Friday, December 28, 2012

Thursday, December 27, 2012



Pencils H, B and 6B


This drawing was done from a still of the film Stalker.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Where is Thorin's beard?

It's Thorin: Thrain's son, Thror's son, king of the Lonely Mountain. You give him a beard and you give him a bloody big one, with braids, not some sparse and dinky close-trim.

And Thorin is florid and dignified in his speech, proud of bearing in his manners but not blinded thereby. He's not some pissy, arrogant, hard-hearted, somber man-model with the wet-look from the cover of some glamour magazine.

The dwarves are hearty and stout and have good appetites. They are not a bunch of ruffian frat boy rugby players, scraping the mud off their boots on Bilbo's furniture and burning the elven furniture for a fire on the elven porch in what is supposed to be the Last Homely House - the House of Elrond in the valley of Rivendell. Seriously, can you imagine? They actually burn furniture of the elves to make a food fire on the porch. And why do they do this? Well, that brings me to the next part.

You may be a vegan, Peter Jackson, and you may think it's all that, but elves, I assure you, are not vegans. Their food is most welcome to all the races of Middle-earth that are not evil. Nor are elves a bunch of absolutely remote, airy-fairy, asexual beings whose music is equally remote.

Gandalf knows his shit. He does not require the platonic caresses of Galadriel and her telling him in her annoying Cate Blanchett droning, affected voice not to be afraid, as Gandalf looks back at her all hopeful-eyed like he was about to cry. What bullshit.

And what up with the G-rated violence? Beren may have written the book in a style which he later abandoned, but even for that, the violence is, well, violence. Here though, when Bilbo pulls Sting out of an orc, it doesn't even have blood on it. The Great Goblin is supposed to get his head cut off and all his minions are supposed to go into a rage over it; not some stupid paper-cut across the belly and another across the throat together with a stupid one-liner that is supposed to be humourous. When Gandalf lights the cones on fire, it's his special fire that sort of explodes when it hits the wolves; not stupid regular fire where everyone else gets to join in in throwing regular-burning cones. Pathetic.

How does one so offend the soul of a work while being so milquetoast at the same time?

Let's see...what else. Oh yes, Cate Blanchett is so horrific a Galadriel it's not even funny. But we already knew that. I guess we just needed to be reminded.

Oh yeah, and Peter Jackson? You had to do the stupid butterfly thing with the eagles again, didn't you?

Yeah, I knew you would. It worked the first time back in 2001. You didn't need to wreck it.

Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas everyone! Happy holidays!




Sunday, December 16, 2012

Arvo Pärt - Piano

Couple of delicate piano pieces by Arvo Pärt. They remind me of Chopin.


Variations for the Healing of Arinushka:



 




Hymn to a Great City:




Saturday, December 15, 2012



Pencils H, B and 6B
















Pencils B, 6B and 2H
"Our ancestors decided that they could do without God, and in their misplaced optimism they thought that in rejecting him they were lifting up human liberty and dignity. But they didn't understand that he himself was our freedom, and that this true freedom was our salvation. And so our supposedly liberated and dignified souls found themselves adrift, only to become dingy and beaten down by the rotten luxuries of the false glory of violent entertainment, the false joy offered by advertising, the false connectedness of pornography. And that's where the next guy is right now, I have no doubt. He's reaching out for some relief, but in places where it can never be found, and it gets worse every day. And as the imprisoned soul turns in on itself, the unthinkable gets a little more thinkable each day. And so I pray for him." --Father Charles, a minor friar, How I'm Praying Today

And so should we all, in repentance.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Birds

I was wondering how birds fly in synchronization, noticing them now and again. Not birds like geese flying in a V, but the quick little birds.

There will be a gust of them, flying as a unit, and in mid-air all of them at once will veer sharp, not one bird lagging; and then another sudden hard angle turn, each of them at the same split second. How do they do this? They do not practice. You never see birds practicing their synchronization, do you? They just fly that way.

There is no leader, as there might be one at the head of the V, as with geese. But these quick little birds fly as an amoebic amalgam, constantly shifting its shape - totally synchronized.

There is only one explanation, and it is this: there is some music that they sense and they fly to this music. There is no other explanation.

If there is another explanation, and you would like to share it, please don't. I don't want to hear it. Because it's a damn lie. Thank you.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Misc.

Those that over-evaluate sex in Catholic teaching - to the point of holding it as the primary sign and impetus for realizing the incarnation of everything in Catholic teaching - simultaneously devalue (and distort, and drain) everything in Catholic teaching to the point of being worse off than an ignorant pagan: at least the ignorant pagan has a fighting chance to come to reverence the News which the prophets would have given everything to see. But those who twist Revelation into their own vain imaginings?

It will be worse for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah.

*

Love truth, or be damned.

*

What if there were world powers, which were evil and tightly knit, and they had every intention of taking over the world, and while still invisible to the public eye, they had differentiated themselves absolutely from the mad-dog repugnance of a Hitler and a Nero by first gaining for their poison crafts respectability - technological respectability, scientific respectability, cultural respectability, an almost omniscient respectability - and that respectability had been transferred down the social strata and conferred on you and me?

It would mean that any movement of revolt against this power would feel like a revolt against our very selves.

*

Did you know that depressions are not caused by stock-market crashes? Depressions, such as the one of the 30's, are not "caused" in any sense of there being a single "crashing" factor that then just happens to leave the populace in desperate lean times for a decade. Such is a sort of rot-gut economic calvinist myth. No, mankind for all his fallen nature has a resilience that must actually be chained through the application of external forces, continually applied, when it comes to economies - because that's what people do: they grow things, they have babies, they sell, they buy.

Depressions are not "caused"; rather, depressions are purposefully sustained, annum per annum. Depressions are sustained through the deliberate, continual contraction of the money supply, which is what happened exponentially with every year in the 30's - and that, in spite of a booming population.

During the depression of the 30's, billions of dollars of the money that was contracted year after year was funneled into Germany. Much of it also went to the Kennedy family. It went into building up Germany's infrastructure. So when the 40's rolled around, their money stolen from them, the American people were told, "You have to give up your husbands and sons". And they went to be killed and maimed fighting the forces that were built up with the money that was fleeced from them in the previous decade.

Money only and ever transfers hands.


*

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” --Theodore Roosevelt


“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” --Woodrow Wilson


“The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation… The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, … and control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”  --New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922


"In the first place, it is obvious that not only is wealth concentrated in our times but an immense power and despotic economic dictatorship is consolidated in the hands of a few, who often are not owners but only the trustees and managing directors of invested funds which they administer according to their own arbitrary will and pleasure.
This dictatorship is being most forcibly exercised by those who, since they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the life-blood whereby the entire economic system lives, and have so firmly in their grasp the soul, as it were, of economic life that no one can breathe against their will." --Pope Pius XI, QUADRAGESIMO ANNO


*

Of course, they said those kinds of things because they were just a bunch of kooky, paranoid fringe conspiracy theorists.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012



Pencils B, 6B and 2H

Deacon Jim Russell Quote

"And so, there has been a bit of conversation on “mature purity” at Paul Stilwell’s “Spike Is Best” blog (which has the dubious distinction of possessing such animosity toward Christopher West that Paul actually deliberately posted daily attacks on West for the whole of the last Lenten season—not sure how one grows in holiness doing so, but there it is…)." --Deacon Jim Russell: the Body Guard

Flipping that pancake

"The whole problem of "pornovision" and of "pornography," as it appears on the basis of what was said above, is not the effect of a puritanical mentality or of a narrow moralism, nor is it the product of a way of thinking burdened by Manichaeism." --Pope John Paul II, Theology of the Body, 62

Well. I guess Christopher West must have missed that part.

