only one in the US.
         But in Europe everybody thinks in terms of interest free credit.

         WIR has been doing it for 80 years and they turn over 2 billion per year.

         Gottfried Feder wrote his manifesto in 1921 and would do just fine today.

         So I am not so impressed with your claim for fame.

         I too think in an interest free credit way, so I know all what you tell me.

         All.

         Sorry to upset you.

         Reply
         • 
           Mike Montagne permalink

           Debt-free money has much more major faults than you imagine. It isn’t “better” or “worse,” it is what it is. I used to explain these issues after completing an oral presentation of my parable. I would let the audience ruminate on the whole story, before asking (regularly), “Now, what is wrong with this story?”

           I would then explain how (given circumstances) impose the same cost upon us in the way of inflation.

           Far worse however are two further faults.

           The first of these is that the size/assets/infrastructures of government have to be so great as all the circulation required to sustain intended industry and commerce — in other words, you force yourself to have a massive state merely for the sake of a circulation which needs to be resolved otherwise. It simply “seems” or “sounds good” that we provide ourselves a free lunch by “spending” “the money” into circulation. But as higher prices persist owing to circulatory inflation, it is conceivable we pay the price over and over again of what instead should be paid out of circulation as we consume of it. Thus a proper understanding of promissory obligations predicates the only just means of taxation as well — which is the only thing which averts the potential costs of inflation — and accomplishes all this even without administration, owing only to an obligatory schedule of payment. Thus it is not a solution at all — nor are we ever actually just spending money into circulation — if we ever plan to adjust the solution by taxation.

           Worse still if money is spent into circulation, you deny the people the benefits of promissory obligations.

           This is the whole issue that Paul Grignon pretends is rightly deduced from my explanation of the obfuscation (he provides no disproof; acknowledges where it comes from; but gets it wrong). There is no injury whatever in unexploited promissory obligations, because *you are still paying just the principal*. Now then, consider what you do if you “just spend money into circulation”: a newlywed couple might for instance readily afford a $100,000 home with a 1000-year lifespan under mathematically perfected economy™, because when we divide the lifespan into the initial cost, we get an overall rate of payment of $1,000 per year or $83.33 per month.

           What happens when you pretend to eradicate some only supposed evil of [unexploited] indebtedness then, by purportedly spending money into circulation?

           That couple instead has to save their lives for a home they could readily afford; and all the while then, only because we have denied them their right to issue unexploited promissory obligations (as “banking” does), they are subject to all the predation and exploitation upon the way which might prevent them from ever owning a home, or prevent them from doing so until perhaps the ends of their lives.

           Not only is this an injury to the couple, it’s an injury to the market as a whole then. But it is also an injury to the producer of the home, who is denied a market they perfectly well deserve to have otherwise.

           So this latter injury is in fact the greatest of all. Yet it precipitates only from the *misunderstanding* that unexploited promissory obligations are “bad” (“debt”); when debts which equate still to no more than the principal are obviously no injury whatever; when they and they alone in fact, instead enable consumption and production by the concept of paying for production as we consume of it; and when on the contrary, terminal debt is the consequence not of the possibility of [unexploited] debt — but instead multiplication of falsified indebtedness, by purported “interest.”

           “Money as Debt,” therefore only bears the title of a pretender who has never done the math. Now, all who follow mindlessly, would lead us astray likewise, to the aforesaid consequences — while all the while, mathematically perfected economy™ resolved all these issues 44 years ago.
         • 
           Anthony Migchels permalink

           I agree with all of this.
           Culminating in:

           “Worse still if money is spent into circulation, you deny the people the benefits of promissory obligations.”
           I too consider this debt free money’s main limitation.

           However, debt free money could be repaired. With a demurrage on it, it would circulate so fast as to enable paying up front. The demurrage must be spent back into circulation of course. That would solve the lack of liquidity (or totally overblowing the state).
           Also Social Credit has the people spend it into circulation, not Govt. That changes a lot too. Modern Social Crediters provide for forms of interest free credit.

           But still: interest free credit is best. That is clearly my position.

           Your proposition that the problem is not debt, but interest is self evident to me.

           The reason I go along with debt free money is because it is strongly rooted in American Populism and these people are for real. They just don’t get interest free credit yet.

           Clearly we should have interest free mortgages, which are indeed possible in the way you suggest.

           Like I said: I’m from Europe, I don’t do debt free money by nature, I just respect it because it’s the traditional American Populist response against the Money Power. In Europe we do interest free credit mainly. Although in Germany the Regional Currencies are euro backed notes with a demurrage. Because the problem is, that Mutual Credit cannot yet be made convertible. And that limits its acceptance in the market place when offered as a privately controlled unit (instead of a state unit).

