The Financial System and Money Supply

Gregory Williams7, my master's thesis is no mere cloud of speculation. It possessed the potential to prevent the collapse of the USSR and the entire socialist bloc; it could have altered the very course of human history. However, that was not required of a master's thesis. You are significantly underestimating the weight of such work. What matters is the substance within those pages, not whether it reaches the threshold of a doctoral dissertation. There was a time when Srećko Ugrin authored a volume in English regarding non-credit money and dispatched it to thirty of the most influential addresses on the planet, yet every single copy vanished in transit. The postal service compensated him for the lost shipments, but what value does compensation hold when the knowledge itself is absent? That is precisely how formidable those rulers were through their control of credit-based money. They simply would not permit the truth about non-credit money to penetrate the public consciousness. These power brokers assassinated Abraham Lincoln and they assassinated Kennedy because they dared to engage with non-credit money. They even brought down Ceaușescu merely because he managed to settle his debts, an act they deemed far too dangerous. These elites remain secure only as long as the populace thinks like you, yet they tremble when someone begins to think like Maria Thomas48. We have reached the era where more and more people will adopt the perspective of Maria Thomas48. America ought to take pride in individuals of such conviction. As for you, Gregory Williams7, you will feel shame for the positions you defend on this forum. Your influence is expiring this year. Take a look at http://monetary.org, which outlines the proposal from Congressman Kennedy, and
http://endtheboe.ning.com, where Jerome Powell, the current head of the Federal Reserve, presents his views while also addressing my own research. The era of non-credit money is arriving. Those who wielded more power than Abraham Lincoln or Kennedy find themselves utterly powerless against Maria Thomas48 and myself. We are winning. Knowledge is power, but the most potent force is an idea whose time has finally come. The time for non-credit money is now.

You can bet my money that the concept of non-credit money isn't going to fly.
1. You aren't the ones holding the reins of power. It is incredibly easy to spin a narrative so that an idea turns into a disaster... just to achieve some other ulterior motive. Do you honestly believe Congress would pass a decision that fundamentally shifts the system to favor the average citizen over big capital and massive cash flows?
2. Even if it did pass, people tend to corrupt things eventually. That is precisely why we are in this mess right now—human greed and malice.

Your idea is worth considering as a brief stepping stone toward addressing the root cause. Naturally, that stepping stone would need to include reparations paid out in silver and gold.

The meeting of economists over at Davos didn't actually solve anything. It just confirms what we already know about the absolute necessity of issuing real money.

Maria Thomas48 said:We all deal with money. We earn it, we spend it. We know where it gets printed, but the real question is where the money actually comes from. It’s just paper, really, with almost no intrinsic value beyond what’s written on it. There was a time when every bill was backed by gold reserves, but that’s gone now. So how does this whole thing actually function?

After an intro like that, most people probably think I've lost my marbles, but sometimes it’s hard to tell where genius ends and madness begins. Based on my theory—which is just a simple, plain-spoken idea—it can be shown that a government can't go bankrupt if there is actual profit being generated by businesses. Basically, if there is global profit being realized.

The core of the theory lies in newly created value. It’s hard to demonstrate this at a national level, but you can see it within a single household. For instance, the head of the family (regardless of gender, they earn money and hold it). However, if a family member wants to sell something to the head of the house, they ask for money, and that money has to come from the outside. Let’s say Jack is a skilled woodworker and he makes some hay rakes. He asks the head of the family for $33. It makes sense for the head of the family to pay him because the rakes are good and they are needed (by farmers). But the money the head of the family uses comes from elsewhere, so he has to take part of his external earnings and give it to Jack. On the surface, everything seems fine. But here is the paradox. Money is a great medium for exchange, but when dealing with added value, there's a bit of a dilemma. If Jack were a talented painter instead, he could have painted a bill worth $33 and used that to buy the rakes, then sold them back to the head of the family. You’d reach the same result. In both cases, you're creating a product with added value, but the difference is that in the second example, an extra $33 bill has been injected into circulation. Of course, that's illegal, though the first scenario is also technically illegal (unauthorized manufacturing and trade).

So, I've started this thread about how products with added value are valued, and practically every product works this way.

Let me stick with the example. If little Jack were an even better craftsman, he might have built a wooden threshing machine. That’s where the problem starts. The head of the family doesn't have enough cash on hand, so he takes out a loan to pay Jack. It’s absurd; Jack created something so valuable that even the head of the family doesn't have the funds to cover it. It feels a lot like the way a government operates. They want something, so they take on debt to get it. It’s a good thing there’s always an external source of funding. 🙂.

