Great explanation of the obvious problem in Werner’s decentralised small bank model - the banks still “own” the productive companies and their labour/profits. You laid it out really clearly.
Some disjointed thoughts:
I thought for a moment you were going to go through your list methodically at the start (“who has fed the sheepdog…do they seem proud of it…”) — I was particular looking forward to the ones about disparaging some slaughterhouses but not the industry and the one about destination staying same even as signposts change. Great list of questions.
There I was thinking that was kind of a cute little story about the goldsmiths and the deposit slips! But hearing you question it, you’re right that it omits a lot. Including probably stuff in Krivda that I’ve forgotten. Bankers (esp Buddhist ones) were lending at interest in India from a couple thousand years ago. The African history book I read also talked about war, taxes and I presume banking/money had something to do with it.
Lol I didn’t know that bit about Warburg brothers! But as I mentioned to you before, my knowledge of Europe and WW1/2 is pretty limited, and I don’t know who’s who in the zoo.
I’d also never heard of the Nick guy before either. I just looked him up and first entry said “Nicholas Joseph Fuentes is an American far-right political pundit, activist, and live streamer who promotes white supremacist, homophobic, misogynistic, and antisemitic views. Fuentes has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories against Jews, called for a "holy war" against them, and has denied the Holocaust.” I was like, hey, that’s the kind of thing they said about anti-vaxxers!
Meanwhile, searching for Tucker Carlson or Richard Werner, you get nothing as salacious! 🤔🤔
Speaking of Princes of Yen (which I watched as a free documentary on YT), what are your favourite banking/economics docos?? Do you have a list anywhere to recommend to those of us still learning? I watched “Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire” about the veeeeery interesting offshore banking empire last year.
Thank you, LoWa, and for these great recommendations on Richard and Pat. I did learn a lot from Richard and his details are amazing. I don't have an absolute position on whether he's still representing the WEF. It just seems like it's naive to understand how banking works and see it as a misunderstanding rather than intent.
His solutions extend that intent into bankers owning whole nations at the macrolevel and local businesses at the microlevel. So he thwarts the reason for decentralization. Instead of sovereignty, he decentralizes the power of big banks into a network of banker hegemony. Is this naive or complicit? His intelligence makes me tend towards complicit.
There's a cartoon version of the goldsmith explanation of fractional reserve lending, I saw it a decade ago and used it in my local economics class. Graeber has a chapter on 'Games of Sex and Death' and talks about the consequences of lending as superseding all other morality about enslavement, evicting families from homes, inflicting pain and death. It's not just lending but usurping the land. And those cartoon goldsmiths have no race or religion, unlike the surname.
"who’s who in the zoo" Hahaha! I don't think I'll start watching Nick either. I had to scroll through 20 reaction videos on YT to get to his. Whether intentional or not, he's part of the WWWrestling show.
I did recently rewatch The Agenda and wrote a comment somewhere. Lotta big names, several of whom I question. Catherine Austin Fitts speaks my language of small scale sovereignty but has no plan for it ... or any interest in a plan. Her wealth investment fund, whose meeting I attended, is all about gold and some small caps. What I kept hearing in the doc was "If they get in [digital ID, CBDC] it's game over." What it asks people to do is launch a revolution, march, 'just say no.' I wonder if it leads people to be fatalistic when these things happen, which they likely will no matter what we do. I think a system that gives malevolent actors control of the world is the problem. And we can change that anytime.
If I found any doc or any expert who was already presenting the problem and solution, I'd never have gone to the trouble of writing my book. So I'm not the right person to ask. I'd recommend my own before anyone else's. Thanks, LoWa!
Oh what an excellent playlist, LoWa! I hadn't looked when I responded earlier. Graeber, Hudson, Werner ... great information. That will keep me occupied for a long, long time. And the films! So many on specific situations. The Money Masters was one that I also used in my little neighborhood econ class. Thanks for that!