           Have you a functioning system to make free market Mutual Credit units convertible?
         • 
           philo permalink

           How can you use the term “debt free money”? You don’t have a book entry currency unless there’s a debt. That’s what it is – a convenient way of transferring debt. A debit on a borrowers account, and a credit on a lender/seller(for lack of a better term) account.
         • 
           Anthony Migchels permalink

           Debt free money are notes printed by the Govt. They are not debt. They are not to be repaid and circulate for ever.
           It’s another form of interest free money, just not debt based.

           The Greenback is debt free money.
         • 
           philo permalink

           What in my video on greenbacks doesn’t make sense to you? I specify that they must be issued directly to an individual. The person then creates debt by spending them. The person gives back what he got and nothing more before retiring from the market thus extinguishing his debt. What you’re suggesting is just as much of a fantasy as the gold standard. Debt free vs. gold standard = banker domination.
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     Hi Mike,

     I have contacted Ellen Brown with the following:

     Dear Ms. Brown,

     My name is Anthony Migchels and I\’m the initiator of the \’Gelre\’, the first regional currency in the Netherlands.

     I\’m a great admirer of your work. I believe it is probably the most outstanding concerning money in the US.

     However, I\’m from Europe and here there has been, I believe, a more profound appreciation of a crucial matter: interest.

     I have noticed quite often, especially with the gold people, but also in your work, that the true scale of this problem is not fully appreciated.

     Have you heard of Helmut Creutz and Margrit Kennedy? Have you studied their work?

     I have put the major problems with interest in a short essay which you can find here:
     http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/on-interest/

     I would be interested in your feedback.

     Keep up the good work and all the best,
     Anthony Migchels

     She replied this:
     Thanks Anthony. I agree with you on that. Where do you think we disagree?
     Best wishes, Ellen

     I’d be interested in your input on the OpEd thing.
     Anthony

     Reply
     • 
       Mike Montagne permalink

       Margrit Kennedy is likewise a major plagiarist of my work; and the way you can ascertain this is to note that while all the objection to interest can only rest upon the obfuscation of the currency I expose, none of the plagiarist ever mentioned the matter in their work until I exposed just one of the final cards I’m holding to my chest.

       Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     Hi Mike,

     I don’t think you should claim the truth about money to be your own.
     Everything was known long before 1979.

     Like I stated above:
     “Feder wrote a book ‘breaking the shackles of interest’ and later advised Hitler, who was to say time and again, that ‘the kernel of National Socialism is breaking the thralldom of interest’. Maybe that did some damage by association to the theme.”

     Saying anybody saying something worthwile on interest is ‘plagiarizing’ you is almost as silly as saying I claim to have invented all this myself……

     I respect your work, but modesty brings more recognition.

     Reply
     • 
       philo permalink

       If you don’t follow Montagne mindlessly and his stupid “foundry” model of facilitating currency/debt, then you are a plagiarizer.

       Reply
       • 
         Mike Montagne permalink

         Philo,

         I’ve seen your immemorable Youtube ditties. You don’t even begin by identifying the improprieties at hand. Much less do you prove solution.

         Now, meanwhile, while I give a necessarily abbreviated account here (in repeating myself thousands of time over 44 years), I will assert just the same that the proposition of a singular integral solution for no more than three potential categoric faults has never been disproven. I note that you don’t offer a disproof (which would mark any diligent assertion).

         Now, if you don’t understand plagiarism (evident in your own work, because you can’t cite or even articulate any work resolving interest, obfuscations of our promissory obligations, and so forth… I suggest you study up on intellectual property rights. But just the same, no one with any integrity claims to invent themselves what has obviously been developed before them.j

         If either yourself or Mr. Migchels demonstrated how what my work proves of interest and the obfuscation of our currency was realized beforehand, it’s really quite remarkable how that same assertion is absent not only in the works of the founding fathers — but in all work since.

         Have you explained these things? Certainly not prior to 1979 (or 1968).

         But even if ever, how?

         You see, unless you can do so, then you’re just a pretender — which of course would be deduced from your “stupid foundry model” remark.

         If on the other hand you are a credible author or architect or monetary theory (or fact), then you would prove what is wrong with the model — particularly insofar as an integral solution of 1) circulatory inflation and deflation; 2) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and 3) inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of falsified indebtedness by interest are concerned.

         If there are further/other potential categoric faults, likewise you would demonstrate how.

         Likewise, if an alternate solution were possible, you would give and prove it.

         I don’t even see that you understand therefore what credible work is.

         Just the same, what is your problem with the idea?

         If you would like a starting point, you might see my essays responding to William B. Ryan (of Kent State “Capital Ownership Group”) and G. Edward Griffin — both of whom only tried to disprove that interest inherently multiplies falsified indebtedness.