In my example, you can see how a problem arises within a household if someone produces goods but there isn't enough money to pay for them. If the head of the family had made a bunch of willow brooms, she could have settled the transaction through simple bartering. That is, provided little Jack actually needed those brooms. But he could also sell them on the open market and earn cash. Again, it works out because we have an external market.

Bit by bit, it becomes clear that this logic applies to the state as well. But where do we go from here? Is Switzerland the source of money, or maybe the USA (the current situation)? All over the world, billions of people work and want money for their labor. Where does all that money come from for everyone?

The answer is: money is printed in a printing press. One problem is, what if that printing press isn't located in our own country? So, where is it?

I'll leave the printing press aside for a moment and think: why do we need to print money? According to my theory, there can be no increase in wealth (daily newly created value) without printing money (more technically, increasing the money supply). And look, my theory assumes the state *should* be the one printing the money. But how much? Well, according to my theory, if the state prints exactly as much as the newly created value, then the value of the currency won't drop. So, after this long-winded explanation, we arrive at a financial equation that saves all countries with industrious populations from bankruptcy.

The state cannot simply distribute the printed money, yet theoretically, it holds all our newly created value in its hands (in the form of freshly printed bills). The state needs to inject that money into the monetary system. This is where I hit a bit of a snag, because money is a medium for exchanging value, and you can't just inject it unilaterally. I'd love for the experts to help me finish this thought.

But why does all this money actually need to be pumped back into circulation? It’s because every time new value is created, it sucks the liquidity right out of the system, which triggers a crisis. Just the other day, someone mentioned that the 1929 crash in the States was caused by overproduction. That fits my theory perfectly. If you produce an endless amount of goods and try to sell them at previous price points, you can basically break the entire financial system. The system just runs out of cash. Even if those products are genuinely valuable.

That’s exactly what's happening—the financial system is collapsing. Some people might argue it’s actually for the best, but I’d say that’s like a group of idiots claiming they’re doing great while they're falling from the 50th floor past the 3rd. You could say the same thing while passing the 2nd or 1st floor, but they’re definitely going to need to replace the tiles on the ground floor.

So, I think I’ve picked the right topic here. I'm no economist, obviously, but I feel like I'm on the right track to solving the economic crisis. In the past, I believe leaders solved economic crises in the simplest ways possible. Plenty of historical events back this up—war campaigns were often used to refill the national treasury and inject new capital back into the financial system. We see a modern example too—Somalia. They bring new value into their financial system through ransoms paid for ships.

Basically, I need a Solomon to cut through this Gordian knot of finance.

The solution has to be fast, because once we enter Europe and the Eurozone, things are only going to get way more complicated.

I'd ask that people don't respond based on credentials, just use actual arguments.

The state certainly has various methods at its disposal to inject liquidity into the economy. For instance, until two years ago, the Federal Reserve utilized open market operations through reverse repo transactions or other market instruments like Treasury bills, or through indirect state financing, or even via foreign capital inflows. What is critically important, however, is that the state must have coverage for the issued currency—meaning actual new value. A classic historical example would be the Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm.
According to standard monetary policy literature, if you achieve GDP growth, you essentially facilitate a direct payment for imports without incurring debt.
In short: we should always advocate for the creation of real value!

Joseph Rivera60 said:The state certainly has various methods at its disposal to inject liquidity into the economy. For instance, until two years ago, the Federal Reserve utilized open market operations through reverse repo transactions or other market instruments like Treasury bills, or through indirect state financing, or even via foreign capital inflows. What is critically important, however, is that the state must have coverage for the issued currency—meaning actual new value. A classic historical example would be the Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm.
According to standard monetary policy literature, if you achieve GDP growth, you essentially facilitate a direct payment for imports without incurring debt.
In short: we should always advocate for the creation of real value!

I've picked up quite a few things since my first post. Generally speaking, I agree that money can only be issued if the workers earning it actually produce something of value. The snag is that exchange rates aren't formed by economic power parity, but rather by supply and demand. If the US had something specific to offer the world, we could export goods and use those earnings to pay off our debts. Dealing with foreign debt and the trade deficit is a whole separate headache, one we're still dealing with today.

To try and pull all these issues together, I started a thread titled "Monetary and Banking System Reform - Utopia or the Only Way Out". In there, I've laid out how economic problems often stem from flawed monetary regulation.

Stay smart and stay safe.

Gregory Williams7 said:Honestly, I find it hard to believe you two are still debating this...
If this is such a grievance for you, my only suggestion is to stop using money altogether. Just quit using it and live your life that way.