Cheers, you mentioned any docos about all this?...this is requisite viewing. Some are pointing the finger at Schwab & the WEF being a front for a Globalist Bankers cabal eg Rothschilds, Rockerfellers et al. I'd say bet the house on it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg_2lm979Ow The Agenda: Their Vision - Your Future (2025) | Full Documentary (4K)
Hi Billy. Someone did 'like' my comment analyzing The Agenda on Mees Baijjan's stack, so I found it again. Here are my comments there:
I watched this again. There's certainly nothing I disagreed with. However, I wonder about all the players. When Catherine Austin Fitts says that 'If you know their name, they're not at the top,' the same is said for those controlling the opposition. For her and her good friends, the Breggins, the 'Predators' are anyone who opposes Trump. For all her talk about economics, she has no plan and no interest in one. Her investment company is protecting the assets of the wealthy.
What I would say, overall, is that it has a lot of ominous music and repeated refrains of "Game over." "humanity is done" "the end of liberal democracy" "there's no recovering." What does this do? It says that once they institute digital ID or CBDC, you might as well give up and kill yourself. They won.
Does this normalize all that? When they say that the WEF/ WHO has no ethics, I certainly agree. But are they also lacking in any type of spirituality, to assume that it's all up to us? I don't think we can predict how it will go or that it's game over if they get to the next step. That would say there's no meaning in life, other than what we make. It may be true but I wouldn't assume that.
Ain't that the truth. And since many of the replies I'm looking for were to you, who brings out the best in me, if I could search my inbox for your name, that would narrow it down, but Substack doesn't work that way.
It's hard not to be skeptical of Tucker and Nick Fuentes. I think it would also be hard to please all of the people all of the time. Tucker and Nick have made many mistakes. I did watch the Tucker/Owens show and know the part you are talking about when they disparaged Nick on both of their interactions. I just know that Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson etc are very prominent right now and claim to be talking to Trump blah blah blah.
I can only try to live in whatever the real world is and not have opinions too much. Thanks for all your deep dives. We should be keeping all these folks at arms length or farther.
Hello, Ratio, and thanks for stopping by to comment! You know my philosophy, so I don't worry about whether people are good or bad, or have made mistakes. All I'm looking for are clues as to whether they're acting of their own volition or serving someone else's agenda. I don't judge people as good vs evil, only ideas or behaviors as right vs wrong or somewhere inbetween.
If someone's playing a role, I'm interested in where they're leading us. For Tucker, Candace, Alex and Nick that might be just more division and noise. But I appreciate that Candace and Nick are getting more criticism of Israel into the alt-right.
'arms length or farther' is a great way to put it!
Too much for me to watch the videos yet, but I read through your post (thanks), and thought I'd share Tracy and Shane's retrospective on the sacking of Lahaina ...
Ooof ... that is a dark video and absolutely credible. They're very careful to make no claims they can't back up but present the evidence they have and let viewers decide. Two years already! Wow. But what happened to the parents? I can't imagine they'd keep quiet.
Thanks for sharing this, Steve. It's too heavy for anyone to carry alone.
And thanks for the comment. The implications are dark indeed, but also a repeat of the 'How the West Was Won' ,,, but without the buttered popcorn.
I was chatting yesterday with Tracy and Shane through Telegram about what footage they chose not to show out of sensitivity to the families and fear of being chopped by Google for 'breaking community standards' — footage of bodies burning in the water, others scrambling over the corpses of families burned to a crisp. More like a War of the Worlds worst-case-scenario than a Western, Whole multi-generational families went missing, so there was no one left to claim the missing kids.
Rena, another member of the Telegram group, a resident living just across the channel in Moloka'i, sent an article about the community pushback, but with the beginning description of how land speculators, even as the survivors were just beginning to arrive at survival facilities, had started calling the residents to get them to sell their land — I felt physically ill.
No doubt some of the same tactics were / are being used in the wake of Helene, and in other 'natural' disasters to come.
The predatory psychopathy of the worst of mankind is relentless. We are seeing the planned demolition of families and communities, West and East, and coming at us from so many angles.
Despite Japan's increasing reliance on immigrant labor and tourist dollars (ha, another Hawaii in the making) ... in the 43 years I've lived here, I feel, and have experienced, a growing feeling of disgust towards non-Japanese who have the audacity to call Japan home.
Based on ethnicity alone, more than a few Japanese lump me in with a growing number of wanna-be rich foreign land speculators and medical-tourists taking advantage of an increasingly failing medical system. The political will in the East is similar to that in the West, a dog-eat-dog mentality where the winner takes the lion's share. And there is no returning 'home' for the likes of me.
