STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Discovery of Bulgarian Old Gold Supports the Evolution of Private Money
By Daily Bell Staff - August 13, 2016

World’s Oldest Gold Object May Have Just Been Unearthed in Bulgaria … A small gold bead shows that Copper Age people in the Balkans were processing gold 6,500 years ago… -Smithsonian

This gold bead further confirms the maturity of  private monetary  history in our view.

Reference.com tells us, HERE: “The existence of gold has been known for over 5,500 years; therefore, the exact location of its discovery is unknown.”

Now Smithsonian, above, has reported that humans were manipulating gold 6500 years ago.

But we’ve often argued that gold (and silver) were seen as “precious metals” many more thousands of years ago than that. Maybe older gold items don’t survive today because when people discovered them, they were recycled.

Murray Rothbard was surely right. He maintained HERE that money was the outcome of competition between different kinds of objects and over time and gold triumphed (along with silver).

There are various reasons why money metals became popular as money. Among them: durability, divisibility, portability, acceptability, limited supply and uniformity. Money therefore developed via competition. Anything could become “money” if it were sufficiently accepted and fulfilled aspects of the monetary recipe.

A further, important point: If gold and silver were seen as valuable then one way or another people were likely utilizing them for trading purposes.

Now the larger question. Do such metals have to be shaped into coins in order to perform monetary functions?

In India, gold jewelry adorns women but that doesn’t mean it can’t be used as “money” as necessary. In fact, that’s the whole point.

If the state invented money, then the state should continue to administer it. HERE is a 2011  excerpt from an interview with Ellen Brown who is among the most high-profile proponents of government controlled monopoly central banks.

Daily Bell: Let’s back up. You believe that gold and silver only circulated as money once government got involved? True? Can you expand on this?

Ellen Brown: I think that’s true by definition. Webster’s dictionary defines a “coin” as “a usually flat piece of metal issued by governmental authority as money.” Wikipedia says: “King Croesus, ruler of Lydia (560–546 BC), began issuing the first true gold coins, . . . with a standardized purity, for general circulation. They were quite crude, and were made of electrum, a naturally occurring pale yellow mixture of gold and silver.”

Daily Bell: What about ancient archaeology showing drowned cities off the coast of India?

Ellen Brown: I made an effort to look that up, since you asked; but I could find nothing to support your contention. If you would point me to some specific research, I could formulate a better answer. My research indicates that Indian gold coins came in later, and like coins generally were issued by the government. Here’s what came up on a quick search:

“Although the world’s first coins were Greek coins made in Lydia about 640 BC, it seems clear that India and China both invented coins independently within a few centuries of the Lydians. The earliest Indian coins were silver, and it was not until about 100 AD that the Kushan emperor Vima Kadaphises introduced the first Indian gold coin, which was a gold dinar bearing the image of Shiva.”

You can see the larger issues here. In arguing for government primacy, Ellen Brown can logically make the case that government money would be far less problematic than the current intermingled system of monopoly central banking.

In fact pure government control of money along with teh public/private model of central banking are driving the world rapidly to ruin. The solution of course, little discussed, is private money – a return to a system in which people were able to develop and popularize monetary facilities as they wished.

Of course within this context, gold and silver might find a primacy of place as they have in the past, letting market competition ascertain the rate and volume of “money.”

Let us restate: We believe money was initially a private-sector product and that problematic aspects mostly emerge under state control. It is the state, traditionally, that generally makes the middle class miserable with monetary debasement.

More from the Smithsonian:

The bead was discovered about two weeks ago at a dig site called Tell Yunatsite near the modern town of Pazardzhik, much further inland than Varna.

[Yavor Boyadzhiev, a professor at the Bulgarian Academy of Science in charge of the dig] says the settlement was a very sophisticated town, perhaps the first urban settlement in Europe. He believes the bead was likely manufactured on site …

[The site] is part of an emerging “lost” Balkan Copper-age civilization. Researchers believe it had extensive trading networks, industrialized metal production for the first time in history.

Sorry. We have trouble with this narrative as well. We believe along with Graham Hancock HERE, that there was a great ancient civilization that spread around the world more than 10,000 years and was wiped out by a global flood.

No doubt this ancient civilization used gold and silver in numerous ways. The use of gold and silver as “money” thus seems to us to recede into the depths of time.