It's understandable. People make mistakes. It's a big book.

Golden Oldie X

Monday, December 10, 2012

Filling these hearts with self-fulfillment

You know how the last post touches on how the saints that are "utterly pure" experience freedom from the dominion of concupiscence and how they experience union with God - that is, in experiencing themselves more and more as impure, like a mote in God's ray? Yes?

Which means that there is no one point in time in which a person, saint or no saint, can say, "I am pure" and that the person who is "utterly pure" is one who is rather completely imbued with God - that is, who has been emptied of self, in which case he experiences self as more and more impure, like a mote in God's benevolent ray? Yes?

Which means that freedom from concupiscence, or mature purity, is one which flees from the near occasion of sin, knowing the vulnerability to falling to sin, and it knows this because of the maturity of its love of God, yes?

And you know how Christopher West defines this mature purity, yes? by fixing it as the subjective experience of no longer experiencing lust--

What, you thought that was the end of the sentence? Ha! No (in which case it would still be wrong).

It's like this: Christopher West fixes the definition of mature purity not as the subjective experience of the self as impure in God's sight (while trusting in, and experiencing, His benevolent mercy and redemption happening right now), but as the subjective experience of no longer experiencing lust when seeing a Catholic apologist's naked wife.

Yeah, West must be using it in the same sense that JPII used it.

One mature purity sees beyond the self, and in so doing in Christ's graces, becomes free from concupiscence, which is no final end in itself. One "mature purity" focuses on the self as pure.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No one is pure: does not mean total depravity

The purity that St. John of the Cross writes about when he writes of union with God is not merely freedom from concupiscence. The saint writes of how the closer the soul comes to union with God the more impure the soul finds itself. One way of putting it could be that the soul begins to see itself more and more with the eyes of God, before whom no one is pure. That's right: in reality, which is God, no one is pure.

And what is the touching point by which the saint comes to mature purity? It is through the process of picking oneself back up, again and again. It does not matter if the saint is free from the sins that used to be a recurrence for him or her: the way the soul experiences and comes into mature purity of union with God is through picking oneself back up, again and again, right up to the point of death - where "picking oneself back up again" comes to be more like "entrusting oneself to God more and more".

This is true even when picking oneself back up, or entrusting oneself to God once more, has not been occasioned by any event of sin. For the soul never comes to some point in time in which it can say, "I am totally pure. I am done." Which is what the person claims when he believes in, and practices, a "purity" that he defines precisely in doing what he could not do before (or rather, doing exactly what he did before, with the exception that he gives himself exception from sin according to his subjective level of what he decides to call freedom from lust, which is whenever he decides to call it total arousal sent from heaven's song instead, and with the exception that now he can add pride and delusion to his list of sins and errors) thereby proving he is "redeemed" and thereby, in actual reality, debauching any true ethos of redemption.

If the person does not realize this, that person will at some point fall into despair, having thought himself totally pure - that is, thinking himself able to be cognizant of how objectively pure he is by his subjective experience of not feeling lust (whatever that may be, in whatever occasion of sin), which is his precious subjective version of "not lusting".

This is the fallacy which Christopher West's teaching of "mature purity" sets one up for: either despair or the further hardening of the soul in presumption.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Vertigo




The opening for Vertigo is "book-ended" with the film's conclusion. They both "hang" there. The film redounds upon itself, like a cyclic force, like vertigo: one of the reasons why some people find themselves returning to this film again and again.

One of the things that's so great about the opening of Vertigo is it doesn't give you any information, then or later, how Jimmy Stewart gets off the rooftop.

The film has a strong moral lesson about obsession.

Donald Spoto's biography of Hitchcock full of lies

When I was eighteen or so, I read Donald Spoto's biography of Alfred Hitchcock, The Dark Side of Genius: the Life of Alfred Hitchcock. In it, the later Hitchcock is portrayed as a rather dirty old man who, when he was dying, refused to have a priest and to be reconciled in the faith into which he was baptized and raised as a child.

I do remember that in this biography it talked of how the only driving Hitch would do was when he drove his daughter the short way to Mass, which he did regularly, though not attending Mass himself.

Anyways, that biography left me with an uneasiness as to what to think about Alfred Hitchcock the man. I've always loved his films, which made the uneasiness the greater. There's typically a hunch one has when the truth is not being told.

Thus it was with great relief that I just read this article about Hitchcock's last days written by one of the priests who was there.

"After we chatted for a while, we all crossed from the living room through a breezeway to his study, and there, with his wife, Alma, we celebrated a quiet Mass. Across from me were the bound volumes of his movie scripts, "The Birds," "Psycho," "North by Northwest" and others—a great distraction. Hitchcock had been away from the church for some time, and he answered the responses in Latin the old way. But the most remarkable sight was that after receiving communion, he silently cried, tears rolling down his huge cheeks."

Do read the entire article HERE.

Good, good God.

God is so good.

H/T: Father Z.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

When the circus is over: people will live by every word that comes from the mouth of God



Self-fulfillment twisting Christianity makes a return this coming new year with Christopher West's new book, Fill These Hearts. Same old schtick. Joined with a band he's doing his Fill These Hearts tour. Best way of doing business. Forget the very recent last book and its concomitant criticisms. Pop out a new one. Full steam ahead.

The cover picture of his new book reminds me of a joke that Bob tells in the wonderful movie, What About Bob?

He's in the psychiatric unit cracking jokes with the people working there:

So a psychiatrist has a patient and he draws a circle and he says, "What do you see?"

Patient says, "I see sex."

He draws a picture of a tree and he says, "What do you think about that?"

Patient says, "Sex."

Then he draws a picture of a car, a house...

"Sex, sex, sex."

The doctor says, "Well your obsessed with sex."

Patient says, "Well you're the one drawing all the dirty pictures."


So, no, I don't really care if people think I'm nuts for saying that the cover picture of Christopher West's new book is a subliminal vagina - and was meant to be. So I just went ahead and said it - just now. I think that cover was very purposefully thought out.

It's practically the one thing West would want people to say about it, too. Because then it's a sign that they are repressing their sexual longings and secretly seeing sex everywhere. And when they are talking critically about him, it only means they're talking about their own immature impurity, and projecting it on him - and his disciples. Say, he can use the What About Bob? pop-culture reference in his talks for that. Watertight cult. Debauch Revelation. Drink that Kool-aid. It's the banquet set for you.

Met a woman once who told me that people are saying that Christopher West is a living saint. He had come up in the conversation before and I had decided to say nothing. But when she broke out with the third-party living saint bit I started to say some things. A convert was there. Ex-Lutheran pastor. Converted because of Theology of the Body written by Pope John Paul II. Not by West. Found it so beautiful he decided only someone who had the truth could have written it. I was excercising restraint in releasing my opinions. Conversation didn't go very far. Woman got the gist I didn't think West's teachings were very good - that is, not at all a true interpretation of late Pope's Wednesday talks. She wasn't beholden either way. But she took up my doubts about West and pondered.