I watched the rest of this. I'm so impressed by Tracy and Shane. Just looking at their faces, I could feel how genuine they were. While presenting the most incriminating information, they were never emotional but always direct about their conclusions. The school busses, the underground tunnels, make my heart ache.
I'm so glad that two solid people like this are keeping it in our consciousness. And honored to know you, my friend, staying close to this horror without flinching away and bringing strength to the people bearing witness.
Those confusing you with the land speculators couldn't be more wrong.
Tracy had named her channel 'Brush Junkie' out of her original plan to carve out a small niche as a podcaster focusing on make-up brushes. But growing up in Hawaii and seeing the blatant corruption horrified her into action.
Shane has been unravelling the weaponization of technology for decades. Among the many followers Tracy began attracting once she began unravelling the dark reality of life and death in Lahaina, I believe Shane reached out with information specific enough for them to form a very effective team.
As for Japan, the Sanseito political party has made unexpected gains in the recent election ... using ethno-nationalist talking points of 'Japanese First' to categorize and scapegoat non-Japanese under a single category of 'foreigner' to divert voters from the home-grown, failed domestic policies.
Hmmm, now where have we seen that before?
A better question ... where not?
By design, necessity, and ignorance — most tourists and apologists who admire 'exotic' Japan from a safe distance are clueless.
The ebb and flow of history, wreckage strewn across a barren beach.
I'd wondered about her moniker. I'd buy her brush recommendations! Distracted as I was by the dire information, I still kept thinking 'Her makeup is really on-point! She looks fabulous!'
It would not be an option at this point. Although I have acquaintances in Cambodia, they are barely scraping by. And though Thailand is more developed, it is also now a testing ground for the WEF's plan to digitize everyone, everything they own, or anything that can be surveilled and commodified. It is not the paradise it used to be ... but then again, it was paradise for the few with money. Not the working class.
Besides, my longest and closest friends are Japanese. Without their heolp, I would not have been able to survive this long. As they age, I feel an obligation to reciprocate their care as best I can.
Though I will never be Japanese, and neither do I want to, for better or worse, it is home. I just have to be more wary of strangers, keep a lower profile, and cherish the ones I care for.
What Werner reveals is that the people are the source of money creation through their securitised promissory notes.
And Banks are licensed to securitise PN's.
As an Australian, I know that in 1912 the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia created a Bank by statutory force, in effect it is a Parliamentary Bank that had the capacity to securitise the good faith of the people to provide Constitutional money for any project of merit.
A foreign owned Reserve Bank was imposed on the Commonwealth in the 1950's.
There is a short ebook to be found that explains the history and workings of that Bank, and how it was sabotaged by 1923 never to function like it had in those preceding 11 years.
The ebook is called: "The Story of the Commonwealth Bank" by D J Amos and it is only 16 pages long.
When the people regain their functional sovereignty, then the formula for banks to serve the people has been determined.
One glaring omission by Werner is the reference to the bankruptcy of the late 1920's/early 1930's imposed on UK derived jurisdictions and creation of the new legal jurisdiction wherein the people volunteer to commercially operate as legal fictions via the Birth Certificate.
It is this change that in effect is the real bonds that commercially enslave humanity.
That's really interesting, Peter. I hadn't heard of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia before. I call my model a commonwealth bank based on Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania example but it seems like this name has been usurped and corrupted also--from it's good origins in 1912.
What is the difference between a securitized promissory note and a collateralized PN?
1) Re Dick Carlson: Are you sure you meant FBI rather than CIA. I've always heard it as him being connected to or directly in the CIA. Being in charge of the VoA would be more than a bit odd, no?
2) Viva & RIP Joe Bageant! Found him via someone else's blog about a dozen years ago and went on to read pretty much his entire blog output soon after. And the books are quite the journey.
3) This is probably a repeat, but in case someone wants a musical break with the word 'Empire' in it but isn't a Kantner/Slick fan... www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYjKElFCUjE
Of course? One slow pitch down the middle and I can usually connect and get to first base, but my swings & misses are legion, but not yet legendary, thankfully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uT4X2kqoMs
Oh I thought for sure Nick said FBI but you're right, that makes no sense with VoA and Iran/ Contra. Someone else said that on YT, I'll listen again and change it in the morning.