It seems as well to us that its utilization originally had nothing to do with government. Those that insist government take over money have many ways they want to control it. Major CH Douglas’s Fabian-based Social Credit system, for instance, HERE, has become increasingly high profile.

Douglas wanted to take a certain amount of excess corporate profits every year and return those profits to “workers” as a national dividend. He had an elaborate way of calculating what was due but modern Social Creditors have dispensed with the details and now simply promote a universal basic income provided by government (see HERE.)

Silvio Gesell’ negative nominal interest program, HERE, (in which money depreciates every month unless you use it) has also received more attention. The idea that a small group of people must control and manipulate money is attractive for some reason despite obvious, expansive dangers.

Often “usury” is used to justify the takeover of money by well-meaning government officials who will presumably handle monetary authority more responsibly than “private” interests. But giving any one group the power to control money must end badly.

In fact, people should be able to charge interest on funds they provide so long as the money system is a private competitive one. Today, with monopoly central banking, we have nothing of the sort.

Here are some additional articles on these subjects.

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

Conclusion: Some day, “experts” will confirm – somehow – valuable gold artifacts that are 10,000 or even 20,000 years old.  This will provide further evidence “money” was privately based to begin with – and should have stayed that way.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Guy Christopher

    The sooner the financial system implodes, the sooner the banker elites are sent to the guillotine. The sooner millions are hungry and angry, the sooner puppet bureaucrats flee to their bunkers and safe rooms. History has hundreds of examples, and history ain’t finished yet. Something to look forward to.

    • Let’s not suggest murder. Thanks.

      • Guy Christopher

        You may have overreached with your conclusion of my description. Or another way to see it, you see rebellion against tyranny as murder. Tell that to the Founding Fathers.

        Fresh off the wires: Deutschebank sez shock needed to collapse markets and force panic. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-13/stunning-admission-deutsche-bank-why-shock-needed-collapse-market-and-force-real-pan

        • Isn’t there a difference between violence as a result of self-defense and mass execution? Thanks for the link.

          • Crispin K Metzler

            He had them running to ground in their shelters, not killed.

      • Rojelio Febrero

        Murder of the elite, you mean? The others that ARE murdered by hunger, war, … do not matter? Sometimes I wonder which side you’re on here …

        • We write constantly of murderous, Western regimes, including most prominently the US under the guidance of London’s City. For you not to be aware of this only ascertains that you do not read this publication with any regularity. You want to drop in here and casually support guillotining what might amount to thousands of people, apparently without due process. That’s the kind of activity over which we successfully attacked the American version of Occupy Wall Street. You want to support a disaster like the French Revolution, do it on another website. We are legally responsible for comments on this one.

          • Rojelio Febrero

            Every day I read most everything that DB sends me. In general I choose not to react, even if I do not agree. Revolutions are necessary, even when some are bloody disasters. Liberté, égalité et fraternité!

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    If every person on the planet had an equal share of all above ground gold, I am told, each one would possess about a tenth of an ounce of it. Can’t do business with that. Silver is also becoming too scarce to serve all trading needs. Besides, a vast majority of these metals are already spoken for and are safely out of the reach of the rabble in select vaults around the globe. From these facts it would be fair to conclude that the two “monetary” metals in an equitable society are more or less useless as everyday money. Lucky are those who understand this and capitalize on rare metals scarcity more than on their “durability, divisibility, portability, acceptability, … and uniformity”.

    • Even if the entire above-ground supply of gold was a single ounce, you could still theoretically build a monetary system around it using paper representations of a tiny percentage of the ounce. For some reason, people believe that using gold and silver in a monetary system implies making transactions with the actual, physical metal.

      • Jo Jo

        Nobody (maybe except for a few people) knows how much gold there is in the world.
        Besides, the Golden Rule is he who has the gold makes the rules. And if you have a gold standard, countries that cannot compete will lose all the gold they have and are tempted to ‘cheat’.

        When you have more money owners that compete with each other, history will repeat itself. You’ll end up with a fight and a monopoly.

        It doesn’t matter what money is, backed by gold or not, what is important is that money is interest and debt free and that the money supply is controlled.

        Money cannot be owned, it is just a means to exchange energy units.
        Then, only production&services will flourish and not speculation and cheating (increasing the money supply more than the growth of production&services).

        Human beings manipulate and ‘cheat’ all the time, not only governments (that consist of people who cheat for the elite).