Went to a Katrina Zeno talk once. Someone paid for me to go. Only way I would go. Waste my Saturday. This person said to me I should go and find out what this Zeno is about. He said this to me before he knew anything about what I had written about Christopher West. Told me the thought came to him in prayer that I should go. Years before, he and others were instrumental in having a West gig here cancelled. LOL. So that's the only way I went. Katrina Zeno talk. Took some Zenotes. Sound recorder didn't work too well. Whole damn day. Ugh. Zeno getting audience to repeat many times throughout her talks one mantra. Zeno would say, "Theology of the body means--" and then she would implore audience for the taught answer, and audience would chant in unison: "the body reveals God".

Many times this mantra repeated: "the body reveals God." Bloody cultish.

And who would have thought of foreskins as a prefiguration of the temple veil that was rent apart to reveal the holy of holies upon our Lord's death?

Zeno goes on about significance of old covenant of circumcision: that the foreskin is a type of "veil" that is removed, or drawn back, to reveal...reveal what you say? Now, don't be a knob!

Or, of course, for the uncircumcised, this would mean perhaps that every time the man has an erection this would be an "unveiling". Holy. Every erection is "the desire for heaven gone beserk".

I think that talk was the 15 and older one. Not sure. Didn't seem to matter with the youngins running around while the penetration of the thin vaginal membrane was being used as the other analogy for the revelation through the veil - since theology of the body means what again?

In unison now: "the body reveals God".

This is what's making the circuit these days as "Catholic teaching".

Ug think Ug's erections come from fertility god. Ug build big penis towers. Ug erect big penis tower as offering to fertility god. Ug paint many penises on cave wall. Ug like that. What then you say? How many babies you make? Ug make many. Ug blessed by fertility god with many erections.

Ahhhh yes. Of course many folk from the same Zeno talk now reading this post would be likely to go ballistic saying I am twisting it and misrepresenting it and they'll be all standing up from their computers shrieking:





But it was you see. These false prophets work with sublimation.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

The Great Fleecing of the Ages

If money is being overprinted today, and overprinting is what's causing price inflation, then why are there not people arriving at stores with their wheelbarrows of worthless trash money to buy just a single loaf of bread? Why are there not people wallpapering their walls with their worthless trash cash if money is being overprinted and that overprinting is what's causing price inflation? If money is being overprinted today, then why aren't people's chequing accounts filled with thousands upon thousands of worthless electronic digits?

Answer: it is not being overprinted. The cause of price inflation is absolutely because of the interest on the debt. Interest rates go up, then so do prices, because people have to make a profit from what they sell. Businesses depend on loans. All money is a loan. The banks own 100% of the money all of the time.

Don't think so? In the beginning they do and in the long run they do - which is basically the definition of something that's on loan. The money that comes into existence as a loan did not exist before the loan was made. If all the money comes into existence as an interest-bearing loan, then - to repeat Byron Dale's simple and ingenious question - where does the money come from to pay the interest on the loan? That too has to be borrowed - at interest.

Which of course, leads to Dale's perceptive analogy:

"You cannot borrow yourself out of debt - no more than you can drink yourself sober."

The cheque that you get from work, the payment that you get for your services, is money that was, at some point in time, by some other person (whether in industry or government), at some other place, borrowed into existence as an interest-bearing loan. That's right: that fiat money in your wallet and purse came into being in the exact same way that credits on a credit card do. There is no fundamental difference between them.

Ah, but surely once a loan is paid back, that money then gets circulated back into the system in various ways and thus there comes to be money in the system that is not loaned?

You want to know the kicker? When a loan is paid back to the bank, they extinguish that money from the system. Before the loan was made, the money did not exist; the borrower's promise to pay is what brings the money into existence as a loan. When it is paid back, the banks extinguish that money from the system. Of course the interest from it they keep as their own and perhaps some of that goes back into the system, but the proportions of that to what is loaned, and loans refused, and what is called back, would not be near enough to make any difference whatsoever.

So yeah, no, there is no overprinting problem today, here in the west. The problem is completely different.

And when you hear people talking about the problem having to do with too much credit (and the "credit-addicted welfare slaves") as well as that damn fiat money, before going off into a tangent about how we need to become less dependent on government Anarcho-Capitalists, you can be assured they don't quite get it - indeed, that they miss the mark entirely. Because that fiat money is nothing but what the credit is. They are the same. The problem with the fiat money is not that it is fiat. The problem with it is that it is borrowed. The problem with government spending is not the spending, but that they borrow in order to spend (and of course, kicking the payment for the debts plus compounding interest to the next generations, not to mention flushing the nation's sovereignty down the toilet). Borrowing is not something exclusive to "credit-addicted welfare slaves"; it is the very foundation of our entire monetary system.

As has been said, if you are in debt, you may get out of debt as an individual; and no fault to you for getting out of debt, but the nature of the beast that has been spawned on us is such that an individual getting out of debt means someone else must go further into debt. Must. The system, being that all the money (or 95% of it) is loaned at interest, is naturally rigged - like a vast pyramid scheme in which all that happens is that debt gets shifted around - means that a number of people have to go bankrupt in order for some to get out of debt (with hopefully some assets to their name instead of merely arriving back at zero). Participation in the system scheme does not depend on whether you personally are in debt or not: in all of our transactions we are shifting around debt. And while individuals may get out of debt, the nation cannot - at least while this system scheme is being perpetuated. In order for that system scheme to keep going on, a nation must go deeper and deeper into debt.

The only way for a nation to get out of this scheme is for the nation's government to start printing its own debt-free money and spend it into existence.


"The power to create, issue and circulate the medium of exchange, which should be recognized as the supreme prerogative power of government, now forms the stock-in-trade of the business of our super-banking system, which functions as the servant of usury in the realm of high finance." --Gerry McGeer, The Conquest of Poverty - or Money, Humanity and Christianity


St. Matthew, pray for us.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Sunday, December 2, 2012

Misc.

So a tally was done for the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The tally was to find out Sunday Mass attendance.

This has to do with the Catholics Come Home project.

The number of Catholics in the Vancouver Archdiocese is something over 400, 000.

Of that number, some 83, 000 attend Sunday Mass.

*

I don't remember ever having genuine Turkish Delight before. I may have had it as a kid - I'm not sure.

Coming across it at the store, I bought a box: all-natural, vegan, no-gmo, gluten-free blah blah blah Turkish Delight.





I now understand Edmund.

*

"Necessity now compels all to recognize that the creation, and issuance of the medium of exchange, the monetization of public credit, the circulation of the medium of exchange, and the general supervision of the monetary system must be restored to government. If we are to make the Golden Rule the “ism” of Democracy we must drive the money changers out of the temples of government and put the spirit of Christ in charge. By such changes the sovereignty of usury can be overthrown and the elected representatives of the people may become the rulers of the “economic bloodstream of the nation”. Responsible government as an expression of Christian Democracy may then be maintained....