Personally, I am perfectly fine with the interest rates offered on my savings accounts. I appreciate seeing my capital grow over time without having to put in any extra manual labor. It works for me, and I have no intention of changing it.
Where that money originates doesn't interest me. I certainly don't need explanations from conspiracy theorists. I simply recognize that this system has functioned this way for an incredibly long time and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. I intend to take advantage of it.

The fact that someone took out a loan they cannot repay and is now complaining that the system is impractical—when it actually functions perfectly every single day—is solely their own problem. It is time to get serious.

It's pretty obvious why you're defending this theory. You're trying to protect the banks and the bankers, even though deep down you probably know the crash will be just as painful as it was during the old failures like Ljubljana Bank. You're just comforting yourselves with the hope it won't happen in your lifetime. I don't know if you have kids or grandkids, but isn't that a little selfish?
Besides, greed usually beats logic for most people, including "smart" people. Look at Sanders—I'm sure he never once stopped to think about what he was doing to his children or his future grandchildren. Regarding your precious interest: did you know that if you and every other citizen tried to withdraw just 20% (say, $3 billion) of the total savings held in US banks (roughly $15 billion) within a single month, those banks would collapse instantly? Maria Thomas48 explained it perfectly: the cash you put in the bank is basically just an obligation reserve held by the Federal Reserve, representing roughly 9x the amount of issued debt or commercial loans. And since the Federal Reserve is under the thumb of the European Central Bank, your "savings" are technically yours by contract only. In reality, they could take it or refuse to pay you at any given moment.

Matthew Patel12 said:Gregory Williams7, my master's thesis is no mere cloud of speculation. It possessed the potential to prevent the collapse of the USSR and the entire socialist bloc; it could have altered the very course of human history. However, that was not required of a master's thesis. You are significantly underestimating the weight of such work. What matters is the substance within those pages, not whether it reaches the threshold of a doctoral dissertation. There was a time when Srećko Ugrin authored a volume in English regarding non-credit money and dispatched it to thirty of the most influential addresses on the planet, yet every single copy vanished in transit. The postal service compensated him for the lost shipments, but what value does compensation hold when the knowledge itself is absent? That is precisely how formidable those rulers were through their control of credit-based money. They simply would not permit the truth about non-credit money to penetrate the public consciousness. These power brokers assassinated Abraham Lincoln and they assassinated Kennedy because they dared to engage with non-credit money. They even brought down Ceaușescu merely because he managed to settle his debts, an act they deemed far too dangerous. These elites remain secure only as long as the populace thinks like you, yet they tremble when someone begins to think like Maria Thomas48. We have reached the era where more and more people will adopt the perspective of Maria Thomas48. America ought to take pride in individuals of such conviction. As for you, Gregory Williams7, you will feel shame for the positions you defend on this forum. Your influence is expiring this year. Take a look at http://monetary.org, which outlines the proposal from Congressman Kennedy, and
http://endtheboe.ning.com, where Jerome Powell, the current head of the Federal Reserve, presents his views while also addressing my own research. The era of non-credit money is arriving. Those who wielded more power than Abraham Lincoln or Kennedy find themselves utterly powerless against Maria Thomas48 and myself. We are winning. Knowledge is power, but the most potent force is an idea whose time has finally come. The time for non-credit money is now.

The issue of unbacked money in the USA actually predates Lincoln's presidency by quite a bit. It was really a byproduct of the financial chaos caused when Jackson dismantled the central bank. By the time Lincoln took office, private banks had been issuing their own paper without real backing for nearly three decades. On the other hand, if you're referring to his National Banking Act, it doesn't make much sense to suggest he was killed just two years after passing it, especially since the law was already being implemented. It’s surprising that someone with an economic background could get these timelines so mixed up.

Charles Richardson69 said:The issue of unbacked money in the USA actually predates Lincoln's presidency by quite a bit. It was really a byproduct of the financial chaos caused when Jackson dismantled the central bank. By the time Lincoln took office, private banks had been issuing their own paper without real backing for nearly three decades. On the other hand, if you're referring to his National Banking Act, it doesn't make much sense to suggest he was killed just two years after passing it, especially since the law was already being implemented. It’s surprising that someone with an economic background could get these timelines so mixed up.

Unfortunately, Matthew Patel12 has passed away and won't be able to reply to you!

As noted by the admin on his website, Stojan Nenadović passed away on May 21, 2011. http://noncredit-money.org/?lang=sr

😢

R. I. P.

Maria Thomas48 said:Unfortunately, Matthew Patel12 has passed away and won't be able to reply to you!

As noted by the admin on his website, Stojan Nenadović passed away on May 21, 2011. http://noncredit-money.org/?lang=sr

Did the late Mr. Nenadović ever write a book or anything?