        • “It doesn’t matter what money is, backed by gold or not, what is important is that money is interest and debt free and that the money supply is controlled.”

          This is exactly what the article opposes. You want someone to “control” the money supply and you want to ban interest. We are supporting the concept of private,money. Let the market decide of money’s volume and rate.

          • Jo Jo

            Your proposal doesn’t work. Sorry.

            Markets will always be controlled by a small group of people.

            As long as you play econ/fin. games, there will be rules just like in sport games.
            People will always disagree about the rules of the game and the interpretations. Some people want other/more rules, some people want less rules and/or different interpretations.

            Besides, people manipulate and ‘cheat’ all the time.

          • Worked in the US before the Civil War. They had to kill millions to overturn what was basically a system of private money. Read some Rothbard … Mises and Hayek, too, if you can.

          • Jo Jo

            It never worked. People tried it and failed. It ended up with private money monopoly. Private money is a scam to exploit people.
            And these days the whole world is connected. Too big for ‘private money’ compettition.
            Why don’t you start a small libertarian community with your own private money to see if it works?

          • There is no such thing as a private money monopoly. Absent violence, it is impossible.

          • Jo Jo

            The $ is private money. The Euro is private money.
            The Central Banks have a monopoly. The Big Banks issue the money (digits in a computer) and lend it out for interest.
            We are living in a private money system right now.

            It’s a scam, like all other private money systems. Money in private hands, used to exploit people who are allowed to use it to do transactions if they pay a fee (interest). The people do the work and the money owners/printers demand a percentage while not doing anything. They are the parasites of the world.

            Please don’t talk like a priest pretending to know all solutions to the problems, but nobody is listening and nobody is taking any action. Are you interested in starting a libertarian community with your own private money?

          • Jo Jo

            To add how disgusting the private money system is today.
            The Big Banks not only lend out digits in a computer for interest. They gamble and take the profits (to off shore accounts and to start big corporations). They can also lend out digits in a computer to lend to themselves.
            When they lose money the common people must pay for it.
            In the meantime they increase the money supply which has distastrous consequences.

            This is the private money (monopoly) system we have today.

          • It’s not private, see above.

          • Jo Jo

            The $ and the Euro are private money.
            The Fed for example is a cooperation between private bankers and the government. All central banks are subject to control by the BIS which is a private organisation.

            The banks create the digits in the computer. They lend the ‘money’ out for interest. As a bank is a private organisation, the money they create is private too. They lend it out, to customers (and to themselves).
            You can argue about the meaning of ‘private’, but what they create out of nothing, they give to customers as if they own it.
            They want it back.

            I understand that you want what the banks have. It is a profitable business.

          • Now you are starting to repeat yourself. The dollar and euro are not private but money authorized by their respective states. What you are talking about is “control” which is different than the nominal public status of a given item. Your insistence on public versus private probably has to do with your end argument that money and monopoly central banking ought to be the sole responsibility of government. But making inaccurate statements does not strengthen your case and anyway, you are wrong about the efficacy and reliability of government. Money and banking ought to be entirely private. You have got it reversed.

          • Jo Jo

            Maybe ofiicially the $ is American, but in practice nobody ‘owns’ it. The banks create it (in computers) and lend it out. When they get it back, the ‘money’ disappears.

            You are very good with playing with words, you just can’t admit that private banks control the $ as if they own it.

            Private money is absurd. You just want to exploit the people who create something. Private money does destroy ‘free’ markets, the money itself and the wealth of many (common) people.

          • alaska3636

            Your paradigm doesn’t stand without the (monopoly) use of state force. Your paradigm would be convincing otherwise.

            “Bernanke was succeeded as Chair of the Federal Reserve by Janet Yellen, the first woman to hold the position. Yellen was nominated on October 9, 2013, by President Obama and, confirmed by the United States Senate on January 6, 2014.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Yellen

            At best, the Fed can be considered a quasi-private organization; it’s nominations being a public affair and its actions being public in all but name. To get circular, the private interests that, in effect, control the public nominations and policies of government are also behind the construction and maintenance of the private-public Federal Reserve institution for the enormous power it gives them to manipulate, not just winners and losers in the market, but to control public opinion.

            Your paradigm is too surface-level. The Fed is a veritable ring of power; it would be corrupted even if it hadn’t been forged in corruption. Making it public would just be lipstick on the pig; the market decides on the volume, type and cost of money not benight technocrats from Harvard or the London School of Economics.

