Marinus van Reymerswaele, “The Money Lenders”
47:14 / 131 words
[jwplayer file=”https://counter-currents.com/radio/TST-Anthony_Migchels-20121122.mp3″ streamer=”rtmp://s3cxt7hxkp9tvh.cloudfront.net/cfx/st” provider=”rtmp” duration=”2834″]
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Robert Stark interviews interest-free currency activist Anthony Migchels. His website is Real Currencies.
Topics discussed include:
- The essence of capitalism
- Satanism as Ayn Rand’s Objectivism plus rituals
- How the wealth of monopolies is based on a lie
- The Catholic arm of usury and libertarianism
- The intellectual framework of the great hoax known as libertarianism
- The basic ideas of Keynesian economics
- The “End the Fed” movement as false front
- Public Banking as not interest free
- The Yaka Bank of Sweden; its four principles
- Usury as prohibitive of long term investment
- The affiliation of anti-usury movements with anti-Semitism
13 comments
Migchels is spot on about everything, including his critique of the nation-state.
The central issue is that of usury, and all other problems are subsidiary to it.
Since this is an area I’m interested in, it sure would be nice if someone could post some bullet points from this (not everyone has good hearing).
Sorry ‘me’, I would, but I am not sure I understand it and would probably leave out the most important parts or distort the message.
A real interesting talk.
In an attempt to understand non-interest money systems, I subscribed to the Catholic magazine Michael Journal. Here’s one of their articles (maybe only for simpletons not unlike myself).
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
Glad to hear more from Robert. I wish White Nationalists would talk about economics more because I have yet to decide on a satisfactory system.
Having listened to this interview I am again thinking about the subtle but important ideological divide between the distributist/social credit types of whom the interviewee is a representative, and the more hard right views that seem to form the mainline here at CC. What do people here make of claim (which is to be found in socred and distributist literature) that the triumphant NS movement was tied to the international bankers through Hjalmar Schacht, etc.? It seems to me that this is a very important discussion to be had.
Migchels for example seems to scoff at Casa Pound when Robert mentions it, implying that in some way these contemporary rightist, identitarian movements which seem to offer so much hope are missing the point thanks to their ideological association with historic fascism/nazism.
I agree with Bolton and Migchels that usury is the primary evil of modernity from which the others follow. Greg Johnson has written several pieces sympathetic to social credit and distributism (recommending Alan Carlson’s book, etc.); but the main ideological focus of CC remains mainline white nationalism: sympathetic to Hitler, putting race at the centre of its analyses , advocating authoritarian and collectivist politics, etc.
People like Migchels are unnerving because their conspiratorial worldview tends to make anyone who disagrees with them out to be a dupe of the Rothschilds–no matter how counter cultural their position. (I’m reminded of a recent comment from a reader about being dobbed in at work for positive comments about Hitler by a Willis Carto reader…).
So to sum up, I’d love to read something–by Greg Johnson in particular, or Ezra Pound if anyone’s channelling him–about how we can harmonise C.H. Douglas with Mussolini in 2013. I’d write it myself but it would take a few years of research!
I have convered such questions in my book The Banking Swindle: Money Creation and the State (London: Black House Publications) presently at the printers. Migchels, Richard Eastman, and Stephen Goodson have written forewords. Examined are many examples of state and local currencies that bypassed usury and achieved prosperity. Among these were the issue of Prosperity Certificates by the Social Credit Government in Alberta, and many local currencies used in the USA during the Depression. Axis Germany, Italy and Japan all used state credit. All Rightists advocated state credit, such as Mosley. Without the preroragtive of the state to issue credit, there is no sovereignty.
After the war Rightists contjnued to advocate banking reform, and John Tyndall wrote alot about it. Now one looks at the British Right, for e.g., and sees focus on import controls as the answer, with the exception of the newly formed British Democratic Party which again advocates state credit. Casa Pound also maintains the Rightist tradition against usury.