         The very attempt to do so of course would invalidate that it is common knowledge (pre-1979, or ever) what the ramifications of interest are. But still, to establish that asserted fact, you would cite a veritable pre-1979 source. I’ve never found one; and I’ve had literally thousands of people send faulty tries.

         Nonetheless, what Ryan and Griffin attempt to do wouldn’t even invalidate mathematically perfected economy™: on the contrary, their futile attempts would only invalidate that interest engenders the consequences neither of you articulate — and yet claim are common pre-1979 knowledge. Griffin and Ryan themselves then, inherently dispute you.

         No one but no one has made any credible attempt to invalidate nonetheless that an eradication of interest and obligatory schedule of payment retiring principal at the rate of consumption or depreciation of the related property solves all three (and thus all prospective) categoric faults.

         You’re welcome to be the first to do so. But the math is elementary and virtually indisputable (owing only to the fact people today *will* dispute what is indisputable). It is possible that our currency instead should be subject to exploitation; or that any other schedule of payment solves the categoric faults in the only rightful implementation which you simply call “stupid”?

         Reply
     • 
       Mike Montagne permalink

       If you can legitimately say so, then you can point out where and how it was “known.” There are many complaints against banking and interest — none of which unravel the problem in the necessarily complete ways which allow us to resolve whatever problems are engendered. You can’t solve a problem unless you identify it at least in such explicit, incontrovertible terms.

       Now, you and Philo may complain you yourselves are accomplishing that object, but I don’t think either of you want me to pour over your work, pronouncing all the obvious faults in it.

       Reply
   • 
     Anthony Migchels permalink

     Reply
5. 
   mike montagne - founder PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy permalink

   Here’s a little ditty for you to listen to:

   http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3247397568-audio-player.swf?audioUrl=http://www.perfecteconomy.org/1m9e7d9/a20100213calbimm.tut

   Reply
6. 
   KingofthePaupers permalink

   Anthony Migchels: “This is the yoke that we carry. This is the worst kind of slavery, because it is slavery without even realizing it. This is interest and let it never be forgotten.”
   Jct: That’s why I chose the name Abolitionist Party of Canada when I had the chance to found a party, an anti-slavery party here to finish the job, get rid of the invisible debt chains that the old Abolitionists didn’t see as they got rid of the metal chains.

   “This is our mortal enemy and let us never take our eyes of it again, until it is thrown into the fire of hell, together with the usurers enslaving us with it.”
   Jct: No need to throw anything into hell, just switch it off.
   http://johnturmel.com/contb.jpg

   Reply
7. 
   Edward Weglowski permalink

   on sub-prime loan you pay in 30 years for each 100K as much as 300-400k.

   The money are created as the debt on 3 bank accounts, the borrowing bank, the borrowing client and the lending bank. The 2 accounts of bank institutions are splitting the profit paid the client by formula deriving from interest rate by which they go into the deal.

   Let me tell where another financial problem lies that effects the whole economy. The formation of world capital has such a magnitude, that all the trillions of dollars of deposits sitting there crates cost to banks going into inventing fees to all of us, just to cover it.

   Reply
8. 
   Paul Paskey permalink

   Have you folks seen this?

   Ellen Brown’s Web of Debt Is an Anti-Gold Currency, Pro-Fiat Money, Greenback, Keynesian Tract. Here, I Take It Apart, Error by Error. Gary North

   http://www.garynorth.com/public/department141.cfm

   It would seem Ellen Brown,J.D. has a skillful detractor.

   Reply
9. 
   Jack permalink

   The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. Once you understand (MPE) supporting anything else is economic suicide!! The solution to your fate is Mathematically Perfected Economy, ….but will you listen?

   http://endtheecb.ning.com/video/mathematically-perfected

   Reply
10. 
    philo permalink

    In this article, you say “Now, because of the fact that the principal is created but not the money to pay the interest, money is intrinsically scarce.”
    The money to pay the “interest” is created when the banker debits the borrowers account with “interest” and credits his own account. Money becomes scarce when the bank doesn’t facilitate new debt as old debt is extinguished.
    I see Montagne has commented on this article. Maybe you could explain to him what I’m saying – lol.

    Reply
    • 
      Anthony Migchels permalink

      I explain in two articles that the money is created by bookkeeping and we pay 300k for a 200k mortgage. I literally say ‘I gather you know you’ve been had’.

      To me that’s about as clear as it gets, but you have your way of saying it!

      Reply
      • 
        philo permalink

        No, you’re saying the extra 100k isn’t created until another loan is facilitated. It’s created as soon as the debits are added to the borrower account and credits are added to the bankers account. So, you’re not being clear at all. Just admit that you have been had. I had to admit it. It was very hard and painful.

