A New Book … Three authors [Prof. Dr. Margrit Kennedy, Bernard LIETAER and John Rogers] with decades of experience have teamed up to provide an up-to-date, state-of-the art field guide to the emerging movement of regional currencies. People Money describes a global movement of people creating their own currencies to support regional business and strengthen their communities. These currencies operate legally alongside Bank Money and Government Money, giving people new choices in an age of transition from outworn financial structures to an era of sustainable abundance … The currencies profiles include: Brixton Pound in London; The Business Exchange in Scotland; Blaengarw Time Centre in South Wales; Community Exchange System in South Africa; Chiemgauer in Germany; BerkShares, Equal Dollars, Ithaca HOURS and Dane County Time Bank in the USA; and many others. – Amazon
Dominant Social Theme: It is the era of alternative money schemes and only supporters of totalitarianism would suggest the free-market circulation of gold and silver.
Free-Market Analysis: Since we started looking, we keep coming up with linkages between those who espouse Greenbackerism, fiat credit systems, Georgism, etc. and various sorts of green eco-facilities and the United Nations in particular. You can see some of our articles here:
The well-respected Magrit Kennedy, an alternative money expert and co-author of a new book (see above) was once employed by UNESCO, according to her Amazon bio, while her husband has apparently been an ambassador to UN commissions on behalf of a GEN proposal to the UN: "The Earth is our Habitat."
Ms. Kennedy's co-author of the above-mentioned book is Bernard Lietaer, a former member of the Central Bank in Belgium and, according to his bio, a co-designer and implementer of the convergence mechanism (ECU) to the single European currency system. "He was General Manager and Currency Trader for the Gaia Hedge Funds when Business Week identified him in 1990 as the world's top trader."
Here is something about the United Nations from Canada Free Press:
The United Nations was founded as a forum of governments. As we had ample occasion to learn over the decades, this arrangement presented quite enough problems of its own. Now the UN, in contravention of its own charter, is rapidly evolving into something larger, more corporate, and more menacing: a predatory, undemocratic, unaccountable, and self-serving vehicle for global government. Like the Soviet Union of old, the UN is unwieldy, gross, inefficient, and incompetent; it is also so configured as to reach deep into the national politics of its member states and, by sheer weight and persistence, to force at least some of the worst of its agenda upon all of us.
Here is something about UNESCO from TheHiddenEvil.com:
Charlotte Iserbyt, Senior Policy Advisor at the U.S. Department of Education during the 1980s [wrote a book], "The Deliberate Dumbing-Down of America," in which she provided evidence in the form of a timeline [and] a paper trail dating back to the 1930s …
Iserbyt wrote, "I had experienced traveling in and living in socialist countries. When I returned to the United States I realized that America's transition from a sovereign constitutional republic to a socialist democracy would not come about through warfare (bullets and tanks) but through the implementation and installation of the "system" in all areas of government…
This revolution apparently took place as part of the installation of a world government & according to Iserbyt, the "brainwashing" is part of a plan to achieve a type of "global feudalism," which will be managed by behavioral scientists … "Only a dumbed down population … could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the … Rockefellers …which is being implemented by the United States Congress." This global school system is managed by UNESCO.
Now, we are not accusing people like Ms. Kennedy of participating in any evil scheme to "dumb down" people but it's simply a fact that there are many questions about the UN and its globalist agenda.
Here at the Daily Bell, we disagree with globalism and believe that the power elite behind it is engaged in a conspiracy to create global governance using facilities like the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc.
Within this context, the number of linkages we find between Green eco-activism, the UN itself and alternative money systems is at least puzzling if not disturbing. In fact, there are a lot of historical links between paper-money promoters and authoritarian elements such as the Fabians and the Bloomsbury Group.
Two major pillars of pure paper money are Silvio Gesell and Major C. H. Douglas. Gesell was a proponent of Henry George who believed that land ought not to be owned but belong to a larger community and be taxed at a regular rate (not including improvements).
Monetary reformer Douglas, who disliked some of Gesell's theories, said that Gesell's idea of issuing money that was meant to depreciate in value over time would provide one of history's biggest taxes ever. Apparently, Gesell wanted government to stamp his money regularly to approve of it.
Late in his career, Douglas began addressing The Protocols of Zion directly as evidence that the globalism of the day was specifically a Jewish plot, even though Money Power is evidently and obviously the provenance of a few dynastic families and their enablers and associates.