....Money must be restored to its proper function. It must be issued and circulated primarily as a tool of trade serving as the medium of exchange in the creation and distribution of the wealth essential to the need, convenience and existence of humanity. It must cease to be an instrument of appropriation functioning primarily for the purpose of impounding the wealth of the nation to the service of lovers of wealth and money power.
“Thou shalt not make unto you gods of silver or gods of gold,”
“Thou shalt not lend on usury”, and
“Thou shalt not worship mammon,”
sayeth the law and the laws of God must be obeyed."


--GERALD GRATTAN MCGEER,
4812 Belmont Avenue,
Vancouver, B.C.
January 6th, 1935.


Gerry McGeer was the 22nd mayor of Vancouver and he influenced then-Prime Minister Mackenzie King to end the debt-based monetary system and start a public debt-free legal tender, which ran from the mid 30's to the mid 70's.

After that, the nation went back to a debt-based monetary system...and what happened? Surprise! An atomic bomb of national debt was set off and has been spreading, and exponentially increasing, its foul radiation to the present.

Can you even imagine a politician today saying or writing the kinds of words as in the above quote though?






*

You know how there are lefty liberals who make claims that since Vatican II there have been modifications to teachings concerning sex and sexuality and the like? Yes? And the staunch traditionalists rightly show them what's what, yes? And some staunch traditionalists claim that there have been modifications to teachings concerning usury - the manipulation of money to make money - just like the lefty liberals claim with sodomy, yes?

Yes, glad we agree. Have a nice day.

*

"But Paul, but Paul!" I hear you saying. "But the gold standard wouldn't be usury! No, the gold standard is sort of like communism: it just hasn't been done right yet, that's all!"

*

"If you think that the price of money can't be changed, just get your business graph and see what happened to the prices of 'things' in the longest 'depression' the U.S. had ever experienced up to that time [1873]. As it worked with the 'half-shekel of the sanctuary,' so also it worked with the Gold Standard." --Fabious Melton Butler writing during the early thirties.

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Stupid

There's a frustrating response that people get when they dare to talk about solving the debt problem. People respond to these solutions as though we were not in the worst economic situation that has ever occurred - global collapse. Do you understand what that means? One nation after another, like dominoes.

When people bring up the actual solutions, real solutions, what they get in response is people with the same talking points - oh, that will cause inflation (as though we weren't living in the worst hyperinflation due to debt), and oh, that would have to be taxed (as though we weren't being taxed to death because of debt), like these were absolute pitfalls that implied we simply can't go there. Like we were seated in some economics theory class and had the omniscient luxury of laying out some perfect plan (which is never the case even in good times), rather than living in the worst economic situation the world has seen, and against which simple inflation or its risk and normal taxation would be paradise.

What stupidity.

You want to know why the debt problem doesn't get solved? It's because of economists and economic theory.

And it is the debt problem that is the problem.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Saying what I hold to be true about money

If money is just another commodity, then why aren't people haggling with each other at the checkout of every store across the nation? If I think my commodity of twenty dollars is worth the commodity of the seven foot apple tree in the nursery, then by golly, that checkout lady better be a good barterer, because I'm going to give her a hard time.


How can something that is an issuance be "backed"? All what you have then is an I.O.U. Which is basically another form of debt. You're contracepting the beneficence of the common good from happening with your transaction. Redeem this certificate for a nugget of gold. I.O.U.

Money has representative power merely from the principle under which it is issued, whether that principle is corrupt or good. And that principle does not "back" it, for the principle is what issued it - like seed.

Bad principle: the money shall be printed up, and rented out at a rate of compounding interest and it will ultimately represent wealth in terms of how many people go bankrupt for the beneficence of those that don't go bankrupt, because the money to pay interest on the loans (loans that account for the entire money supply) will come from the same place that the loans come from. (In other words, the money to pay the interest must also be rented, at interest.)

Good principle: the money shall be printed up and spent through a public work and its quantity will be carefully and transparently controlled in keeping with the common beneficence that its issuing represents, according to such things as population and GDP and thus it will ultimately represent wealth that is spread out and actually owned by people. Representation has a power about which we must be careful, and we are careful about it because we know it is a power.

Bad principle: this money shall be printed up and we will make it real by saying it has no representative power through the principle of its issuance, that it is nothing more than a commodity, but less than a commodity in that it can be unmade, and its reality and quantity will be decided by the prices that are set for a commodity that is largely owned by wealthy bankers.



This obsession with "backing" is such a protestant sort of obsession.

Is it any wonder that after seven centuries of prosperity under the tally stick system, the gold standard was re-instituted in England by none other than King Henry VIII? (LOL!)

While bartering is not economical contraception, neither is it propitious to any kind of growth of civilization which is the mark of Christendom.

The economical contraception of debt-interest money, of commodity "backed" money, and of a one-world global money, is a contraception currency by which transaction between parties is prevented from benefiting the common good - that is, from genuinely growing, from refining itself, from everything that is conducive to freedom.

It's sort of like the fear of having too many children and how are we going to pay for all of them. That's inflationary, so let's have the gold standard pill to keep our transactions safe, like safe sex. Except that in the case of the gold standard, only the wealthy will be having the "sex". But hey, at least the money won't be fiat. And that Hoover Hut - it will be a real hut.

Just as contraception has destabilized society, so it goes for the economical contraceptive of debt money; and so it will go, and has indeed gone many times before, for gold-backed money; and so it will go for microchips imbedded in the skin.

Okay, I've completely changed my mind about the gold standard

after watching this Byron Dale interview.

Greenbackers, inflationary fiatists - watch at your own risk.

Have the courage to admit you were wrong.









Denninger merely solidifies it:






My paradigm is shifted. I am completely solvent.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Monday, November 26, 2012

Baby Eaters

"From the earliest days human beings have made good use of unwanted children. They were thrown into the fires to feed Moloch a god of the Canaanite, they were employed as slaves and still are in many places. They were sacrificed to insure good harvests to the rain god Tlaloc by Aztec priests who then ritually ate their corpses. Why all the sentimentality about not eating them? No one wants them. Though there is very little actual eating of babies as of this current writing, I have every confidence that, with time, that will change.

....So let us be honest and brave and stop referring to abortion and abortion rights and abortion clinics. Let us call it what it is: Baby Eating. Those who participate in it are Baby Eaters. People need to say quite boldly and clearly that by their vote and their tolerance they admit that people have the right to eat their own babies, or the babies of those who throw their children in dumpsters. Baby Eaters. Get used to the term. We are a society that devours its young."


--Reverend Know-it-all responding to a query about Senomyx's use of fetal cell lines for developing better tasting drinks: HERE.

An Economy

Vincent [Pallotti] had a hatred of waste - whether of time or of material things. He used to carry a book with him so as not to waste time while waiting for anything. On one occasion a young priest had received a letter and was about to crumple it and throw it into the fire. Father Palloti stopped him and had him tear off the portions of paper which were not written on and put them into a basket. The young priest obeyed unwillingly, thinking that the effort was really a waste of time. When he had finished, Father Pallotti noted that the basket was full of paper - as indeed it was - and he asked the young priest to find one of the men who collected such scraps. The man came and paid about 10 cents for the basket of scraps.