        Reply
        • 
          Anthony Migchels permalink

          Really?
          If I take out a mortgage, I start paying the next month. And that money is coming from my income.

          Reply
        • 
          Anthony Migchels permalink

          It is true that if I don’t pay because my balance doesn’t allow it they’ll just let me go into the red. At such a moment the ‘interest’ is indeed created at the spot. But I don’t think that’s the norm.

          Reply
          • 
            philo permalink

            It is absolutely “normal” for a banker to credit his own account as he adds debits to the borrowers account as “interest” accruement – that’s new money on top of the principal that was created. Go to work in a bank. The first thing you learn is NEVER debit an account without crediting another account and vice versa.
          • 
            philo permalink

            But, I should add, in the case a borrower defaults, the debits are taken off the book without the corresponding credits being taken off anyone’s account. This is the main cause of inflationary pressure – dilution of what we perceive a dollar to be worth. Privatize profits, collectivize losses.
            Could you add a comments feed?
          • 
            mike montagne -- PFMPE permalink

            Neither of you appear to understand the transformation of money. There is no “inflationary pressure” whatever.

            So long as purported debts are collateralized in fact, it is impossible to suffer “circulatory inflation” (traditionally defined as purported increases in a circulation per represented properties). Generally, the purported “Fed” allows the circulation to increase some 2% annually — which of course is generally far less than improvements or increases in production.

            The “inflation” you aspire to understand is generally a misnomer applied to “price inflation,” only as if price inflation were a consequence of circulatory inflation — a circulatory inflation which is not even demonstrated to exist.

            For example, Ron Paul regularly claims that “inflation” (circulatory inflation) has caused a devaluation of the currency. He only claims this as a consequence of how much money is purportedly entering circulation — referring inherently to what is a stream of further credit.

            But the math of the matter is the math which determines the resultant circulation — generally growing at some 2% (whether or not that’s the actual rate matters not — but why not?).

            Yet to determine *actual* circulatory inflation, we cannot simply claim what new loans are being made are increasing the circulation held by industry and commerce, because industry and commerce are paying interest and principal out of a general circulation which can only be restored by *equal* further borrowing. (See my articles responding to William B. Ryan and G. Edward Griffin — both of whom attempted to disprove this in regard to my work.)

            So *the math* which determines the resultant circulation is C2 = C1 – (P + I) + D, where C2 is the resultant circulation, C1 is the initial circulation, and P and I are periodic payments against principal and interest respectively.

            It is commonly held that P and I ostensibly “remain in circulation,” simply because they persist in existence. This matters not, because so long as either are held by banks, they can serve none of the purposes of industry or commerce, until they re-enter the possession of industry or commerce by either:

            1.) reflation, performed by borrowing principal and interest back into the general circulation; or,

            2.) absorption of our production by banking.

            The latter is virtually impossible, because to negate the whole to which it is impossible either a) to pay down prior sums of debt (which requires the banking to system to absorb all the production represented by the principal [and thus in sum, virtually all our production]; and because it is impossible likewise to avoid further multiplication of falsified indebtedness unless b) the banking system likewise absorbs all the interest — the two of which are impossible, because the sum of production is only the principal; and the interest therefore exceeds the principal.

            But in practice, purported banking systems do little if any of either, because this would tip the hapless populace of their obfuscation of our currency; and because they acquire so much as is possible to acquire by simply allowing reflation to take its inevitable course.

            Thus you can actually calculate the maximum possible lifespan of any purported economy subject to their obfuscation, by borrowing reiteratively re-borrowing principal and interest back into circulation (less some negligible absorption of production), with re-borrowed/reflated principal always comprising new debt, equal to a former sum of debt we would otherwise presume to be resolved (making it mathematically impossible [given the lack of absorption] to pay down any prior sum of falsified debt); and with interest borrowed back into circulation as new debt therefore perpetually increasing a sum of falsified debt until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt which in exceeding our ability or possibility of servicing it from a circulation which can sustain the industry necessary to do so, in turn destroys our credit-worthiness to do so.

            Thus the final stages of the present global monetary failure engender rapid, fatal deflation; and, as I have said for 44 years now, these conditions are only solved by mathematically perfected economy™.

            I know Anthony, that you claim all of the prospective propositions of solution are either incomplete or imperfect. I hope you understand how destructive that assertion is, if in fact you cannot prove a fault in mathematically perfected economy™.

            Likewise Philo, I am aprised of your poor, eleventh hour attempts to imitate the far better work which precedes you — as if you yourself were re-inventing an already existent solution — not even discovering the problems which are to be resolved (just one of which is explicitly explained herein).

            Thus I invite the both of you to interview on my regular TNS Radio broadcasts (out of Ireland).

