"Goodbye Euro, Welcome Back Drachma" and debt-free money?

... once Greece reverts to the drachma, after the extreme economic chaos that results, Greece will benefit from a substantially weaker currency that is the missing link in allowing the country to pull out of its debt deflationary spiral.

Goodbye Euro, Welcome Back Drachma | Debate Club | US News Opinion.

The author of the above, Edward Harrison, is an extremely intelligent guy. I have to say though that the Germans need their heads examined if they let what Edward is saying happen. If Greece leaves and quickly prospers, one nation after the next will do the same (at least try to).

The German people are looking at the EU as if it's a household unable to create debt-free money. It's locked into the banksters' spell on them. Germany can create debt-free money if it wants to and fund the rebuilding of Europe that it should want to see and without a dime of inflation.

The reason they don't know this is because the banksters see to it that it is not allowed in the mainstream press. If it were to be covered, the banksters would be sure to have their talking heads quickly pooh-pooh it. The average Joe would not know the monetary-reform possibilities and would "leave it to the expert" banksters and "economists."

If increases in currency are pegged exactly to real growth, there is zero price-inflation as a result. All that Germany would need to do is target funding of real-growth projects. That's all!

Look, they are afraid of the inflation of the Weimar Republic, but even Hitler spent Germany out of a deep recession. He spent it on the wrong thing: war. However, the same huge relative increase in productivity could be had without any militarism involved at all. In fact, the more the military were left out of it, the greater the gains would be.

Please wake up, Germany. Please stop being myopic. See the big picture. Europe could be a peaceful, prosperous, clean, fair, wonderful place without any unemployment or poverty or inflation or deflation. It would be very simple, actually.

Computer software and hardware could regulate currency amounts and flows in real-time, as they are happening. The citizenry could vote for whatever projects need doing. The treasury would simply fund those projects. There would be one currency and one bank that would be the treasury. All ships would rise with the tied. There wouldn't be any need for debt, whether private or public. There would be no interest on debts because there would be no debts.

Everything I've just said about Europe could apply right here in the US as well. We once had United States Notes that were nearly right, as far as currencies go. They were just deliberately made weaker than they should have been because the banksters knew that they wouldn't be able to continue bleeding the hard-working people if United States Notes were allowed to completely take over and be used to pay off the National Debt, etc.

So, what do you do when you read this, go into a trance, not hear a word, allow conditioning of you by the banksters to prevent you from repeating what I've said, linking to it, citing it, asking questions about it, etc.? Why not shake off the stupor instead?


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.