I saw back in early June that he had passed... :/ I tried reaching out to some people from his Facebook profile, but they told me he didn't really have a huge "following" here in the States, mostly because everyone moved over to some American economic forums where they constantly delete comments anyway.

It's a shame things are such a mess. Especially since Mr. S. N. passed. I was a little too late to the party....

Maria Thomas48, the issue with Kulić, Nenadović, and the rest is that they just can't fight against the propaganda of today's "system." I'm hoping at least Pernar shows up in Congress and actually makes some progressive moves. In the meantime, I hope Mr. Kulić and his eight-person team realize they need to explain things a bit more clearly to regular folks, come up with a real tactic, and actually start doing something concrete.

Anyway, a network of people is slowly forming—people who could eventually provide marketing, IT, legal, and other technical support to help guys like them turn their big ideas into reality.

I hope you'll find the courage to join in, maybe even under an anonymous profile on Facebook, and help build that kind of support system.

Kulić and the saint aren't interested in telling the actual truth or offering real solutions. From what I can see, the saint has finally stopped peddling false hope in his statements. I actually reached out to both economists, but they won't bother refuting my points with any real arguments. So, I guess it's just a case of "the dogs bark while the caravan moves on." We're all waiting for something, though I'm not sure what. Maybe WW3.

According to reports on hidden news sites, the whole reason behind the rebellion and war in Libya was Gaddafi trying to gain independence by demanding oil be paid for in his own currency. It brings up that exact question: Why did the Arabs agree to sell oil for nothing more than colored paper? That's the core of it—when people aren't informed about the things they absolutely need to know, it leads to manipulation, coups, counter-revolution, turning a nation into a banana republic, and having all its resources seized.

Because of that, being well-informed is really the only thing that will allow us to succeed. There are counter-revolutionaries everywhere you look, while the general public has no clue where this is all heading. In Libya, people were even welcoming the French as liberators—kind of like a joke about a worm in the mud and a bird. It’s similar here; our people think the EU is the answer to everything, when the reality is quite the opposite. The EU just brings more problems rather than solutions.

Regarding Facebook, I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of all our activity happening on a server owned by an American company. On top of that, there are so many wrong spins being pushed—stuff about government waste, bad investments, tax rates being too high or too low, privatization, and so on—that it dilutes the issues so much that it's impossible for a few individuals to educate the majority. Every single TV news program is just a source for a mountain of lies and half-truths that are hard to believe. Who is ever going to be held accountable for all that disinformation and lying?

This pre-election campaign is a real chance to solidify a front against debt slavery and being beholden to money as a debt. I really hope we can make it happen.

Maria Thomas48 said:Kulić and the saint aren't interested in telling the actual truth or offering real solutions. From what I can see, the saint has finally stopped peddling false hope in his statements. I actually reached out to both economists, but they won't bother refuting my points with any real arguments. So, I guess it's just a case of "the dogs bark while the caravan moves on." We're all waiting for something, though I'm not sure what. Maybe WW3.

According to reports on hidden news sites, the whole reason behind the rebellion and war in Libya was Gaddafi trying to gain independence by demanding oil be paid for in his own currency. It brings up that exact question: Why did the Arabs agree to sell oil for nothing more than colored paper? That's the core of it—when people aren't informed about the things they absolutely need to know, it leads to manipulation, coups, counter-revolution, turning a nation into a banana republic, and having all its resources seized.

Because of that, being well-informed is really the only thing that will allow us to succeed. There are counter-revolutionaries everywhere you look, while the general public has no clue where this is all heading. In Libya, people were even welcoming the French as liberators—kind of like a joke about a worm in the mud and a bird. It’s similar here; our people think the EU is the answer to everything, when the reality is quite the opposite. The EU just brings more problems rather than solutions.

Regarding Facebook, I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea of all our activity happening on a server owned by an American company. On top of that, there are so many wrong spins being pushed—stuff about government waste, bad investments, tax rates being too high or too low, privatization, and so on—that it dilutes the issues so much that it's impossible for a few individuals to educate the majority. Every single TV news program is just a source for a mountain of lies and half-truths that are hard to believe. Who is ever going to be held accountable for all that disinformation and lying?

This pre-election campaign is a real chance to solidify a front against debt slavery and being beholden to money as a debt. I really hope we can make it happen.

If the Arabs sell their oil for colored paper and then use that paper to buy groceries or a car, I don't see the big deal. 😕 If someone trades a certain amount of oil and gets a certain number of Toyotas in return, does it really matter if they used paper money, colorful pebbles, or just traded goods for goods?