Then Father Pallotti and the young priest went to pay a visit to the Hospital of the Holy Spirit. On the way, Father Pallotti stopped and bought a box of crackers with the coin. At the hospital, there was a great sinner in bed 15 of one of the large wards; he was dying. Whenever a priest would come near him, he would foam at the mouth and utter all manner of blasphemies. On being told of this man, the two priests first went to the chapel to pray for the man's soul, for, as our saint said, "God is all-powerful and wishes the salvation of this man more than we do ourselves."

On entering the ward, Father Pallotti went first and visited with a number of other patients. When the man in bed 15 began to rave and blaspheme, he noticed that no one was paying any attention to him, so he closed his eyes. Quickly, Father Vincent went to stand by his bed. When the man opened his eyes, he saw the priest in the act of blessing him. He opened his mouth and began to curse again, but before he was well-started Father Vincent slipped one of the crackers into his mouth, saying gently, "Eat, my son, it will do you good."

The man had to stop to chew the cracker and swallow it, giving the priest time to say a few words. When he began again to curse, the priest repeated the same maneuver, time and again.

At last divine grace conquered and the man began to weep. He made an act of contrition and Father Pallotti heard his confession. As the young priest held the candle for Extreme Unction, he heard the dying man say over and over, "My Jesus, mercy! Jesus, Mary and Joseph, assist me in my last agony!" And so he died with expressions of the deepest penance. Father Pallotti then turned to the young priest and said, "There is a soul saved and gone to Purgatory...you see, my friend, of what use were those little scraps of paper."


--A story from the life of Saint Vincent Pallotti, from Modern Saints Their Lives and Their Faces by Ann Ball

Prophecy

They will throw their silver into the streets, and their gold will be an unclean thing. Their silver and gold will not be able to save them in the day of the LORD's wrath. They will not satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs with it, for it has made them stumble into sin. --Ezekiel 7:19


And then in those days, figures such as Mike Maloney and Ron Paul will come forth telling the masses all about how they've had their paradigms shifted, and how only microchips imbedded in the skin are real money.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Money Quote - Aristotle


"...but it is by exchange that they hold together. This is why they give a prominent place to the temple of the Graces -- to promote the requital of services; for this is characteristic of grace -- we should serve in return one who has shown grace to us, and should another time take the initiative in showing it.

"Now proportionate return is secured by cross-conjunction. Let A be a builder, B a shoemaker, C a house, D a shoe. The builder, then, must get from the shoemaker the latter's work, and must himself give him in return his own. If, then, first there is proportionate equality of goods, and then reciprocal action takes place, the result we mention will be effected. If not, the bargain is not equal, and does not hold; for there is nothing to prevent the work of the one being better than that of the other; they must therefore be equated...For it is not two doctors that associate for exchange, but a doctor and a farmer, or in general people who are different and unequal; but these must be equated. This is why all things that are exchanged must be somehow comparable. It is for this end that money has been introduced, and it becomes in a sense an intermediate; for it measures all things, and therefore the excess and the defect -- how many shoes are equal to a house or to a given amount of food. The number of shoes exchanged for a house (or for a given amount of food) must therefore correspond to the ratio of builder to shoemaker. For if this be not so, there will be no exchange and no intercourse. And this proportion will not be effected unless the goods are somehow equal. All goods must therefore be measured by some one thing, as we said before. Now this unit is in truth demand, which holds all things together (for if men did not need one another's goods at all, or did not need them equally, there would be either no exchange or not the same exchange); but money has become by convention a sort of representative of demand; and this is why it has the name 'money' (nomisma) -- because it exists not by nature but by law (nomos) and it is in our power to change it and make it useless. There will, then, be reciprocity when the terms have been equated so that as farmer is to shoemaker, the amount of the shoemaker's work is to that of the farmer's work for which it exchanges. But we must not bring them into a figure of proportion when they have already exchanged (otherwise one extreme will have both excesses), but when they still have their own goods. Thus they are equals and associates just because this equality can be effected in their case. Let A be a farmer, C food, B a shoemaker, D his product equated to C. If it had not been possible for reciprocity to be thus effected, there would have been no association of the parties. That demand holds things together as a single unit is shown by the fact that when men do not need one another, i.e. when neither needs the other or one does not need the other, they do not exchange, as we do when some one wants what one has oneself, e.g. when people permit the exportation of corn in exchange for wine. This equation therefore must be established. And for the future exchange -- that if we do not need a thing now we shall have it if ever we do need it -- money is as it were our surety; for it must be possible for us to get what we want by bringing the money. Now the same thing happens to money itself as to goods -- it is not always worth the same; yet it tends to be steadier. This is why all goods must have a price set on them; for then there will always be exchange, and if so, association of man with man. Money, then, acting as a measure, makes goods commensurate and equates them; for neither would there have been association if there were not exchange, nor exchange if there were not equality, nor equality if there were not commensurability. Now in truth it is impossible that things differing so much should become commensurate, but with reference to demand they may become so sufficiently. There must, then, be a unit, and that fixed by agreement (for which reason it is called money); for it is this that makes all things commensurate, since all things are measured by money."


--Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics [bold italics mine]


So how can money equate things (make them comparable) when its equating power is constricted to a commodity, or any number of those commodities which are the very things that are equated?

Commodity "backing" (bi-metal or otherwise) of money is inverted. It is geared to sterility. It is the same act of sodomy that the usurers perform.

Bear it away

Walls were meant to keep silence,
and any sound through them
is always some kind of violence.

Chichikov

DID HE EVER TELL? 
By Pavel Chichikov


V. M. Blokhin
Has he descendants?
The one with the leather apron
And the leather hat
And the leather gloves to the shoulders
With the Walther pistol
With which he killed
300 Polish prisoners in one night
7,000 in four weeks

A monster, you might say
“A being, not a human being”
But to me he looks like someone’s uncle
He looks like one of us
Gazing from the surface of a mirror
Well shaved, indeed
With a straight razor

But now not needed
Not necessary
Not in this modern era
Because there will be machines
To do Stalin’s black work
Chyornaya rabota
And they need not be intelligent
But only diligent

Easy for machines to kill
With great dispatch
No vodka needed afterwards
And no remorse
No bothered sleep
No dreams
To cause the sleeper to sit upright
Shout and pull the phantom trigger

But who was Blokhin killing on those nights?
Whose blood hosed out on the sloping floor?
Whose neck was bared for the bullet?
Whom did he see as he killed?
Over and over again
Three minutes by three minutes
A resurrected body
That would not die—
                        Did he ever tell?




THE GATE 
By Pavel Chichikov

There is no Temple yet to see
Nor open wide the twelve-fold gates,
But I will change the maple tree
Into a ruby lit by light

Through your vision enter in,
The temple glows with joyful red,
A moment’s glimpse of labor’s end
Where light can resurrect the dead

This is foretelling and a sign
This dying into peace that glows,
A gate of ruby that is Mine
                        A jeweled way that you may go 



The Poetry of Pavel Chichikov

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Misc.

Last Saturday towards evening, after a day of rain and darkness, the clouds to the southwest broke open and sunlight came sidelong through like a golden cavalcade whose shouting victory made a double rainbow on the northern gloom; and the double rainbow was fully arched. It was so bright, so unbelievably solid, like thick glowing bars just taken from the smithy's furnace, that people all around were stopping and looking. At its outer edge the blue-black sky was held at bay, while the sky on the rainbow's inside was many degrees lighter - the perfect arch causing a summer-day resplendence within its own home.