The genius poet Ezra Pound elaborated on Douglas's views until just before he died. But literally on his deathbed, Pound despaired of the "stupid suburban prejudice" that had blighted even his most magnificent work.
Douglas believed that money should be issued interest free by the state and then handed over directly to people. He had an elaborate theory to calculate the amount of money that would be distributed, but unfortunately it was a backwards-looking one.
There is no way, in fact, that people can calculate how much money an economy needs GOING FORWARD. Every index is inevitably compiled from statistics that utilize figures of economic performance that has already taken place.
This has been established by such free-market economists as Ludwig von Mises in his great work Human Action. Human Action shows us clearly that people's behaviors will always vary from what laws, regulations and various authoritarian schemes predict.
People are not potted plants. Faced with starvation, they will plant a garden. Faced with drought, they'll dig a well.
Von Mises's observations sounded the death knell for justifying government planning … even for regulatory democracy generally. It's one of the reasons that Mises himself and Austrian economics have been attacked over and over by the powers that be.
Free-market economics' salient, magnificent position is that people are independent creatures and not the playthings of some higher mortal authority, no matter how well meaning.
People like Gesell, Douglas and George were convinced, however, that their ideas about money, if properly enforced on a wide-enough level, would end poverty, want, power-elite exploitation, etc.
Many of Douglas's theories found their way into The New Age, a journal edited by socialist George Bernard Shaw. The journal, apparently a Fabian outlet, was also partial to the theories of Henry George.
We've written about the Georgist linkage to Fabianism here:
The article was written following observations we found on the "Deadeye" blog that made the case that both Georgism and Social Credit are facilities of Fabianism. We explained Fabianism as follows:
The Fabian Society believed that capitalism was the cause of an inefficient and unjust society, and Fabians wanted to focus and help society move to a socialist system as painlessly as possible. It was responsible for forming part of the foundation for the Labour Party, and today functions primarily as a think tank and is one of 15 socialist societies that are associated with the Labour Party. However, there is no doubt that of these, the Fabian Society is the most influential.
Almost singlehandedly, through its establishment not only of the Labour Party but also of the London School of Economics, the Fabian Society has played a major role in ruining most of Britain's republican institutions.
The Fabian Society's malevolence has spread far beyond Britain, however. Evidently and obviously affiliated with Western central banking families, the Fabian Society's impetus towards authoritarianism is well established now in education, media and politics.
The goal, of course, is one-world government and the Fabians have played their promotional role in achieving this destructive vision. Like Britain's Bloomsbury Group, the Fabians are not merely a philosophical "talking shop." Both groups advanced and implemented fundamentally evil economic methodologies of sociopolitical organization that continue, unfortunately, to play out today.
It is the Deadeye blog's hypothesis that British elites employed a Fabian strategy that promoted radical "populism" via economic theories.
There seems little doubt that pure paper money theories have been affiliated historically with globalist institutions and apparently continue to be today. Greenbacker Ellen Brown is making common cause with George Soros-backed Occupy Wall Street and Ms. Kennedy is apparently leading the charge with something called "Occupy Money."
Of course, this does not necessarily negate their credibility but it certainly makes one think. Another reason to scrutinize these theories, as they make a resurgence, is because of their implacable hostility to free-market economics.
One would think that those who support such anti-establishment theories would want to make common cause with others who share similar views on most issues. But instead, lately anyway, the Internet has been filled with denunciations of free-market economics.
The Daily Bell, along with Ron Paul and many others, supports competing currencies. We have nothing against the initiation of Greenbackerism on a local or regional level, nor Georgism, nor social or mutual credit so long as they are voluntary associations.
But the hostility to free-market thinking remains surprising and we continue to have the sneaking suspicion that the real agenda of those behind such systems is to see them initiated by force on a federal scale.
Alternatively, many proposing these systems are using them, for some reason, as a jumping-off point to attack free-market economics – almost as if they are a pretext for this larger engagement. The question, then, is why …
Editor's Note: Our plans to reintroduce comments continue to evolve and we are working hard. In the meantime, we want to thank our readers for their continued support. Our overall hits (as reported) continue to number monthly in the tens of millions (such hits can be 5X, 10X or 20X other indices); though, separately, our specific page view counts and visit counts (both un-reported) have declined somewhat. But our return viewership, as of July, is stronger than it has almost ever been … and we have you to thank for that! We'll update readers again on our progress in September.