News & Analysis
Why Is the UN Installing Mutual Credit/Pure Fiat Systems Around the World?
To make serious commitments to restructure the global financial architecture based on principles of equity, transparency, accountability and democracy, and to balance, with the participation of civil society organizations, the monetary means to favour human endeavour and ecology, such as an alternative time-based currency. To give particular attention to eradication of unequal taxation, tax havens, and money-laundering operations, and to impose new forms of taxation, such as the Tobin tax, and regional and national capital controls. To direct the international financial institutions to eliminate the negative conditionalities of structural adjustment programmes. – UN Millennium Goals
Dominant Social Theme: Gesell, Douglas and George had it right. That's why the Fabians supported them and why the UN is implementing their paper money theories today.
Free-Market Analysis: Are we being scammed, folks? We first became aware of the full extent and history of fiat-money systems when attacks were launched against free-market thinking within the past year.
It was implied, for instance, that Austrian Ludwig von Mises was funded by Rockefeller trusts when, in fact, Mises himself had to petition for a grant that was given unwillingly and soon withdrawn.
This indicated, perhaps, a power elite agenda to us (why distort history if one does not have an agenda?) but it was only when we began to investigate the relationship between globalism and alternative pure fiat "credit" systems that we became aware of the extent of what was going on.
Turns out that the United Nations is on board for all of it. The UN is anti-interest and pro "time-based currency" (see Millennium excerpt above).
One kind of time-based currency loses value if people hold it too long. Silvio Gesell's idea was that people should be forced to spend their money or lose it to a planned erosion of purchasing power. He even wanted government to regularly stamp people's cash to validate it!
Gesell is just one of a trinity of paper-money advocates that includes Major C.H. Douglas and Henry George. Gesell was a big proponent of Henry George, who believed all land should be held in common and never individually owned.
Douglas ironically didn't like Gesell's theories at all, calling Gesell's idea of depreciating money the most violent tax ever conceived. Douglas had his own issues, however, using the Protocols of Zion as an economic template and thus creating an economic theory that pitted Jews against Christians.
There's plenty of evidence that Gesell's monetary approach was supported and perhaps even initiated by the socialist/authoritarian Fabian Society. We've written about that here:
The great poet Ezra Pound is held up as an example of a fine mind that saw the wisdom of these monetary schemes. But Pound went to his deathbed bemoaning a late-life epiphany that saw him recant his "stupid, suburban prejudice."
Within this context, then, it's not surprising that the UN is involved. It actually calls for these sorts of systems to be implemented via its Millennium Goals adopted over a decade ago.
These systems are commonly referred to as LETS schemes – also known as "mutual credit." There's a whole page devoted to LETS systems apparently provided by the UN itself. It can be seen here: http://www.unilets.org/index.asp#FAQ
Here's some text:
Local Exchange Trading Schemes/systems (LETS) are barter systems through which a community can exchange its skills or services, without using any currency/money. There are many schemes operating throughout the world, the locals are listed in our search.
Local trading systems bring the local community together and put local people in touch with local skills. They are first line regeneration systems as they keep hard currency in the local community and bring people from all walks of life together. Unilets unifies the locals to allow our little planet to prosper.
It is "globalization" done by the people for the people and without any government intervention.
It may be done without government intervention but the UN itself certainly seems motivated to support these systems. There are now "2600+ LETS; time-trading systems in over 52 nations," the UN proudly announces.
Why would the United Nations back systems like these? Here's the relevant text from Millennium Goals:
A single-minded focus on economic growth through uncontrolled free markets, combined with the adjustment and stabilization policies of international financial institutions controlled by the rich creditor nations, are crippling many national economies, exacerbating poverty, eroding human values and destroying the natural environment.
Globalization should be made to work for the benefit of everyone to eradicate poverty and hunger globally; establish peace globally; ensure the protection and promotion of human rights globally; ensure the protection of our global environment; and enforce social standards in the workplace globally. This can happen only if global corporations, international financial and trade institutions and Governments are subject to effective democratic control by the people. We see a strengthened and democratized United Nations and a vibrant civil society as guarantors of this accountability. And we issue a warning: if the architects of globalization are not held to account, this will not simply be unjust; the edifice will crumble, with dire consequences for everyone. In the end, the wealthy will find no refuge, as intolerance, disease, environmental devastation, war, social disintegration and political instability spread.
We wish to put forward a series of concrete steps to strengthen cooperation among all actors at the international, national, regional and local levels to make this vision a reality. Our Agenda for Action includes steps that should be taken by civil society, Governments and the United Nations.
We can see here all the nostrums of those who support paper money solutions. The attacks on the free market, support of "beneficial" globalism and, of course, support for the biggest chimera of all, "democratic control of the people."
In other words, the UN is advancing "local control" and "local money" not to empower people but to make it easier for UN factotums to control these fragmented economies when the time comes.
The goals, of course, see the UN as the "guarantor" of all this. But the larger issue is that the language mimics a lot of the alternative currency solutions now being offered.
These alternative currency websites have been growing quickly. Attacking usury and promoting interest-free money, they're selling Money Power for "the people" – promoting government as an unalloyed good, though history obviously shows us otherwise.