Before I entered a store, I paused awhile to gaze. A man came out lingering, and I told him I had never seen a rainbow like that before. Then another man came out and started filming it on his little gadget thingy, and that somehow became a cue to turn inside and leave the sight behind.

*

Did you know that when you go to Mass on Sunday you are actually sanctifying the sabbath day? You are obliged not so much in the sense of one filling up a quota for God, but as one would be obliged to fulfill the opening up of a gift which, upon being opened, actually blesses the day, through your obedience to God's command. And that in turn blesses you - and others. This is part of the common priesthood to which everyone is called - man, woman, son and daughter: you are sanctifying the day, thus you are imitating Christ. Thus, when you do not go to Mass on Sunday, you are refusing to sanctify the sabbath day. You are profaning it.

It's hard to see this when Mass has been turned into an entertainment. And when Mass has been turned into entertainment it is never entertaining; it is just pure hell.

*

Any pursuit of beauty that goes unchastised, that goes without being humiliated and rebuked, will inevitably bring one to the ugly pit of insensibility.

*

Banks must be outlawed from practicing fractional reserve lending, which is lending money (at interest) that they do not actually have. Banks must be enforced by law to be able to lend only money they have. Imagine that: lending only money they have. Well, who would have thought? What a concept!

Governments must be outlawed from borrowing. Governments being outlawed from borrowing means they are then automatically beholden to their electorate who elected them into office; they become answerable to them, and not to unelected international bureaucrat bankers. For the borrower is servant to the lender.

Governments must print their own debt-free money, backed by nothing (for money is not "backable"), and spend it into existence. When the money is borrowed into existence, then no one (but the banks) owns that money, and thus no one owns the wealth which it should represent; and that is why incentives done under a debt system do not work. It's not because the money is "fiat"; it's not because of inflation - indeed, inflation today is nothing but the inevitable result of a debt money system; it's because the money is not the peoples.

When the government prints its own debt-free money and then spends it into existence, it releases ownership of that money. This is true distribution of wealth that simultaneously puts the incentive of producing wealth into the hands of the people. This is decentralization, and subsidiarity, and distributism - without that whole redistribution part. It's an open proposal communicated through the first experiment of being spent into existence. That release of being spent is the first touching point that goes to defining the growth that follows.

Money must not be "backed" by anything - indeed, money is not "backable", for it ever and only transfers, and when people think they have "backed" it with something, what they have done is merely transferred it to those who have the material that "backs" it.

The purpose of money (that is, debt-free money) is that it gives a common value to transaction itself, and simplifies it, whereas bartering is a discontinuous usage. Money is concomitant with the enacted model, or the principle, under which it is first issued. By being an issuance both before and after a transaction, it fixates transactions that are completed into a kind of societal memory bank, which, while providing "liquidity", is also a vast and continuing stabilization through manifest completed transactions, spread out, which is beneficence of the common good, which is economic stability, which can in turn do nothing but give birth to the incentive of further transaction.

Economies happen by enacted model; a model borne into existence out of which its bills come from that first successful experiment (the completion of a public work) and go into their secondary issuance: the second economy; an economy free for the public to shape and grow and expand.

Government ought to print its own money and spend the money into existence (which is what the governments are not doing today) - release totally from its hands its own money into the public through public works, which becomes the first animus, the first economical locus, indeed, the first completed exemplar economy: economies do not happen in a vacuum. They do not happen by "stimulis". Nor do economies happen in or by commodities. Commodities happen in economies. Contrary to our logic, transaction comes first: without transaction, commodities are not even commodities. Economies happen by enacted model.

Everything always has a model.

We've been led to believe that either a model doesn't matter, or that we don't have a model that's being enacted right now; and that if we do, it somehow isn't causing the consequences we're seeing. This is the result of economic contraception.

The truth is, there is always a model, and the model always matters, and the model is always consequential to any present economic condition that one sees.

When you have a government who makes the first economical locus one that borrows the money into existence, should anyone be surprised that a debt economy follows?

Likewise, if the first economical locus is one in which a commodity largely owned by wealthy people is made the "standard", then don't be surprised that a rule-by-rich economy follows, one in which the middle-class evaporates and the life-blood of the poor is sucked dry.




*



 


*



 

Friday, November 23, 2012

Golden Oldie VII




Still in the following Still Report touches on the 1869 Gould/Fisk gold scandal, which was the first - though not the only - originator of the term "Black Friday":






I always wonder why, when it comes to "fiat" money, some people refer to it in disdainful terms over the fact that it would come from, and would be circulated by, and controlled by, and gain its representation of wealth from, people - like the very thought that it comes from people means it is automatically an empty fraud - or as James Garfield put it: "the printed lies of the government".

It's as though after the references and job requirements were met, the hiring of a person for a job ultimately being decided on trust (which is ever and always the case) were a horrific and damnable frailty that needed to be cleansed from the human mind; and that if the person's performance in that position after being hired was excellent, it were to be declared a charade that came out of thin air because it wasn't "backed" every step of the way with the completion of those tasks for which the person was hired, before those tasks were ever completed.

But when it comes to the Gold Standard it is ubiquitously referred to in non-personal terms, like its market value did not come from people; and that a market value isn't "fiat", as though a market value is what makes and controls a "real" economy; and it's always referred to in terms of a kind of supra-clockwork auto-benevolence that will set things straight and make things "real", like it was some kind of monolith that just fell from the sky.

Never mind what gold and how much gold and where is the gold.

Whose gold are you referring to? The 2/3 of the world's gold that the national banks own?

The gold of the personal investments of Mike Maloney and Ron Paul? Oh yes, they certainly would love to see, and indeed, put forth their efforts towards, the implementation of a gold standard.

Yes, only gold and silver are money - right, and there's no such thing as conflict of interest. As long as your right hand does not know what your left is doing - I suppose that's how Maloney and Paul do it. It's the way the money-changers of the temple did it.



Update: The follow-up reports to the one above:






"Just as the rich rule the poor, so the borrower is servant to the lender." --Proverbs 22:7

 So what's wrong with the government borrowing? Gee, I wonder.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Couple of Gold Nuggets

"If you had an illegal enterprise, a fraudulent enterprise, that raked in multi-trillions of dollars per year, you could afford to spend a couple billion on P.R. just to keep people confused. And that's exactly what's going on." --Bill Still (on the banking plutocracy)

"The mainline Libertarian position, which just drives me nuts, is that government is too corrupt to fix the problem. Half the Libertarian party are these anarchists; you know, they think the government just won't work. Yeah, well, you've got a political party, and you're going to have national conventions, and try and elect presidential candidates, but you don't believe in government." --Bill Still



 

Monday, November 19, 2012

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Laugh or cry

"So a lesbian walks into a Muslim barbershop, and asks for a 'businessmen’s haircut'."

For real. In Canada.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

"McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut....
Oh, McGregor is politically correct. But just not politically correct enough. It’s like poker.

A white, Christian male has the lowest hand — it’s like he’s got just one high card, maybe an ace. So almost everyone trumps him.

A white woman is just a bit higher — like a pair of twos. Enough to beat a white man, but not much more.

A gay man is like having two pairs in poker.

