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by Rockefeller trusts when, in fact, Mises himself had to petition for a grant that was given unwillingly and soon withdrawn.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:

Strange Bedfellows ... More Authoritarian Linkages to Paper Money

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:

New Book Further Confirms Eco-Affinity of Alternative Currency Proponents

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:

Paper Money and the UN Perfect Together? More Currency and Credit Exchanges Supported by the UN

Currency and Credit Schemes Blow Up ... and Go Green

Are 'Green' Reciprocal Exchange and Credit Systems Part of a Larger Elite Promotion?

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.