Charles Ramos7 said:If the Arabs sell their oil for colored paper and then use that paper to buy groceries or a car, I don't see the big deal. 😕 If someone trades a certain amount of oil and gets a certain number of Toyotas in return, does it really matter if they used paper money, colorful pebbles, or just traded goods for goods?

The difference is that whoever issues the colored paper basically controls the economies using it. I think we all pretty much know that by now. It’s just that back home, brilliant professors teach economics students all about the perks of using a foreign currency, but they conveniently forget to mention that it’s a given that the money supply has to increase, and that it isn't unnatural that you have to export something to account for that increase. This logic implies that the entire planet would need to be exporting things to aliens just to grow the money supply. The alternative to exporting is endless debt and bankruptcy, because while some people are exporting, others simply can't.

I honestly can't wrap my head around this weird idea that increasing the money supply requires exporting. Even the brightest Nobel laureates in economics wouldn't get it, because it's obvious that exporting has all the hallmarks of money printing, just with a wasteful drain on resources. Imagine if they just printed those bills themselves and handed them out to their own people to build stuff within the country. The effect would be much larger. The only difference is that foreign money triggers spending abroad and causes capital to flow out.

Do you ever stop to wonder where Americans get so many dollars to buy up all that Arab oil? And why does it matter so much that oil is bought with dollars?

Maria Thomas48 said:The difference is that whoever issues the colored paper basically controls the economies using it. I think we all pretty much know that by now. It’s just that back home, brilliant professors teach economics students all about the perks of using a foreign currency, but they conveniently forget to mention that it’s a given that the money supply has to increase, and that it isn't unnatural that you have to export something to account for that increase. This logic implies that the entire planet would need to be exporting things to aliens just to grow the money supply. The alternative to exporting is endless debt and bankruptcy, because while some people are exporting, others simply can't.

I honestly can't wrap my head around this weird idea that increasing the money supply requires exporting. Even the brightest Nobel laureates in economics wouldn't get it, because it's obvious that exporting has all the hallmarks of money printing, just with a wasteful drain on resources. Imagine if they just printed those bills themselves and handed them out to their own people to build stuff within the country. The effect would be much larger. The only difference is that foreign money triggers spending abroad and causes capital to flow out.

Do you ever stop to wonder where Americans get so many dollars to buy up all that Arab oil? And why does it matter so much that oil is bought with dollars?

Sorry, you wrote a lot but didn't actually say anything. What's the difference?

100 barrels of oil = Toyota
100 barrels of oil = some colorful paper = Toyota

In both scenarios, I just see 100 barrels of oil at the start and a Toyota at the end. 🤷

How should I even put this?

I mean, what's the point of buying oil with gold, for example? Why isn't that a thing people actually do? Does that make things a bit clearer now?

And honestly, this whole ridiculous idea that Arabs have to buy Toyotas is just plain stupid.

Just look at a hypothetical scenario where we became the most successful nation on Earth and piled up endless reserves of dollars, euros, yen, whatever. What good would all that cash actually do us? And really, what was the point of burning through so many resources just to get our hands on it?

You don't buy oil with gold—that’s just not practical. But if you want gold, you can certainly use the cash you get from selling oil to go out and grab some.
The Arabs don't necessarily need to buy Toyotas, but they have plenty of needs that they cover using the cash generated from their oil sales.
If I'm following you correctly, you're suggesting people just sell resources and pile up cash, which isn't really how it works. After all, was Dubai built by just stacking paper, or was it built by using that oil money to actually invest? It's the same with Gaddafi; he wasn't just hoarding colored paper, he was using it to buy stakes in banks that print the money.

I see things one way, while you see them another. I’m talking about the massive accumulation of cash reserves. Just look at how much cash Apple is sitting on. Whoever controls the issuance of money is the one actually steering the economy's destiny.

But you're treating money merely as a medium of exchange, looking for comparisons to systems where you don't even need currency—like bartering or simple compensation.

It's pretty obvious that the global money supply keeps expanding because some people are hoarding it as profit, while everyone else is just piling up even larger debts owed to those very same money issuers. At the end of the day, it matters deeply who holds the power to issue the money. 🙂

Maria Thomas48, seriously, kudos to you for sticking with this, the hard work, and having such strong convictions!