A gay woman — a lesbian like McGregor — is like having three of a kind.

A black lesbian is a full house — pretty tough to beat.

Unless she’s also in a wheelchair, which means she’s pretty much a straight flush.

The only person who could trump that would be a royal flush. If the late Sammy Davis Jr. — who was black, Jewish and half-blind — were to convert to Islam and discover that he was 1/64th Aboriginal.

So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



















5B pencil

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Golden Oldie VI

"Gold is a relic of Julius Caesar and interest is an invention of Satan." Mr. Edison continued. "Gold is intrinsically of less utility than most metals. The probable reason why it is retained as the basis of money is that it is easy to control. And it is the control of money that constitutes the money questions. It is the control of money that is the root of all evils....

"....Then there is another way—the method my friend Ford proposed the other day. He proposes just to go along and forget about gold. He says that the Government can finance Muscle Shoals without applying to money brokers for permission, and I think he is absolutely right about it. Of course, as long as the world is on the gold basis, we shall have to recognize it as an element in the international trade, but it is not necessary for commerce within our own borders. In internal business we can forget it. And we do forget it. If everybody in the United States suddenly demanded gold for their money, there would not be enough gold.

"Gold and money are separate things, you see. Gold is the trick mechanism by which you can control money. Gold is not money until the people of the United States and other nations put their stamp on it. It is not the gold that makes the dollar. It is the dollar that makes the gold. Take the dollar out of the gold, and leave it merely yellow metal, and it sinks in value. Gold is established by law, just as silver was, and gold could be disestablished, demonetized by law, just as silver was. When silver was demonetized the former so-called dollar became worth about 50 cents."

"But would not Mr. Ford’s suggestion that Muscle Shoals be financed by a currency issue raise some objections?" Mr. Edison was asked.

"Certainly. There is a complete set of misleading slogans kept on hand for just such outbreaks of common sense among the people. The people are so ignorant of what they think are the intricacies of the money systems that they are easily impressed by big words. There would be new shrieks of 'fiat money' and 'paper money' and 'green-backism', and all the rest of it—the same old cries with which the people have been shouted down from the beginning."
  
--Thomas Edison in The New York Times interview, Ford Sees Wealth in Muscle Shoals, December 4, 1921

High Sugar

High Sugar
By Les Murray


Honey gave sweetness
to Athens and Rome,
and later, when splendour
might rise nearer home,

sweetness was still honey
since, pious or lax,
every cloister had its apiary
for honey and wax

but when kings and new doctrines
drained those deep hives
then millions of people
were shipped from their lives

to grow the high sugar
from which were refined
frigates, perukes, human races
and the liberal mind.

The Secret of Oz

Down the debt-based money!

Down the gold bugs!

Bring back the tally stick!

Bring back the Greenback!

Hear, hear! Hear, hear!




Heresy of Feelings

"I've been ranting for years now—in the confessional, the pulpit, in my office; probably even in my sleep—that one of the greatest modern heresies to infect the Church is the pernicious idea that all things spiritual must be felt in order to be true. For example, a woman comes to me in despair b/c God has abandoned her. I ask: what makes you think God has abandoned you? I just don't feel His presence anymore, she says. What am I supposed to say to this? What does it mean? If God—the source and summit of our being—abandons us, we won't be around anymore to feel anything! That she feels anything at all is proof positive that God has not abandoned her."

 --Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP in his post On mercy and the heresy of feelings, HERE

Friday, November 16, 2012

Just putting it out there

Subsidiarity is not the breaking down of a power into smaller and smaller units, but a power whose issuance is fully expended, fully spent, into a corporeal work which creates another body. This is what a government printing its own money and then spending it into existence through infrastructure is about: Catholic teaching.

The gold standard is the implementation of the law of the jungle and the turning over of creativity, time, energy, labour and invention to the bondage of an idol.


Update: Bitcoin is Kitcoin. It is the eradication of "who". The money issue is not a money issue. It is a national sovereignty issue. Free trade is not trade.


Update II:  The Magic Isle of Guernsey, By Bill Still:

The simple fact is that a nation's money should be created in the public interest. Unfortunately, that is not the case today in almost every nation on earth. Money creation is given over to private banks through the deception that it is being created in the public interest by national central banks such as the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, Bank de France, Deutsche Bundesbanke, etc.

Many believe that the only solution is a return to gold-backed money. I do not agree. I think this is yet another deception and I believe world monetary history proves this incontrovertibly. To me, the main point to remember is that it is not what backs the national money that is important; what is important is Who controls the quantity!

Despite the nationalistic-sounding names of these central banks, don't be deceived; they do not create money in the public interest. Every dollar, every pound, every euro is created as an interest bearing debt - primarily owed to - and the quantity controlled by - the commercial banking community.

The reason solution is two-fold:

1. Forbid government borrowing - no more national debt. Nations do not have to borrow. Nations can create their own money.

2. Forbid fractional reserve lending. This is where banks can lend out 10 to 12 times the money they actually have. Banks must go to "full-reserve lending".

In other words, the only way to end this worldwide spiral of depression is for every nation to return to a debt-free money system. Without the money power firmly in its control no nation can really be sovereign. In fact, creating money in the public interest is the very definition of sovereignty.

Fortunately, this is not a new or radical idea. It has been used hundreds of times throughout history, but every time it has been employed, it has been attacked mercilessly by the big banking class who lose profits whenever the idea of money creation in the public interest surfaces. So, this is a timeless struggle and nothing less than survival of the human species is at stake, because the debt the current system is generating is the primary cause of the world's hunger, poverty and misery, and is quickly destroying sovereign democratic governments and returning humanity to a nouveau-serfdom system from which it will soon be unable to escape.

Debt-free money creation has been going on in the tiny island of Guernsey for 200 years. Lets take a look.

Despite the fact that the island of Guernsey has only 30 square miles and a population of only 65,000 people and very little in the way of natural resources except cows; their per capita income is $40,000 per year, 9th highest among the 200 or so countries of the world. What gives? Guernsey has used a money system since 1817 that can serve as a model for the rest of the world to use to escape the ongoing depression of the 21st century.

Despite it's proximity to France, Guernsey is actually a British Crown Dependency and, to it's credit, has never joined the European Union. After the Napoleonic Wars, Guernsey was in dire straits. The island's roads were mere cart tracks, only 54-inches wide. In wet weather they were virtually impassable. There was not a vehicle for hire of any kind on the island. There was no trade, nor much hope of employment among the poor. The sea was washing away large tracts of land due to the sorry state of the dykes.

Guernsey, like most nations at that time (as well as today) had borrowed heavily from the banks. The States Debt was £19,137 with an annual interest charge of £2,390, but the gross national revenue of the entire island was only £3,000, leaving only paltry £610 per annum to run the entire island. In other words, interest paid to banks consumed 80% of the  GDP, thus reducing the populace to a state of pitiful serfdom.

In 1815, a committee of well-respected public spirited elders was assembled to finance the building of a public market near the the main harbor, Saint Peter Port, so the farmers could more easily sell their products for export. The cost of the new facility would be £6,000. In addition, fixing the dykes would cost an additional £10,000.

Further taxation of the impoverished island was impossible. Borrowing money from the banks would result in even higher interest charges that could never be paid. The committee made a historic recommendation to remedy this dire situation.