            Nonetheless, the “inflation” which you hope to express can only reflect price inflation; and this is the incontrovertible consequence (as I proved in 1968) of *interest* — that is, of “maldisposition,” which is the inevitable consequence of interest, as our promissory obligations to pay and to retire principal from circulation are obfuscated into falsified debts to a purported banking system (which only produces further representations of our promissory obligations); and these falsified debts are subjected to unwarranted interest — only *as if* rightful property of the banking system were at stake.

            Thus, quite contrary to Mr. Paul and the regular assertions of purported “Austrian economics” (not capitalized purposely), interest and “banking” inherently devalue the resultant currency at even an inherently escalating rate, as ever greater portions of the circulation are dedicated to servicing debt — as opposed to sustaining the industry and commerce which are wrongfully obliged to do so.
          • 
            Anthony Migchels permalink

            Thanks Mike!
          • 
            philo permalink

            Just because you’re extremely long winded doesn’t mean anything you say makes sense. Yes, I would love to debate you. We could talk about what free market actually means. We could talk about why someone would trademark an approach to monetary reform. We could talk about how you claim to be such a great mathematician, but you don’t seem to grasp the concept of simple addition of signed numbers.
          • 
            Mike Montagne permalink

            You see Anthony, how things go sour. This would be a remark you would recommend I ignor.

            But as I said, there’s no disproof at all — only a claim it’s all somehow unintelligible. It’s simple math to follow the explanation of interest I’ve provided. Yet it’s unintelligible — and “signed numbers” somehow demonstrate some higher or more relevant fact, which just somehow invalidates what isn’t even understood, that it could be unintelligible.

            For your information, Philo, I didn’t find you on Youtube; others pointed out how you attempted to imitate a process of developing solution. None of us take you seriously. After all, if you had a solution, you’d validate it.

            As to why anyone would trademark “mathematically perfected economy™,” that’s been explained far too often already to make new material for a radio audience, which itself is far beyond your reasoning of a truly free market, economy, or enterprise. See my radio archives for my interview with Austrian Robert Murphy — and if you want a chance to dispute it, and prove you at least have a position worth hearing; I’d be glad to have you on the show.

            But if you think a mere spitting match puts you amongst the monetary elite, all this is just over your head. Who has time for insults? Show the way man. If you can prove my “stupid foundry” idea isn’t the only free enterprise, the only free markets, the only true economy, and the only true justice, then DO IT.

            We’ll all salute you. But until then, you’re just making noise. Nobody wants to hear that — even if you think you’re about to be the star of my radio show.

            Just give us a credible hint you have something worth listening to, and maybe we will.

            Signed numbers by the way (unless you’re claiming something other than the usual meaning), generally only indicate positive or negative. If you think somehow I don’t understand them (how I can only imagine), will let you just rest on your assumed laurel. I’ve only been a software engineer since the early 1980s.
          • 
            Anthony Migchels permalink

            Then be on your way Mike, with God’s Speed!

            I hope and pray that your “mathematically perfected economy™” will liberate us all from interest slavery!

            I have great respect for your work and am absolutely positive that it would suit us all just fine.

            Any decent system that ends the Money Power’s usurious usurpation can count on my wholehearted support!

            We may disagree it’s the only system, we do fully agree “mathematically perfected economy™” is wonderful!

            Anthony
          • 
            Mike Montagne permalink

            Thanks, buddy. You’re part of this now. So why don’t we have a pleasant visit, to sort all this out?
          • 
            philo permalink

            So you think I should trademark my plan? After the banks are long gone, private local brokerages have been established, and the bankers and all their agents are in protected exile on a remote island, you’ll probably still be saying “we need a foundry to make it even better”.
          • 
            Mike Montagne permalink

            Just for your edification, Philo, no credible software author could fail to understand the concepts of signed numbers. I mean, the most rudimentary familiarity with software engineering would certainly anticipate that a fellow who produced computer models for the Reagan Administration which calculated that the present failure would transpire at approximately 2010 AD would certainly have signed numbers under their belt. No serious work is possible otherwise.

            Moreover, they’re really one of the first principles of math we’re ever taught, once we have the concepts of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division under our belts. So how you would think I wouldn’t understand them is beyond me, because anyone with a second-grade education understands them. FYI, I was in college algebra classes in the second grade.

            Here’s how signed numbers work in computers for instance:

            We might have signed or unsigned variations of a byte integer for instance (thus represented by 8 bits, which therefore can represent 256 values.

            The unsigned byte integer therefore is usually implemented (in the first to the last of its possible values) to represent any integer between 0 and 255, inclusive.

            The signed byte integer will therefore generally be implemented to represent anything between -127 and +128 inclusive.