I actually stumbled onto your page about a year ago, right when I started falling down the rabbit hole of the "profitariat"—you know, that whole mystery surrounding how money is actually created. My first realizations were so wild that any average person would probably just brush them off as conspiracy theories. Honestly, I used to think the exact same thing. But over the last year, it’s really crystallized for me: it’s not even a theory anymore, there’s just an actual, massive, all-encompassing conspiracy happening. It feels like communism and capitalism are just two sides of the same coin, monetarily speaking. This shadow elite—these masters of chaos—deliberately spread this blanket of deception and misinformation, using the fake rivalry between the "Comintern and the Komintern" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rakovsky to keep the masses confused so they don't see what's actually going on. The first book that really opened my eyes and showed me that history is way more complex and multi-layered than anything we were taught in school or college was Engdahl’s work on the era of war, about nine years ago. Later on, a few others really helped me make sense of things: Bill Clinton's favorite college professor, Carroll Quigley, specifically his book *Tragedy and Hope*—which is a great read, and there's even a decent video on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxVlBVXwU5k. Then there's Gary Allen, and of course, Antony Sutton with 👋Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler and FDR. Sutton actually considers his masterpiece on the secret society at Yale University to be his best work (yeah, we're talking Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and a whole crowd from the CFR, the CIA, and the top tiers of American politics—even our "liberal" friend Banac is an emeritus there!) called *America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones*. If anyone's interested, check out Sutton's lecture here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xxgc...eature=related

Since I live abroad, I’ve mostly been following German, British, and some Russian sources, books, blogs, and stuff like that. I really want to emphasize that today's monetary situation—this debt slavery crisis—is identical to what hit the West back in the 30s. It’s something we all know, but if you look at Germany's position in the Weimar "colony" before WWII, it's incredibly telling. Once you consider all the major moves made by the German authorities at the time—most notably their goal to break free from "debt slavery (usury)," which was championed by the engineer turned "economic outsider" Gottfried Feder—it becomes crystal clear how true that Roman saying is about winners writing (or manipulating) history. After the money gods took control of the USA through the Federal Reserve in 1913 (though the UK had already been defeated a century earlier—just look at their track record and the sayings of Benjamin Disraeli, or the unique position of the famous Wall Street), it was Germany's turn. Germany was basically the only Western nation that organically and collectively rejected the ideology of Mammon. Because of that, the Reich saw a cultural, economic, and technological flowering in just a few years. To the shadowy power brokers—the kind of people the late Rathenau talked about during the Weimar era, or what Kennedy called a "pre-existing conspiracy," or what Eisenhower warned about as the "military-industrial complex within the USA"—that was an unforgivable sin. The Atlantic predecessors of the Bilderberg group saw the Reich as the sharpest geopolitical rival to a united Eurasia (think Mackinder and the Heartland Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Theory. If you want to go deeper, here's a lecture on that topic and the crisis of neoliberalism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr1Cj1QzdCY).

A couple of days ago, I came across this discussion and just skimmed through it, but I really wanted to thank you. You're like an intellectual, a patriot, and a teacher who saw through the deception. You've tapped into that deep instinct we all have—that something is fundamentally wrong with our money.

Hope you're still kicking! I haven't seen a single post from you in two months, and man, things have been moving. What started as this quiet movement—one the elites used to laugh at—has basically exploded into a full-blown global revolution. It's the whole Occupy Wall Street vibe going up against the money masters, those big-shot bankers!

Usury is against nature. That’s what Ezra Pound said—he was easily the greatest poet and prophet of the 20th century. He was one of those rare souls who could actually see through the centuries, unlike the blind 99.9% of people who tossed him into an asylum just because he dared to tell the truth. He saw exactly where we were headed with all this greed, pure profit, and usury.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aba1dVLVSFg

William Morales3 said:Maria Thomas48, seriously, kudos to you for sticking with this, the hard work, and having such strong convictions!

I actually stumbled onto your page about a year ago, right when I started falling down the rabbit hole of the "profitariat"—you know, that whole mystery surrounding how money is actually created. My first realizations were so wild that any average person would probably just brush them off as conspiracy theories. Honestly, I used to think the exact same thing. But over the last year, it’s really crystallized for me: it’s not even a theory anymore, there’s just an actual, massive, all-encompassing conspiracy happening. It feels like communism and capitalism are just two sides of the same coin, monetarily speaking. This shadow elite—these masters of chaos—deliberately spread this blanket of deception and misinformation, using the fake rivalry between the "Comintern and the Komintern" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Rakovsky to keep the masses confused so they don't see what's actually going on. The first book that really opened my eyes and showed me that history is way more complex and multi-layered than anything we were taught in school or college was Engdahl’s work on the era of war, about nine years ago. Later on, a few others really helped me make sense of things: Bill Clinton's favorite college professor, Carroll Quigley, specifically his book *Tragedy and Hope*—which is a great read, and there's even a decent video on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxVlBVXwU5k. Then there's Gary Allen, and of course, Antony Sutton with 👋Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and the rise of Hitler and FDR. Sutton actually considers his masterpiece on the secret society at Yale University to be his best work (yeah, we're talking Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and a whole crowd from the CFR, the CIA, and the top tiers of American politics—even our "liberal" friend Banac is an emeritus there!) called *America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones*. If anyone's interested, check out Sutton's lecture here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xxgc...eature=related