Love Joe Bageant! So funny, so wickedly pointed.
I'll check out the music break tomorrow too. Haven't seen you for awhile. Are you doing okay?
I think the Goldsmiths storey if true is "something like", Goldsmiths at the time (In Venice?) would keep say, 20 x 1oz bars of gold for some person (for safekeeping in a vault) & if he wanted to buy say, 100 cows worth 5 x 1oz bars of gold he could go get the 5 bars of gold & give them to the seller of cows or give a note the Goldsmith the transfer 5 of his bars of gold to the seller. The seller could chose to get a piece of paper from the Goldsmith noting he was holding this 5 pieces for him in safekeeping or collect his Gold. After a while few people came in to physically collect their gold and it was just pieces of paper doing the "payments/assets transfers". The many Goldsmiths collectivly decided as almost no-one collected the their gold bars, they could just give loans AT INTEREST with mere pieces of paper ie fake loans with no real money, (ie a swindle) and if the 5 pieces of Gold was required to handed up they would all do that for each other, & settle that up with each other later.
Your interpretation of Richard Werner's economic theories is wrong. He is not against the creation of money by banks. He is against banks' lending that does not take into account the welfare of the nation. He recommends that banks lend money to businesses for productive purpose and not for speculations. He bases his recommendations on the German economic history in which small regional banks had an important role. Why would issuing of money by the government be better than by small banks whose officers are familiar with the local economy and understand the needs of their community? If big American and multinational banks are exploiting people, that does not mean that all banks, everywhere and always, have been harmful. Werner is not a creator of quantitative easing. He only coined that term. He was never in a position to make decisions regarding bank's bailouts. He is only a professor and advisor. He believes that quantitative easing could be beneficial in certain circumstances. In his book, Princes of the Yen, Werner described how the Japanese Central Bank was transformed under the Western pressure, and from a central bank that funded the Japanese economy by giving loans to businesses for productive purposes, it became a central bank that is concerned mostly with profits of the financial industry, which led to enormous inflation, economic stagnation, and overall depression of both Japanese people and their economy. Why do you think he should not have gone to Davos to see what was going on at the WEF? I would go. Later, he was critical of the WEF. Then he was fired from his job at the University of Southampton because of his views. He is an outstanding economist and human being.
You may well be right, Sonja. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about someone.
But my complaint about Richard's economic theories is that he's NOT against the creation of money by banks. Why should banks have the exclusive privilege that belongs to gov't, that enables them to organize labor in a way that the people want? It seems impossible that Richard isn't smart enough to figure that out.
If the banks usurp ownership of the homes and the power of credit creation, we all work for them. Nothing can be fixed without fixing that. So lending to businesses or creating more banks is a limited hangout--he identifies the problem and gives a false solution that doesn't address it.
I have an article on Gottfried Feder, the genius behind Germany's economic miracle: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/gottfried-feder. However, if his had been decentralized and backed by local mortgages, it couldn't have been undermined by Schoch and Schicklgruber, aka Hitler, and given back to the Rothschilds.
Why does Richard propose a 'solution' that doesn't solve the problem of private bankers creating the money? He may be critical of the WEF but he's representing a solution that merely makes their power more granular. That's usually what those who control the opposition do.
Thank you for your reply and the post about Gottfried Feder. I will look into his work closely. Did you attend the recent online annual conference of the American Monetary Insititute? The key speaker was Kaoru Yamaguchi, a Japanese economist who shares your view on the creation of money that he described in his book: Public Money: The Systems Solution to End National Debt, Banking Crisis, Built-In Inequality, Inflation and Control by CBDC. He has the same problem with Richard Werner as you have.
It seems to me that there is not a big difference between public and private creation of money, as public officials can be as corrupt and greedy as bankers, and bankers can work for the common good. For example, German Chancellor Shroeder, introduced tax rate reduction for capital gains which (neo)liberalized and destabilized the German economy. Prior to this reform, German companies paid high capital gain taxes, which discouraged them form selling shares in other German companies and stabilized the national economy. After the reform, American corporate investors began heavily investing in German companies but also fast selling their investments, as soon as they are not getting desired profits, which began creating booms and busts.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Sonja. You clearly know and care about economics, which is something I've wished more women cared about since my economic plan is to empower mothers to care for their children.