I wouldn’t say that Migchels calls everyone who disagrees with him agents of the Rothschilds. However, one should look in askance at supposed Rightists who advocate the Gold Standard , and what he says about free trade – from a rightist perspective – can hardly be refuted. Free market, Marxism and the Right are detailed in my book, as Marx has alot to say in SUPPORT of it as part of the historical dialectic.
As for conspiracy theories, Ellen Brown of the Public Banking Institute has recently been described as part of a “fascist conspiracy” by the free marketeers at The Daily Bell, who state that banking reform is “fascist” per se. Well, if that’s the case, good on it. However, this dogma ignores the history of opposition to usury.
Banking reform is ‘hard right’, and unless one deals with usury there’s no point in talking about cultural renaissance, immigration, etc. The reason why Ezra Pound, Fairburn et al were so vigorous about banking reform, such as social credit, was that they saw usury at the core of the system that makes culture into a commodity and intervenes with the creative and productive processes. Read Pound’s “Pisan Cantos” – “On Usura” and Fairburn’s “Dominion”.
Unless the present Right starts focusing on this issue again, as Gottfried Feder had insisted, and stops focusing on relative banalities, then why bother?
People like Migchels are unnerving because their conspiratorial worldview tends to make anyone who disagrees with them out to be a dupe of the Rothschilds–no matter how counter cultural their position.
As a general rule what you say is true, but Migchels does appear to provide some reasons for his suspicions about Ron Paul and the Lew Rockwell bunch. I recall that R. Paul used to describe himself as a “libertarian” yet in recent years we don’t hear this as much if at all. And yes I do realize that these may not be “counter cultural” to you and me, but to much of the population they might be so regarded.
I would say more than ‘some reasons’. My friend Memehunter and I have extensively documented the Money Power build up of Libertarianism and Austrian Economics as the far right pole of the Capitalist-Communist dialectic. The articles can be found here:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/faux-economics/
For reference:
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/gordon-duff-nazis-and-the-unmistakably-macho-allure-of-anti-semitism/
Schacht was a freemason and a good friend of Bank of England chief Montague. He was, quid pro quo, acquitted at Neuremburg. The Money Power is everywhere.
There is indeed a very important distinction between how I look at things and the ‘hard right’. I’ll share an observation that has made me very few friends:
If you study the last four protocols of their Learned Elders, you’ll see that these are the blueprint for their future reign. A close look shows that Nazism is actually a textbook implementation of these four protocols. Don’t scold me, read them anew.
A few examples:
– the way that Hitler moved in public with all these people around him without a formal bodyguard, in open vehicles etc is exactly as they propose their king should be in public.
– His financial program was quite similar to what they propose.
– But most important is that these protocols clearly show that they see the State and their Omnipotent King (Fuehrer) as the source and center of life within their Kingdom. It is quite obvious that this is a central tenet of Nazism also and this is the key.
They intend to centralize all power in the State and the trend of power centralization, already prevalent in the Nation States that ascended in the 18th/19th century was an indispensable part of this program. By the way, Usury is the ultimate centralizer of power.
This is why I don’t support fascism/nazism, although I most certainly also don’t demonize it in the modern way, which I consider just silly.
I resist this. The Source of Life is Christ, the Word, who was with God from the beginning and who IS God. Keep in mind that the Protocols openly declare that they intend to do away with Christ (as God Immanent), they only accept their Transcendental God, which Jesus called his Father. True, the Jewish God is actually Lucifer.
And that’s what it’s all about. Society should decentralize power to local commonwealths and individuals, leaving plenty of scope for personal conscience, because in prayer and meditation every individual sufficiently spiritually inclined can build a relationship with his Maker for daily guidance. This must not be interfered with by an intrusive State subjecting the individual.
All this should be achieved without allowing the schemers to take control. This is the kind of balance that I believe we should be looking for.
(PS: for completeness’ sake, I do accept racialism as important and honorable. The races should not be mixed, although individuals should be allowed to intermarry. I do also believe in a brotherhood of races and nations.)
Speaking of usury, Migchels has a nice article on Michael Hoffman’s (author of Judaism Discovered) new book on Usury in Christendom: https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/meet-the-real-deal-michael-hoffman-on-usury-in-christendom/
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.