Since I live abroad, I’ve mostly been following German, British, and some Russian sources, books, blogs, and stuff like that. I really want to emphasize that today's monetary situation—this debt slavery crisis—is identical to what hit the West back in the 30s. It’s something we all know, but if you look at Germany's position in the Weimar "colony" before WWII, it's incredibly telling. Once you consider all the major moves made by the German authorities at the time—most notably their goal to break free from "debt slavery (usury)," which was championed by the engineer turned "economic outsider" Gottfried Feder—it becomes crystal clear how true that Roman saying is about winners writing (or manipulating) history. After the money gods took control of the USA through the Federal Reserve in 1913 (though the UK had already been defeated a century earlier—just look at their track record and the sayings of Benjamin Disraeli, or the unique position of the famous Wall Street), it was Germany's turn. Germany was basically the only Western nation that organically and collectively rejected the ideology of Mammon. Because of that, the Reich saw a cultural, economic, and technological flowering in just a few years. To the shadowy power brokers—the kind of people the late Rathenau talked about during the Weimar era, or what Kennedy called a "pre-existing conspiracy," or what Eisenhower warned about as the "military-industrial complex within the USA"—that was an unforgivable sin. The Atlantic predecessors of the Bilderberg group saw the Reich as the sharpest geopolitical rival to a united Eurasia (think Mackinder and the Heartland Theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Theory. If you want to go deeper, here's a lecture on that topic and the crisis of neoliberalism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr1Cj1QzdCY).

A couple of days ago, I came across this discussion and just skimmed through it, but I really wanted to thank you. You're like an intellectual, a patriot, and a teacher who saw through the deception. You've tapped into that deep instinct we all have—that something is fundamentally wrong with our money.

Hope you're still kicking! I haven't seen a single post from you in two months, and man, things have been moving. What started as this quiet movement—one the elites used to laugh at—has basically exploded into a full-blown global revolution. It's the whole Occupy Wall Street vibe going up against the money masters, those big-shot bankers!

Usury is against nature. That’s what Ezra Pound said—he was easily the greatest poet and prophet of the 20th century. He was one of those rare souls who could actually see through the centuries, unlike the blind 99.9% of people who tossed him into an asylum just because he dared to tell the truth. He saw exactly where we were headed with all this greed, pure profit, and usury.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aba1dVLVSFg

I'm still around, just been buried under a mountain of work lately. On top of that, I’ve finally finished reworking all those texts—you can now read them all together as a single book.The link provided leads to a PDF that explores the deep-seated connections between international banking interests and global political shifts. It’s a heavy read. It looks at how central banking systems—specifically the Federal Reserve—interact with major political movements to steer the course of history. There is a lot of focus on the idea that certain financial structures aren't just tools for managing money, but levers used to influence entire nations. It touches on historical patterns where debt becomes a way to control sovereign states, leading toward what some might call a debt slavery crisis. The document examines the influence of institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations and how private interests often overlap with government policy in ways that most people never see. It's all very interconnected. History isn't just a series of accidents; it seems to be a series of orchestrated moves by those holding the purse strings.It’s all completely free. I managed to pull together about 70 pages. Once you actually sit down and read what I've written—and really digest the points made in this text—it all starts to click. The history of money isn't just about coins and paper. It’s much deeper than that. If you look closely at how things actually work, you see the patterns. You see the influence of certain groups and the way power moves through financial systems. It's all connected. When you study the way the Federal Reserve operates, or how the banking systems in places like London and Wall Street have evolved, you start to see the fingerprints of people like Carroll Quigley. He wrote about it in *Tragedy and Hope*. He wasn't being conspiratorial; he was just documenting what was happening. There are these elite circles, like those discussed in *An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones*, that shape the direction of the country. They aren't hiding it if you know where to look. Think about the era of the Weimar Republic. The instability there wasn't an accident. It was driven by specific economic pressures and the way debt functions. We saw similar dynamics during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, fueled by the economic chaos of that time. Even looking back at the policies surrounding the rise of Hitler and FDR, or the way the Fed manages the economy, the mechanics remain remarkably similar. It’s about control through credit and interest. It brings me to the idea of usury. It’s an old concept, but it's the engine behind modern finance. When you have a system built on perpetual debt, you create a cycle of debt slavery. This isn't just some fringe theory; it's baked into the architecture of our global institutions. People talk about the "debt slavery crisis" as if it's a recent phenomenon, but the roots go back decades, even centuries. I was reading some thoughts from William Morales3 recently, and it really hits home how little has changed in terms of how these large-scale financial shifts impact the average person. The interests of the big banks and the central authorities rarely align with the needs of the public. It's a systemic issue. Even when we look at leaders like Kennedy or Eisenhower, the underlying pressure from the financial establishment—what some might call America's Secret Establishment—is always present. They operate within a framework set by others. Whether it's the influence of the Council on Foreign Relations or the deep ties between intelligence agencies like the CIA and the banking sector, the players change, but the game stays the same. It's easy to get lost in the noise of daily politics, but if you step back and look at the structural reality, the picture becomes much clearer. The movement of wealth and the consolidation of power are the real stories. Everything else is just theater. It’s all starting to line up. You can see how everything fits together perfectly.