I agree with you that nationalizing the Federal Reserve and giving the Federal gov't the ability to create money directly doesn't solve the problem, nor do public banks. My plan combines public banks with distributing the credit ahead of time for the collective mortgages in a local currency I call a caret. The only rule is that it has to be distributed equally to all commoners, as defined by the commonwealth, which prevents corruption.
Well well we’ll, Werner is a Weffie?!? Damn. I love how easily this guys makes it to understand economic models. But that he was a young globs on leader, I did not know. I have that tucker interview in my long queue but doubtful I’ll get around to it. But I am a little taken back now by this news.
I dunno. What I keep coming back to is deciding what to believe, not who to believe. He comes right up to the brink of the problem, by identifying credit creation by banks. But he never takes it to the next step, that it usurps ownership of the homes and labor. Or comes up with an alternative.
That he was a WEFfie YuGL is definite. But he's so darn likable and is handing us great information and insight on a silver platter. I'd say I'm still 50/ 50.
I am late to his thread and I have an idea, not too original but hey... :) why not to start your podcast?
You could then interview Werner and Manookian for a starter and have a great discussion with them with pertinent questions. I'd love to listen to that and unlike many podcasters, I trust that you'll do an excellent job at it.
A propos, have you done the promised follow up podcast with Malik?
Hello, yulia! That's a good idea. I'd love to talk to Werner. When I had my radio show a dozen years ago, I did a few interviews. Both Barbara Ehrenreich and Daniel Pinchbeck said it was one of the most interesting interviews they'd done--mostly because it was a conversation and not the usual questions.
My next interview with Ahmad is scheduled for Oct 19, although it will air later. I'm setting up a studio in my garaj mahal for it, and just got some electrical installed today. I'd thought of it so I could make sure I was ready for any interviews done of me--hardwired, good lighting, sound absorbing. But once I have that set up, it would make it easy to interview others. And I was surprised back then that you could get just about anybody to talk to you (Charles Eisenstein) just by saying you want to interview them ...
I guess we won’t know until he starts addressing it. Or maybe he has and I missed it. If I was in his shoes and had had a change of heart, I’d make sure the world knows and wild use that lens as a unique inside view of the blob.
I've liked Candace too. I did this video (pre-Substack) on Russell Brand's interview of her: https://youtu.be/fDWVGdExV-A. I was disappointed in Russell that he didn't defend her when his next interviewee, Kehinde Andrews, called her all kinds of names.
Here's my description of it: Russell Brand has a vigorous debate with Candace Owens where they jest, they joust, they hold hands and they redesign the system on a yellow pad. Russell's next interview, Kehinde Andrews, calls Candace contradictory, wrapped around a bubble, an empty void, like talking down a hole, belongs on a plantation, crazy ideas, dangerous nonsense, irrational, ridiculously delusional, and a black face on white racism. Who's right? I present their positions and solutions, and then show how we could enable Kehindeville, Russelltopia and Candaceland, along with my own system of community reciprocity.
Great work again Teresa, CHEERS, this really cuts to the heart of ALL the bad Gov...and MSM et al....the Media is paid for...& what was this "the sinecure" if not bribery? ....not just usury, also theft of public money via fake public debt to be serviced with interest (ie the extractions of work & capital).... a quote I once heard; "If "they" can print as much money as they like & counterfeit money "legally" who controls the Gov"? And just who was getting access to the billons in loans & the negative interest loans to buy up vast amounts of income producing asset? The problem is in part, they are doing these things with no transparency and, public knowledge/oversight/approval and, of course, "selective non-prosecutions" for fraud & swindling...& impunity. What haven't they corrupted by now?
Tereza, do you know your Substack page is not giving a "Subscribed Free to an "Upgrade to Paid" option like others do? Perhaps it is deliberate? Thanks for your work, great!
Hi, Billy. I don't monetize my Substack or my YT. I also declined the option to have people pledge their support if I monetized in the future. I didn't want to have a two-tier system of those who paid and those who don't. But I appreciate you looking for that option!