            Simple stuff, Philo.

            We both know why people deploy such a technique to denigrate. But what we really want in any credible arena is credible argument. Thus I don’t even see why you object to my “windiness,” particularly as your remarks require a credible proposition to cover the bases.

            Can we be friends yet, or are you just bent on asserting I’m stupid?

            Whatever the case, you have to add my public Skype ID to your contacts if you want to vent your authority. That would be pfmpe2012
          • 
            johnturmel permalink

            Mike Montagne: Industry and commerce are paying interest and principal out of a general circulation”
            Jct: http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm explains how http://johnturmel.com/bank.htm is the blueprint of the fractional reserve banking system we are suffering. Notice that only the principal paid off goes down the drain out of general circulation. The interest paid does not cease to exist as did the principal payment. I bet $50 our money reform “architect” has his blueprint wrong. Har har har.
          • 
            johnturmel permalink

            That’s http://johnturmel.com/bank.jpg
          • 
            Holland4MPE permalink

            Why would we give a private bank control of the circulation? Stupid is as stupid does, burp burp burp
11. 
    Mike Montagne permalink

    Let me be clear on one further thing. I’d even forgive Ellen Hodgson Brown in a heartbeat, if she’d just come clean on all this. You know, we have a country to repair — and anybody who stands in the way only forces their self to be mowed out of the way. Far too much is at stake for pretenders to proffer themselves in the stead of solution.

    Reply
    • 
      Anthony Migchels permalink

      Then just carry on man.

      Don’t waste your time with this plagiarize thing.

      Just educate the uninitiated in a friendly way and don’t have everyone kiss your ass.

      Reply
      • 
        Mike Montagne permalink

        No, no, no. You don’t understand quite yet — all day, every day, I’m required to answer to the plagiarists. There were people here who were hopeful you and I could have a discussion; and I can see why they think you would grasp this and eventually be an excellent advocate. Nobody is hoping to foist an indoctrination upon you. Critical, independent thinkers make the best advocates of humanity. Credibility means crossing our t’s and dotting our i’s before we step beyond the gate.

        But no, I don’t answer to *all* the plagiarism — every case of it. That would be impossible.

        Nonetheless, as I said, credibility requires answering at least to each category of dissent — plagiarism spans many such categories.

        Reply
    • 
      philo permalink

      From the guy who trademarks his approach and accuses everyone of plagiarizing. Did bankers reverse engineer your ideas and figure out how to swindle everyone thousands of years ago? Just copy me, you’ll get your glory.

      Reply
12. 
    KingofthePaupers permalink

    there has been no really comprehensive and satisfactory analysis of interest in the Anglo Saxon world. In fact, most analysts concentrate on the fact that money is debt. There seems to be some kind of consensus that debt is the heart of the issue. But it is not. Without interest, debt would not be a problem as I worked out here.
    Jct: http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm is an advanced engineering analysis of interest by the only professor of banking systems engineering on the planet.

    Reply
    • 
      philo permalink

      Interest can actually only be charged if someone loans something that can be used to produce a product of which a percentage would be given to the lender like a tool that something is produced with, or a building to produce something in, or a piece of land that something is produced on. Banks don’t lend anything, they facilitate debt between a borrower and a person we call a “seller”(the actual lender). It’s an illusion that the bank lends, so the bank is actually embezzling. “Interest” will be a thing of the past after the banking industry is shut down. There will be only dividends for the mutual owners(stock holders) of the tools they use to produce stuff. If you don’t use the tools, you won’t own them for very long.

      Reply
13. 
    Jake permalink

    Join the debate here as well. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/demonstrable_facts_of_a_categori#comment-25749

    Reply
14. 
    Tim permalink

    I stopped at point 1 because it didn’t make any sense to me: when a bank loans money, it doesn’t “create” that money; apart from the Fed, banks are just third-party entities who borrow from people with savings accounts, and lend to people with mortgages etc. A bank can’t lend if it doesn’t have enough savers, in which case it raises interest rates to increase supply of capital, and decrease demand. You said “this might be ok, or at least somewhat understandable, if you were borrowing this money from somebody else, who has been saving it” – you essentially are, but with the bank acting as a matchmaker between you and that other person, and taking a small cut for the service.

    Reply
    • 
      johnturmel permalink

      Tim: I stopped at point 1 because it didn’t make any sense to me: when a bank loans money, it doesn’t “create” that money; apart from the Fed, banks are just third-party entities who borrow from people with savings accounts, and lend to people with mortgages etc.
      Jct: Isn’t it neat how demanding old chips be deposited at the safety-deposit section of the cage to allow new chips to loaned out makes the suckers believe that they’re getting the old chips like a piggy bank when it really operates like a casino bank. http://johnturmel.com/bank.jpg is the real blueprint of the bank flows. http://johnturmel.com/bankmath.htm has the math. Maybe next time, you should read on and not trust what you’ve learned is automatically right. I bet you $50 commercial banks create the money for your loan and do not lend out depositors’ funds.