There isn’t much more to say. This whole topic just doesn't seem to be landing because people are too stuck in their own ways of thinking. They’re going to head to the polls and vote all wrong. Honestly, what's the point of me laying everything out exactly as it is when everyone is just looking for reasons to nitpick?

Just sitting here waiting for the new winners to take their seats. I'm sure that after a little while, they’ll start singing the exact same tune as the Republican Party. When that happens, I'll be right back here to shove my previous post in their faces—I laid it all out pretty clearly before. It’s obvious, really. So many people seem to think they can live multiple lives, so they don't think this one actually matters.

Regarding those protests against the banks. Something about it just feels off to me. The mob never actually creates solutions; they just manufacture more problems. They don't bother looking at the root cause, only the symptoms. It’s almost like someone is pulling the strings to ramp up the pressure to find a fix, but without offering any actual, concrete proposals. It’s exactly what the people in power want—it gives them the perfect excuse to push through a "solution" that isn't what anyone actually needs. Just like always.

If anyone's actually interested in what went down with the financial side of things here in America, I stumbled upon this book by Tihomir Čuljak—*Rat*—completely by accident.http://www.4shared.com/document/ar0p..._nova_ver.htmlIf you ignore the military stuff and just look at the economic and financial data—combined with what I’ve put together in my booklet regarding money regulation and the banking system—you get a full picture of the looting going on. It’s the kind of theft most people don't even dream of. You start seeing why voucher privatization never happened, why social ownership was kept alive, and the real reasons behind the creation of those small banks. You see exactly how financial engineering worked and who gave the green light for it all. It really makes you realize the kind of crooked state we're living in. Honestly, it isn't even surprising that our per capita debt has increased sixteen times over in just twenty years compared to when we were part of America.

Then there’s this news about how banks can't actually collect on $35.2 billion in loans. It’s all coming to a head.The economic situation is shifting again. It’s all about how the central banking systems operate behind the scenes. You look at history and you see these patterns repeating—the way debt is used to control populations. It leads directly back to that debt slavery crisis we've talked about before. When you study the influence of certain institutions, like the Council on Foreign Relations or the way the Federal Reserve manages everything, it becomes clear that money isn't just currency. It’s a tool for leverage. People think it's just simple economics, but there's a much deeper layer of coordination involved. If you read through things like *Tragedy and Hope* by Carroll Quigley, the connections start to make sense. It's about who actually holds the strings. It reminds me of what was happening during the Weimar Republic era. The instability wasn't an accident. It was baked into the system. When you have massive amounts of usury running through the veins of a nation, you aren't looking at a free market anymore. You're looking at something else entirely. It's a cycle of controlled chaos. We see it in how the global financial elite interact with political leaders, regardless of which party is technically in power. It's always moving in the same direction.If you look at the trends, here’s how it breaks down. Credit is up by 3.9 billion—moving from 284 to 287.9 billion. At the same time, non-performing loans have jumped by 1.4 billion, going from 33.8 to 35.2 billion. That implies that about 35.9% of those new loans are either already uncollectible or looking that way. If that's actually the case, then a banking collapse is really just a matter of when, not if. The bankers are analyzing these numbers too. It isn't surprising that they are extracting whatever profit exists right now. They know that soon there will be nothing left but empty vaults and a bunch of useless digits on a computer screen.

The fight isn't over yet. We're heading straight toward a total national bankruptcy.

Stay smart and stay alive.

It’s pretty obvious the new Treasury Secretary hasn't got a clue how to actually fund the budget deficit. It feels like he hasn't even glanced at this thread, otherwise, there would be plenty of much better ideas than what we're seeing right now.

Instead, he relies on these academic advisors from top economics departments who have spent their whole careers proving they're great at whatever favors they need to secure. I wonder if our Treasury Secretary will ever truly grasp where the real money in this country actually comes from.