Thankyou for reply. Consider making it Free & also, Supporters with optional small monthly subscription,...James Corbett whom is terrific & I guess you know of, has always done this. "GOOD unbiased" Journalism & information is a lot of work & valuable (& saves readers a lot of valuable time) &, it is also crucial for Justice & Human Rights & I think we all ought value it & support. KEEP UP GREAT WORK Tereza .
Great explanation of the obvious problem in Werner’s decentralised small bank model - the banks still “own” the productive companies and their labour/profits. You laid it out really clearly.
Some disjointed thoughts:
I thought for a moment you were going to go through your list methodically at the start (“who has fed the sheepdog…do they seem proud of it…”) — I was particular looking forward to the ones about disparaging some slaughterhouses but not the industry and the one about destination staying same even as signposts change. Great list of questions.
There I was thinking that was kind of a cute little story about the goldsmiths and the deposit slips! But hearing you question it, you’re right that it omits a lot. Including probably stuff in Krivda that I’ve forgotten. Bankers (esp Buddhist ones) were lending at interest in India from a couple thousand years ago. The African history book I read also talked about war, taxes and I presume banking/money had something to do with it.
Lol I didn’t know that bit about Warburg brothers! But as I mentioned to you before, my knowledge of Europe and WW1/2 is pretty limited, and I don’t know who’s who in the zoo.
I’d also never heard of the Nick guy before either. I just looked him up and first entry said “Nicholas Joseph Fuentes is an American far-right political pundit, activist, and live streamer who promotes white supremacist, homophobic, misogynistic, and antisemitic views. Fuentes has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories against Jews, called for a "holy war" against them, and has denied the Holocaust.” I was like, hey, that’s the kind of thing they said about anti-vaxxers!
Meanwhile, searching for Tucker Carlson or Richard Werner, you get nothing as salacious! 🤔🤔
Speaking of Princes of Yen (which I watched as a free documentary on YT), what are your favourite banking/economics docos?? Do you have a list anywhere to recommend to those of us still learning? I watched “Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire” about the veeeeery interesting offshore banking empire last year.
I see there’s a collection of clips here: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHlXizOYQofnPlX7ln3D-qt0aMmqzjt7N
And here: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls074237740/
Any favs of yours?
Thank you, LoWa, and for these great recommendations on Richard and Pat. I did learn a lot from Richard and his details are amazing. I don't have an absolute position on whether he's still representing the WEF. It just seems like it's naive to understand how banking works and see it as a misunderstanding rather than intent.
His solutions extend that intent into bankers owning whole nations at the macrolevel and local businesses at the microlevel. So he thwarts the reason for decentralization. Instead of sovereignty, he decentralizes the power of big banks into a network of banker hegemony. Is this naive or complicit? His intelligence makes me tend towards complicit.
There's a cartoon version of the goldsmith explanation of fractional reserve lending, I saw it a decade ago and used it in my local economics class. Graeber has a chapter on 'Games of Sex and Death' and talks about the consequences of lending as superseding all other morality about enslavement, evicting families from homes, inflicting pain and death. It's not just lending but usurping the land. And those cartoon goldsmiths have no race or religion, unlike the surname.
"who’s who in the zoo" Hahaha! I don't think I'll start watching Nick either. I had to scroll through 20 reaction videos on YT to get to his. Whether intentional or not, he's part of the WWWrestling show.
I liked Spider's Web a lot. It quoted Nicolas Shaxson, who I cite in this chapter, which links it at the end of the video: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/12-valley-of-the-dollars.
I did recently rewatch The Agenda and wrote a comment somewhere. Lotta big names, several of whom I question. Catherine Austin Fitts speaks my language of small scale sovereignty but has no plan for it ... or any interest in a plan. Her wealth investment fund, whose meeting I attended, is all about gold and some small caps. What I kept hearing in the doc was "If they get in [digital ID, CBDC] it's game over." What it asks people to do is launch a revolution, march, 'just say no.' I wonder if it leads people to be fatalistic when these things happen, which they likely will no matter what we do. I think a system that gives malevolent actors control of the world is the problem. And we can change that anytime.
If I found any doc or any expert who was already presenting the problem and solution, I'd never have gone to the trouble of writing my book. So I'm not the right person to ask. I'd recommend my own before anyone else's. Thanks, LoWa!