          • It is impossible to have a discussion with you because your presumptions are purposefully incorrect. The dollar is NOT private money. It is controlled by a private elite group, but the reason the control is effective is because the “government” stands formally behind the money The trick is to exercise control over public facilities without people knowing you are doing so. Since you have accepted the fashionable, leftist position that central banks (and currency) are “private,” your conclusions are necessarily flawed as well.

          • Alex

            The dollar is NOT private money but it is controlled by a private elite group? Does it make sense? It doesn’t. Fiat currency is privately owned and the owners sell their product at profit which shouldn’t be happening at all. Take a look at Bank of Japan. Now it owns over 90% of japanese economy and it is a private bank just like the FED. That is the ultimate goal of money owners and it is happening right before our eyes. Governments work with private central banks because CB purchased these governments. Take a close look at the Congress where people becoming multi-millionaires with no apparent reason. They do things you are not allowed to do and they are above the law because CB is interested in growing debts within the society and they contribute to that by their actions. For instance they openly sell insiders iformation to HFT firms and benefit from that. Try doing that and you will be behind bars in no time. Take QE that was a bail out for big banks. Not a penny went into economy but stock market keeps growing. Do you really think this is good for the society? I doubt it because all of these things already took place in history and it ended badly.

    • Fred

      I believe it would be correct that it does not take a vast quantity of gold to maintain a money system backed by gold. A 10th of an ounce could be priced simply be the a million units or a billion units or a trillion units or whatever. I think the purpose of a gold back money system is to prevent the government (always the government) from debasing the money supply by printing up more and more fiat currency such that its value approaches zero (as it always has throughout history). So it operates as a restraint on governments and helps to maintain some stability in the money system.

  • Jo Jo

    As soon as the owners of the money increase the money supply more than the growth of production, there will be problem. It doesn’t matter who owns it, Most owners (if not everyone) are cheating.

    It happened in the USA in the 19th century when many different kind of dollars were in circulation.

    It is happening now since the elite (big bank owners) benefit from the Central Bank monopoly.

    Interest and debt free money is the key, but the money supply must be controlled.

  • esqualido

    “The solution of course, little discussed, is private money – a return to a system in which people were able to develop and popularize monetary facilities as they wished.”
    All that is required is an end to legal tender laws- in other words, make the decision what will be accepted in payment a private matter.

    • Doc

      Legal tender laws came before the monopoly on note issuing, which in turn came about early in the 20th century in the west. It’s the monopoly that’s the big problem, not legal tender. The real problems started with the monopolies.

  • Three pillars of sand our economic system is built on:
    1.Federal Reserve Bank
    2.Fiat Currency
    3.Fractional Reserve Banking

    The Federal Reserve tries to regulate the economy. Their mandates are maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.

    The Federal Reserve creates money and or makes money inexpensive by manipulating interest rates lower. Rarely manipulating rates higher. This is inflation. Prices go up and real wages go down.

    The Federal Reserve creates bubbles and crashes by pushing interest rates too low or too high for too short or too long of time.

    Who regulates the regulators at the Federal Reserve to keep the people safe from it and its mistakes? The only real regulator possible is the free market.

    With the Federal Reserve in place the market becomes the judge of the Federal Reserve decisions, rather than the regulator.

    The Federal Reserve in essence aids debtors and punishes savers. A depreciating dollar aids debtors and harms savers. An appreciating dollar aids savers and harms debtors.

    If you start giving an economy fish (easing Federal Reserve monetary policy, excessive federal government spending; deficit, national debt), the economy starts fishing less and starts dining more. Temporary misallocated (Keynesian stimulated) employment increases and sustainable production employment decreases.

    Abolish the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and all bank regulations except one; require full disclosure on full or fractional reserve backing of deposits. Treat gold, silver and cryptocurrencies as legal tender (not as an asset) for tax purposes.

    If you are concerned about the growing income inequality gap, if you are against war, against the military–industrial complex, against mega-mergers of companies and against invisible taxation, then you are against the Federal Reserve.