      Reply
      • 
        Anthony Migchels permalink

        Thanks John, that’s an enlightening graph.

        Reply
      • 
        Tim permalink

        I think I understand where you’re coming from: you’re looking at M2/M3, where a bank using a fractional reserve can deal with savings and loans of a much larger volume than actual money which they hold? If so, then I think we’re kind of on the same page.

        Reply
      • 
        krle permalink

        go read the basel accords.. maybe what you say is true to an extent for US banks.. whose capital adequacy is as I have read around zero.. (or used to be in the crunch) but not in Europe..

        Reply
        • 
          Anthony Migchels permalink

          In fact, it’s the other way around: the main US banks have higher capital reserves than the top Eurobanks.

          Reply
          • 
            krle permalink

            I ll just believe you on that.. the comment was directed at the claim (by john) that the bank down the street creates M1 de nuovo.. the system creates m2/m3 through credit expansion, but it is only the central bank that “prints it” out of thin air.. he is right in a way though, cause banks are also depositors themselves, it is kind of like the time sharing scheme aint it..

            everyone “owns” it, but only until they all need it at the same time..
    • 
      Anthony Migchels permalink

      Hi Tim,

      John’s graph, combined with money as debt should show how it works. The new credit the bank produces when you take out the loan is deposited by you (or the one you pay) at another bank. Who then uses this deposit as ‘backing’ for creating another loan. Etc. This is fractional reserve banking……….

      Reply
    • 
      johnturmel permalink

      when a bank loans money, it doesn’t “create” that money; apart from the Fed, banks are just third-party entities who borrow from people with savings accounts, and lend to people with mortgages
      Jct: You stopped at point 1 because it contradicted what you’d been misinformed? I bet you $50 or 4 Hours that banks do not lend their depositors’ funds like a piggy bank but issue new chips like a casino bank http://johnturmel.com/bank.jpg So go learn some true banking systems engineering before being wrong in public.

      Reply
      • 
        Tim permalink

        Yes, point 1 of the explanation contradicts what I have learned. I’m trying to rectify that. No need for the attitude.

        Reply
        • 
          johnturmel permalink

          Jct: Sorry, I hadn’t realized I’d already responded to it. It was mistake, no attitude intended. Sorry.

          Reply
    • 
      Ocean permalink

      Watch “Money As Debt” on Youtube to see why it is that ALL banks create money “out of thin air”. It has NOTHING to do with depositors savings !!

      Reply
      • 
        Holland4MPE permalink

        Money is NOT created out of thin air. What a stupid frase is that. Money is created out of our production.

        Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Ri50W-MFI

        peas

        Reply
      • 
        usurykills permalink

        The movie is somewhat useful for understanding the problem but the premise is wrong.

        Money is NOT just debt — it is also credit. Think of a balance sheet. What is debt to the borrower is a credit for the bank.

        The power to create money rightfully belongs to the people themselves.

        I believe the people who made that film have an “interest” in your money!

        Reply
    • 
      krle permalink

      you are of course right, Tim, but they do not seem to like factual info.. if what they say were true, there could be no “bank run”

      Reply
      • 
        Joe permalink

        You are wrong. Tim is wrong. In fact, this is exactly why a bank run can happen. If what you are saying were true—that banks lend depositors’ savings—the money would always be there. The fact that bank runs are a real thing is a testament to the fact that banks lend money they do not have on hand (and then borrow it from other banks overnight or from the Fed if the money isn’t around in the overnight markets).

        Reply
15. 
    Arthur Ervin of the family Holderbaum-Bachmann, Lt. SAR RTO 111 SQDRN CAP USAF AUX permalink

    Usury and compound interest is a weapon formed against sovereignty and no weapon formed will prosper against those in Christ Isaiah 7:14 John 3:16. God has judged interest and usury. It is evil. It is sin. By: Arthur

    Reply
16. 
    Holland4MPE permalink

    If interest is proven to be the problem why would we want to charge either one interest? Money cannot be a product. http://www.perfectedeconomy.org

    Reply
17. 
    saudahsen permalink

    Reblogged this on Avant garde.

    Reply
18. 
    a permalink

    I came across this blog because i was trying to find some more in-depth, serious info on the monetary system/central banking etc.

    I believe that challenging accepted views, and questioning authority is important and so I’ll congratulate the author of the blog on that front.