Yes I agree, we need a plan, not just to resist their plan.
Oh what an excellent playlist, LoWa! I hadn't looked when I responded earlier. Graeber, Hudson, Werner ... great information. That will keep me occupied for a long, long time. And the films! So many on specific situations. The Money Masters was one that I also used in my little neighborhood econ class. Thanks for that!
Cheers, you mentioned any docos about all this?...this is requisite viewing. Some are pointing the finger at Schwab & the WEF being a front for a Globalist Bankers cabal eg Rothschilds, Rockerfellers et al. I'd say bet the house on it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg_2lm979Ow The Agenda: Their Vision - Your Future (2025) | Full Documentary (4K)
Hi Billy. Someone did 'like' my comment analyzing The Agenda on Mees Baijjan's stack, so I found it again. Here are my comments there:
I watched this again. There's certainly nothing I disagreed with. However, I wonder about all the players. When Catherine Austin Fitts says that 'If you know their name, they're not at the top,' the same is said for those controlling the opposition. For her and her good friends, the Breggins, the 'Predators' are anyone who opposes Trump. For all her talk about economics, she has no plan and no interest in one. Her investment company is protecting the assets of the wealthy.
What I would say, overall, is that it has a lot of ominous music and repeated refrains of "Game over." "humanity is done" "the end of liberal democracy" "there's no recovering." What does this do? It says that once they institute digital ID or CBDC, you might as well give up and kill yourself. They won.
Does this normalize all that? When they say that the WEF/ WHO has no ethics, I certainly agree. But are they also lacking in any type of spirituality, to assume that it's all up to us? I don't think we can predict how it will go or that it's game over if they get to the next step. That would say there's no meaning in life, other than what we make. It may be true but I wouldn't assume that.
Also glad to hear I’m not the only one that can’t find my own comments unless they are liked or commented on!
Ain't that the truth. And since many of the replies I'm looking for were to you, who brings out the best in me, if I could search my inbox for your name, that would narrow it down, but Substack doesn't work that way.
Oh yup have seen this one! Cheers 🙏🏾
It's hard not to be skeptical of Tucker and Nick Fuentes. I think it would also be hard to please all of the people all of the time. Tucker and Nick have made many mistakes. I did watch the Tucker/Owens show and know the part you are talking about when they disparaged Nick on both of their interactions. I just know that Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson etc are very prominent right now and claim to be talking to Trump blah blah blah.
I can only try to live in whatever the real world is and not have opinions too much. Thanks for all your deep dives. We should be keeping all these folks at arms length or farther.
Hello, Ratio, and thanks for stopping by to comment! You know my philosophy, so I don't worry about whether people are good or bad, or have made mistakes. All I'm looking for are clues as to whether they're acting of their own volition or serving someone else's agenda. I don't judge people as good vs evil, only ideas or behaviors as right vs wrong or somewhere inbetween.
If someone's playing a role, I'm interested in where they're leading us. For Tucker, Candace, Alex and Nick that might be just more division and noise. But I appreciate that Candace and Nick are getting more criticism of Israel into the alt-right.
'arms length or farther' is a great way to put it!
Hi Tereza!
Too much for me to watch the videos yet, but I read through your post (thanks), and thought I'd share Tracy and Shane's retrospective on the sacking of Lahaina ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vi-0jwZcU
Not feeling very optimistic lately.
But cheers!
Ooof ... that is a dark video and absolutely credible. They're very careful to make no claims they can't back up but present the evidence they have and let viewers decide. Two years already! Wow. But what happened to the parents? I can't imagine they'd keep quiet.
Thanks for sharing this, Steve. It's too heavy for anyone to carry alone.
Hi Tereza,
And thanks for the comment. The implications are dark indeed, but also a repeat of the 'How the West Was Won' ,,, but without the buttered popcorn.
I was chatting yesterday with Tracy and Shane through Telegram about what footage they chose not to show out of sensitivity to the families and fear of being chopped by Google for 'breaking community standards' — footage of bodies burning in the water, others scrambling over the corpses of families burned to a crisp. More like a War of the Worlds worst-case-scenario than a Western, Whole multi-generational families went missing, so there was no one left to claim the missing kids.