The committee recommends that the expense should be met by the issue of State Notes of £1 sterling to the value of £6,000.... and that these notes will be available not only for the payment of the new market, but also for Torteval Church, roads to construct, and other expenses of the States.

The committee argued that there was little to fear from inflation because the local banks already had £50,000 of their money (notes) in circulation. As a further protection against inflation, the overly cautious citizens of Guernsey placed redemption dates on the notes of April 1817, October 1817, and April 1818. In other words these notes were good for payment of taxes and good as regular money in circulation until the expiration date was reached. At that time, the notes would no longer be legal tender and the state would destroy them.

In this manner, without increasing the States' debt, it will be possible to finish these works, leaving sufficient money in the Exchequer for other needs.ii

Once the good citizens realised that these notes would work without the skies falling on the gentle island, additional issues took place in 1820 and 1821. By 1821, some £10,000 of Guernsey notes were in circulation, all created without debt.

[It was] the most advantageous method of meeting debts, from the point of view both of the public and the states finances. Indeed, the public seemed to realise this fact, and, far from being averse to taking the notes, they sought them out eagerly.iii

The citizenry clearly understood that these Guernsey Notes were clearly government financing in the public interest. They also realised that if there were to be any inflation as a result, at least it was better than no money at all, and at least they could all  shoulder the inflation equally.

In 1824, another £5,000 notes were issued for the markets, and in 1826 £20,000 to erect Elizabeth College and certain other schools.

In the bill d'Etat it was a frequent subject for congratulation; and it was stated over and over again by imminent men of those times that without the issue of States' notes, important public works, such as roads and buildings could not possibly have been carried out. Yet by means of the States' issue, not only were these works accomplished, but also the island was not a penny the poorer in interest charges. Indeed, the improvements had stimulated the flow of visitors to the island, and with increased trade, the island enjoyed its new-found prosperity.iv

In 126, however, the first signs of opposition by the banking community began. A complaint was lodged with the British Privy Council that Guernsey had no right to issue debt-free notes. However the Guernsey (also known as the 'States') Financial committee explained the situation to the satisfaction of all, and the matter was closed.

In the next year, surprise, surprise, a new commercial bank opened, called "Old Bank". They began printing up private bank notes in such quantity that the island became flooded with money. Soon Guernsey feared that inflation would set in - or worse that their own debt-free money experiment would be blamed for the inflation. So a committee was appointed to confer with the banks. What went on in these meetings remains a mystery to this day; but the result was that £15,000 of Guernsey Notes would be withdrawn from circulation and the government would be limited to issuing a grand total of only £40,000 of their own notes. This agreement remained in force until World War 1.

In the wake of World War 1, the banks came under severe restrictions on how much money they could issue. All bank money was being directed towards the war effort. But Guernsey was under no such restriction, probably because its experiment was unique, and perhaps forgotten.

Guernsey made good use of her opportunity. By the end of the war, in 1918, Guernsey had issued £14,000, and 40 years later, that had grown to £542,765. Today, private bank notes no longer exist. British money circulates side by side with State Notes.

Naturally, there is a greater demand for the State Notes; no sane citizen of Guernsey wishes to pay debt charges! To enlarge on this theme: In 1937 the States Note money, about £175,000, cost the States only £450 for printing and handling. A loan of the same dimensions would have about £11,383 annually. So can you blame the Guernsey taxpayers for preferring their own money since, under their sensible and benevolent financial system, they pay hardly any income tax.v

During the entire experiment in Guernsey, from 1817 to date, there has at no time been a threat of inflation from the creation of State Notes. At all times, the States were very careful in the issue and cancellation of notes according to their ability and requirements.vi

Today, Guernsey remains an island of prosperity. As author Ellen Brown puts it:

Guernsey has an income tax, but that tax is relatively low (a "flat" 20%), and it is simple and loophole free. It has no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, and no federal debt. Commercial banks service private [lending], but the government itself never goes into debt.

When it wants to create some private work or service, it just issues the money it needs to pay for the work. The Guernsey government has been issuing it's own money for nearly two centuries. During that time, the money supply has mushroomed to about 25 times its original size; yet the economy has not been troubled by price inflation, and it has remained prosperous and stable.viii

Once you understand the Guernsey story, you have to admire the modesty of their website:

Guernsey's ability to look after its own fiscal affairs has meant that it has been able to foster a favourable tax climate. This has led to many offshore banks, fund managers and insurance companies establishing here. Whilst the traditional industries of flower growing, fishing and dairy farming still playing an important part, contributing both to the varied economy and to the islands character.

Guernsey also has its own stamps and currency, and while the British pounds can be used on the island, Guernsey pounds cannot be used in the UK.!

But the question may arise,what keeps them from printing too much. They watch inflation closely, and the calculations are all completely transparent, run by a committee of citizens, and open for all to see on their website.

That's all they care about; Is this causing inflation? They expand as much as they want as long as it causes no inflation. They don't care about theory. Born out of desperate need, they found out the secret of money and have quietly gone about using it and thereby have a high standard of living and very low taxes.

Fortunately, the Guernsey experiment is not an aberration. It has been tried time and time again, and when the quantity is controlled in the public interest, always with success. The bankers, however, inevitably attack these in-the-public-interest, debt -free government issues of money. Debt-free money is in everyone's interest except bankers'. Typically, they will use their money and influence to create some financial emergency then bribe sufficient politicians to convince them to vote for legislation giving the bankers monopoly on issuing all the nation's money as a loan, thereby stripping the nation of its ability to issue its own money debt free.

During the depths of depression of the 1930's, the majority of economists in the US discovered this monetary reform solution. In 1936, Frank D. Graham, professor of economics at Princetown University offered his perspective in the American Economic Review:

"What we need is not control of banking but a government monopoly of the supply of money, with commercial banks left to lend on short-term...out of capital funds, debenture borrowings, and real time deposits. Such a system... is a[n] indispensable prerequisite to regulation of the money supply on which all attempts to bring greater stability into our economic system, through monetary means, must inevitably be based. We are certainly not likely to get stability so long as the supply of money remains even partially in the hands of those who have no responsibility for the total issue and no motive to do other than increase it as far as law, and a merely selfish prudence, will permit.

There is a way for citizens and their governments to take back the money-creation power of the banks. Yes, bankers are experts with money, but they are experts in maximizing their profits and rarely have much interest in the public interest. Freeing your government from borrowing money from bankers is the first, and most important, step for national freedom and prosperity. It is also THE most important step to limiting governmental overspending. If a government cannot borrow, it MUST live within its means.

Debt-free, government issued money - where the quantity is properly controlled in the public interest- has always worked to promote low taxation and maximise freedom for the majority of the nation.

i Grubiak, Olive and Jan; The Guernsey Experiment ( 1960, 1999 reprint, Bloomsfield Books, Sudbury, England ), p.8.
ii ibid
iii ibid
iv ibid, p. 8-9
v, p.11
vi ibid, p 11-12
vii ibid, p.12
viii Brown, Ellen h., Web of Debt, ( Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Third Millenium Press, 2007), . p. 100-101

From the Sovereign Independent June 2011

Bill Still has a book out called No More National Debt: www.billstill.com