    However, I would like to point out that when you use phrases like “in the hands of our Satanist masters” you immediately relegate yourself to one of ‘those people’. It is a whole lot harder to take the rest of the blog seriously, even if the articles turn out to be well researched etc…

    You (the author of the blog) may be a religious person, and thats fine, but everything has its time and place. There are many people who do not neccesarily share your views. If your goal is truly to educate the masses about the wrongs in the financial system, then surely you must realise that putting phrases like that in what would otherwise be a credible articles is ultimately hurting your goal. Surely you must realise this?

    Now I know that when conversation touches on religion, even some of the most ordinarily grounded people can become extremely defensive and irrational. I hope that that is not the case of the author of this blog. This is meant to be a helpful observation.

    The same goes for your views on conventional doctors/medecine. If your main goal is education about a flawed monetary system, then advising people to see traditional healers is only going to alienate an otherwise receptive audience. Once again, you may feel that traditional healers are the way forward, but accept that many people would not agree with you. I would advise you to stick to the main subject matter of your blog. It will be all the more effective.

    Then again chances are you wont like being told this and you’ll continue as before. The human phsyche (in all of us) is fragile and does not take well to criticism or change.

    All the best

    Reply
    • 
      Anthony Migchels permalink

      It’s not about religion.

      It’s about ‘conspiracy’.

      Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

1. Economy in DEATH spiral - Page 1016 - Stormfront
2. Economic discussions | richard writings
3. Why Bankers love Gold « Realcurrencies's Blog
4. Discussing Interest and Gold with the Daily Bell « Realcurrencies's Blog
5. Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics « Real Currencies
6. Usurious Usurpation « Real Currencies
7. Bitcoin, a Positive Step in Monetary Reform « Real Currencies
8. The Inflation vs. Deflation Dialectic « Real Currencies
9. Financial Warfare 2012: Boycott all Banks « Real Currencies
10. The Ron Paul Challenge: 10 reasons why the Alternative Media is failing this test « Real Currencies
11. Budget of an Interest Slave « Real Currencies
12. Top Ten Lies and Mistakes of Austrian Economics « Real Currencies
13. How about the Lectra? « Real Currencies
14. Why Gold is so strongly deflationary « Real Currencies
15. Responding to Gary North « Real Currencies
16. Gary North’s Bluff: the Lie he’s been sitting on for 50 years « Real Currencies
17. Debt Repudiation or an Interest Strike? « Real Currencies
18. The Problem is not Debt, it’s Interest « Real Currencies
19. Resist by Boycotting Your Bank!
20. Take your Money out of the Bank NOW! « Real Currencies
21. Conscious World con-w.com - Take Your Money Out Of The Bank Now!
22. Take your Money out of the Bank NOW! | Pakalert Press
23. Politics, Legislation and Economy News – « Family Survival Protocol
24. Militant Libertarian » Resist by Boycotting Your Bank!
25. Ambil Uang Anda keluar dari Bank SEKARANG! « My Way
26. FreeWestRadio.com » Blog Archive » Resist by Boycotting Your Bank!
27. Don’t hoard the Means of Exchange! (Part 1) « Real Currencies
28. Social Credit « Real Currencies
29. Social Credit « NESARA AUSTRALIA
30. On Interest - The Residents Therapeutic Independent Alternative News
31. The Problem is not Debt, it’s Interest (with Video!) « Real Currencies
32. On Interest | dysviz
33. Interest-Free Economics « regionalcurrencies
34. News Feed 20101013 | Gates of Vienna
35. Why the Economy MUST grow « Real Currencies
36. Babylon = Usury! We want Interest-Free Money! | Real Currencies
37. Our Chains are Forged by Usury
38. Forbidden News » Our Chains are Forged by Usury
39. A Real Currencies Top Ten | Real Currencies
40. Ten Atrocities that would not exist without Usury | Real Currencies
41. On Interest | The Money Chronicle | Scoop.it
42. Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity | Real Currencies
43. Linkage | Uncouth Reflections
44. Margrit Kennedy dies | Real Currencies
45. HUMANITY IS UNDER OCCULT ATTACK | Smoloko
46. Welvaart voor iedereen - Een eerlijker verdeling van welvaart is mogelijk
47. GAMBLING AWAY THE AMERICAN DREAM | Smoloko
48. Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics | News for the Blind
49. JEWISH BANKERS OWN AMERICA AND CONTROL THE ELECTIONS | Smoloko
50. Welvaart voor iedereen - Een eerlijker verdeling van welvaart is mogelijk
51. Bitcoin Currency: A Positive Step Toward Monetary Evolution : Waking Times
52. SECRETS OF JEWISH MONEY CONTROL – aladdinsmiraclelamp
53. Gilets Jaunes: Take your Money out of the Bank NOW! | Real Currencies