  • georgesilver

    The whole point of FIAT currency is so that an ‘elite’ class can steal (without work) a part of the wealth creation of the population. This ‘elite’ parasitic behaviour eventually becomes more and more greedy as it convinces itself that it has this legal ‘right’.
    The ‘elite’ parasite eventually starts killing it’s host and the system collapses.
    The ‘elite’ parasitic class hates Gold like Superman hates kryptonite. Gold has been the proven real currency over thousands of years and can easily be the back-stop of all digital currencies. There is no need to re-invent the wheel the same as their is no need to NOT adopt Gold. Unfortunately the ‘elite’ parasitic class will always eventually find a way of re-introducing FIAT.

    • Perhaps you are correct. But, really, we have no problem with private fiat so long as it is voluntary and offered within a competitive environment. Let people choose the money they wish to use ….

  • Ernie Hopkins

    Great piece DB!!!!!! Interesting that you are a reader of Graham Hancock’s work as well lol!!!

  • alaska3636

    It is informative to understand how accounting views interest. Though not a sexy subject, it is a widely used system whose purview is the accurate recording of assets and liabilities and the measurement of profits and losses. It can be considered a pillar of the free-market system as a means for determining profitable endeavors. Remarkably, there is not an alternative view of accounting. Not one that I have found anyway and I consider myself something of an expert on the subject.

    Anyway, interest in accounting is viewed (correctly) as rent. In the same way that a landowner charges a rent on the use of his land worth relatively what he views as the opportunity cost for another use of the land; money sitting idle can be used for productive endeavors or it can be loaned in a number of ways that ultimately charge a premium on the use of those funds. Perhaps the easiest loan to understand is a zero interest (a counter-intuitive name) loan in which, for instance, $10,000 is loaned, but the recipient only receives $9,000 up front. At the end of the period of the loan, the recipient repays $10,000. The effective interest is 10%. The recipient receives capital for whatever productive endeavor he needed it for and the lender receives $1,000 at the end of the loan for giving up his right to use the money for his own endeavor.

    Again, this is accepted indisputably in accounting as an understanding and a proper accounting for interest. There are other forms of interest (annuities, compounding, periodic, etc..) and there are several elegant ways to compute interest. Those calculations are all predicated on the “time value of money”, which can be described: money now is worth more than money later. The “money later” can be reduced by a factor to equate “money now”; likewise, “money now” can be capitalized to determine “money later”. In economics, the – again, indisputable – concept used to represent this phenomena is opportunity cost: the inherent scarcity of resources makes the current use of them more valuable than the future (when the resource may no longer exist) usage.

    To elaborate further, interest is subjective at the individual level, but becomes an objective market price wherever there is a regular activity of transactions. The same principle applies to what people accept as money. I may prefer cattle to gold, but when the market of transactions increases, a commonly accepted medium of exchange emerges. Interest can be applied to any medium of exchange.

    There is an “as above, so below” aspect to monetary phenomena. Monetary expertise primarily exists as a priesthood to justify the use of force in the market of voluntary exchanges; their method is to create a narrative whereby the understanding of a basic phenomena which is intuitively understood at the individual level, is actually a different phenomena at a larger scale – in effect, a different science. The tea leaf readers explain in unintuitive, technical jargon that a “nation” has laws of interest that require a different type of accounting and understanding, which unsurprisingly require institutions of power which they will operate, often at great profit to themselves, in order to fix the type and volume of money and the interest at which can be charged for it.

    Sorry. There is one understanding for electromagnetism for individuals and “nations”; there is one understanding for interest and money. The DB is consistently correct when writing about money and interest.

  • EDD

    DB: “We believe ——- that
    there was a great ancient civilization that spread around the world
    more than 10,000 years and was wiped out by a global flood.”

    Psychiatrists and psychologists have made studies of individuals who have had hypnotized regressions where the idea of reincarnation of the soul supports the idea of previous civilizations. Some of these people have had conscious memories of who they But was were in previous embodiments. Those memories exist in the subconscious of all mankind since the subconscious carries the records of all previous embodiments. Herewith are some sources for a global catastrophes.

    Taylor Caldwell herself did not accept reincarnation, but her book, ‘The Romance of Atlantis’, could well have been subconscious memories which translated into a novel of possible experiences during the last days of Atlantis.

    Plato, a predominant philosopher of his time, stated: “Through violent earthquakes and floods, in a single day and night of
    misfortune … [the whole race] … was swallowed up by the Earth and the
    island of Atlantis … disappeared into the depths of the sea.” – Plato. He placed this island continent beyond ‘the Pillars of Hercules’, the modern day Straits of Gibraltar. Aristotle nixed this passage as an imagination of Plato. But, was it? The ‘myths’ of seafarers in those days indicated the ocean west of Europe and Africa was impassible because of the mud on the ocean’s surface.