The patron saint of these alternative monetary systems is Magrit Kennedy, who used to work for UNESCO and whose husband may still be affiliated with the UN. She has a new book on alternative currencies now being issued. We wrote about it here:
Ms. Kennedy is a big proponent of "green" eco-living, a movement that has been vastly advanced under UN auspices. The linkages between the alternative currency movement and what we call Green fascism are fairly clear. We've written about it here:
Those who of late have become proponents of these systems and partaken of a fashionable critique of Austrian economics in particular as a tool of the power elite should perhaps take a step back. From the apparent involvement of the Fabians in Gesell's and Douglas's theories to the fundamental anti-Semitism to the current promotion of these theories by the UN, power elite dominant social themes are stitched right into the rhetoric.
That's why we asked at the beginning of this article if we were being "scammed" – manipulated, actually.
Of course, from our point of view, despite all the evidence that this sudden upsurge in interest in alternative money systems is a power elite promotion, we still have no difficulty with people implementing these systems individually.
Nothing wrong with competing currencies, though we believe in a larger context gold and silver would find their rightful place as money metals, as they have historically.
What is wrong is stitching these alternative money systems to various UN agendas – especially Green eco-fascism – and using these systems to attack centuries' worth of economic literacy.
Conclusion: Check your premises and watch out for Money Power manipulation.
Posted by KingofthePaupers on 09/05/12 06:51 PM
TURMEL: Why is UN Installing Mutual Credit/Pure Fiat Systems?
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
We encourage people to read Mr. Turmel's rebuttal to one of our articles on alternate currency systems.
See: Click to view link
It is one of the more remarkable arguments we've ever read. It's solipsism is only exceeded by its impenetrability in our humble view.
Thus, we are holding a contest. Anyone who can explain what Mr. Turmel is trying to say in 200 words or less wins. Post your explanations in this thread. And good luck!
Here is one example of Mr. Turmel's rebuttals:
DB: There's plenty of evidence that Gesell's monetary approach was supported and perhaps even initiated by the socialist/authoritarian Fabian Society.
JCT: It screwed up the value of the chips. Of course the bad guys would love the dolt's demurrage idea.
Mr. Turmel gives one the sense of an individual deeply involved in a conversation with himself, one fairly incomprehensible to outsiders.
DB: The great poet Ezra Pound is held up as an example of a fine mind that saw the wisdom of these monetary schemes. But Pound went to his deathbed bemoaning a late-life epiphany that saw him recant his "stupid, suburban prejudice."
JCT: His "stupid, suburban prejudice" against usury and for interest-free money? I doubt that's true. No true Socred ever loses the dream of a sociable credit world.
Pound's "stupid surburban prejudice" was anti-Semitism not his dislike of "usury."
And here we have Mr. Turmel's most remarkable statement:
DB: Ms. Kennedy is a big proponent of "green" eco-living, a movement that has been vastly advanced under UN auspices. The linkages between the alternative currency movement and what we call Green fascism are fairly clear.
JCT: Sorry but the linkage between LETS local currency and Green Fascism was broken when I was thrown out of the Green party of Canada in 1985 for promoting LETS. That many Green Parties have come to see that interest-free currencies are Green, in Canada they're called Greendollars because Michael Linton and I were members (before my expulsion, he was less vocal and the Green fascists left him alone. So LETS is not some Green Fascist program, it was rejected by the Green fascists.
What a statement! ("Sorry but the linkage between LETS local currency and Green Fascism was broken when I was thrown out of the Green party of Canada in 1985 for promoting LETS.")
Apparently Mr. Turmel IS a LETS system (or UNILETS) or something. Whatever happens to him we are to consider a larger metaphor for the larger movement. If he stumbles, LETS falls, etc.
With spokespeople like these ...
Posted by KingofthePaupers on 09/05/12 06:48 PM
JCT: I hope I've just given you plenty of evidence that the
upsurge in alternative money systems is not a financial
power elite promotion, it's an engineering power elite
project on the go.
DB: we still have no difficulty with people implementing
these systems individually.
JCT: Oh, so LETS is okay for small databases but I shouldn't
have been able to transmit my 5-Hour bill to that European
who hosted me a night's accommodations? Employment-Trading
is good on a small local level but not good on a big
DB: Nothing wrong with competing currencies, though we
believe in a larger context gold and silver would find their
rightful place as money metals, as they have historically.
JCT: Accepts LETS on small databases, fears LETS on large
databases and favors digging for yellow or silver rocks upon
which to base his poker chips. Sorry, I'll stick to plastic
since it's not the medium that's the value, it's what we
both can get for it. So you keep digging, I'll keep
printing, and we'll see which standard of money survive:
Down with the Gold Standard of Money;
Long live the Time Standard of Money.
DB: What is wrong is stitching these alternative money
systems to various UN agendas - especially Green eco-fascism
- and using these systems to attack centuries' worth of
JCT: Centuries worth of wrong economic literacy! Look at the
result of your economic literacy! Yes, interest-free
currency advocates are using LETS to attack the centuries
worth of economic illiteracy. We're finally doing it right,
doing it, not just talking it, not just philosophizing it.
DB: Conclusion: Check your premises and watch out for Money
JCT: Conclusion: Check your premises and your conclusions!
Manyh are wrong.