    Otto Muck, in his book, ‘The Secret of Atlantis’ describes very vividly many anomalies both in physical structures and different culture’s myths concerning a time of a previous landmass that no longer exists above the ocean’s surface.

    Charles Berlitz also has written extensively about underwater features which indicate the areas involved existed above the water’s surface at one time.

    There are many other sources too numerous to mention here which indicate a catastrophic event occurring some 12,000 years ago. And, to further complicate this picture, Phylos the Tibetan compiled “An Earth Dwellers Return”. A lot of the material for this book was taken from, “A Dweller on Two Planets”, written in 1884 and first printed in 1894. In this book, the author takes the reader on a journey during the time of Atlantis and even further back in time to the civilization of Lemuria.

    Lemurian culture was perhaps one of the most advanced on earth before it was submerged below the ocean’s surface some 40,000 years ago. The Islands of Hawaii and Japan, (among others), are possible remains of the mountaintops of that continent.

    Among some esoteric persuasions are of a culture in the Sahara Desert which had it’s heyday some 72,000 years ago. Fiction? The predominate scientific thought of this age denies these possibilities. The sciences of the different vocational persuasions are slow to change. It takes courage to think beyond traditional concepts of how things are perceived and enter into a continuum of how things were in earlier ages.

    For the Biblical inclined there are two examples to support this thesis. “There is nothing new under the sun”, and: “Behold I make all things new”. To fully explain the details of the ideas presented in this post would require many pages of dialogue and several notes on sources; and its long enough already.

    Conclusion: I disagree with the idea of a ‘global flood’, but do support the concept of tremendous flooding in parts of the world in addition to other alterations of the earth surfaces whereby there were small pockets of humanity remaining to, once more, begin another round of repopulating the human species. Within the ‘myths’ of all cultures are ‘truths’ submerged under the accumulated weight of the ages.

    • alaska3636

      Randal Carlson has been doing some good work regarding extraterrestrial impacts. His thesis, which seems compelling, is that around 10,000 BC an asteroid destroyed one of the polar ice caps, which in addition to causing massive flooding, started the Holocene period of warming that we seem to be coming out of.

  • thefinancedude

    DB – based on some excellent answers to the commentary below, perhaps there is already an article, or perhaps write one, on the distinction being drawn by the dollar not being PRIVATE MONEY – since some dont get it…the FRN is private SCRIPT and its not money, its currency…go look up the DEFINITION which requires legal mind…divide and conquer is so easy…

    DB if we’re on board with private vs public banking and the marriage and dance they are performing in the WORLD AT LARGE, then lets scale the convo up a bit and lets dig into public vs private LAW and the marriage of the private/public banking system that mutually benefits each other…

    and see if we can have a decent dialogue on what’s going on, at least on American lands…conquered by the English and their roman legion…who sits atop their capital building?

    does anyone else realize, everything on paper, is an object: law (public and private) is the control of objects…objects found in nature are authentic, while man, using deadwood and other dead organic FORMS, contain objects without a nature, but imbued by characteristic thus are in fact, fictional – and is only tied to Terra, in one’s mind and that’s it? Does Wizard of Oz make a “bit” more sense…moving from the “real” of black/white and into the color of a “different world”…

    America perfected something in the WORLD AT LARGE – namely, there is only one law – consent to contract…the high contracting powers aka law of nations agree, however they hold legacy estates and claims from ignorant, incompetent masses and they have no way of conveying these Estates in the public w/o violating the private nature of the creation of the WHOLE WORLD AT LARGE…

    none of it is fraud…b/c its all an offer to contract…we’re ignorant, untrained as families/tribes/children in these facts, evidenced by PUBLIC CODE DISCLOSURE using a language, resembling, babel – but eventually you read enough – the mind reveals the code, to our COLLECTIVE CODE…which recognizes the new testament CODE – do unto others as you wish to receive…pure equity….

    • Certainly you raise interesting issues. Thanks for the feedback.

  • Clifford Hugh Douglas

    “Douglas wanted to take a certain amount of excess corporate profits every year and return those profits to “workers” as a national dividend. ”

    This statement is completely false. Your entire argument is a straw man.

loading