Rena, another member of the Telegram group, a resident living just across the channel in Moloka'i, sent an article about the community pushback, but with the beginning description of how land speculators, even as the survivors were just beginning to arrive at survival facilities, had started calling the residents to get them to sell their land — I felt physically ill.
https://mauinow.com/2025/08/08/lahaina-community-land-trust-fights-second-disaster-of-gentrification/
No doubt some of the same tactics were / are being used in the wake of Helene, and in other 'natural' disasters to come.
The predatory psychopathy of the worst of mankind is relentless. We are seeing the planned demolition of families and communities, West and East, and coming at us from so many angles.
Despite Japan's increasing reliance on immigrant labor and tourist dollars (ha, another Hawaii in the making) ... in the 43 years I've lived here, I feel, and have experienced, a growing feeling of disgust towards non-Japanese who have the audacity to call Japan home.
Based on ethnicity alone, more than a few Japanese lump me in with a growing number of wanna-be rich foreign land speculators and medical-tourists taking advantage of an increasingly failing medical system. The political will in the East is similar to that in the West, a dog-eat-dog mentality where the winner takes the lion's share. And there is no returning 'home' for the likes of me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUFZDmVjV78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZIldhDiQ7c
Take care Tereza, and thanks again for the response.
I watched the rest of this. I'm so impressed by Tracy and Shane. Just looking at their faces, I could feel how genuine they were. While presenting the most incriminating information, they were never emotional but always direct about their conclusions. The school busses, the underground tunnels, make my heart ache.
I'm so glad that two solid people like this are keeping it in our consciousness. And honored to know you, my friend, staying close to this horror without flinching away and bringing strength to the people bearing witness.
Those confusing you with the land speculators couldn't be more wrong.
Tracy had named her channel 'Brush Junkie' out of her original plan to carve out a small niche as a podcaster focusing on make-up brushes. But growing up in Hawaii and seeing the blatant corruption horrified her into action.
Shane has been unravelling the weaponization of technology for decades. Among the many followers Tracy began attracting once she began unravelling the dark reality of life and death in Lahaina, I believe Shane reached out with information specific enough for them to form a very effective team.
As for Japan, the Sanseito political party has made unexpected gains in the recent election ... using ethno-nationalist talking points of 'Japanese First' to categorize and scapegoat non-Japanese under a single category of 'foreigner' to divert voters from the home-grown, failed domestic policies.
Hmmm, now where have we seen that before?
A better question ... where not?
By design, necessity, and ignorance — most tourists and apologists who admire 'exotic' Japan from a safe distance are clueless.
The ebb and flow of history, wreckage strewn across a barren beach.
Cheers Tereza.
I'd wondered about her moniker. I'd buy her brush recommendations! Distracted as I was by the dire information, I still kept thinking 'Her makeup is really on-point! She looks fabulous!'
She does. And I'm envious of Shane's beard.
Oops ... heads up about any camping plans in Nova Scotia.
It has been closed for the pre-crime of camper caused fires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxesqi46ddE
Cheers T.
Can you not move somewhere else in the region? Thailand?
Hi :yulia.
It would not be an option at this point. Although I have acquaintances in Cambodia, they are barely scraping by. And though Thailand is more developed, it is also now a testing ground for the WEF's plan to digitize everyone, everything they own, or anything that can be surveilled and commodified. It is not the paradise it used to be ... but then again, it was paradise for the few with money. Not the working class.
Besides, my longest and closest friends are Japanese. Without their heolp, I would not have been able to survive this long. As they age, I feel an obligation to reciprocate their care as best I can.
Though I will never be Japanese, and neither do I want to, for better or worse, it is home. I just have to be more wary of strangers, keep a lower profile, and cherish the ones I care for.
Cheers, and a late goodnight from Japan!
What Werner reveals is that the people are the source of money creation through their securitised promissory notes.
And Banks are licensed to securitise PN's.
As an Australian, I know that in 1912 the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia created a Bank by statutory force, in effect it is a Parliamentary Bank that had the capacity to securitise the good faith of the people to provide Constitutional money for any project of merit.
A foreign owned Reserve Bank was imposed on the Commonwealth in the 1950's.
There is a short ebook to be found that explains the history and workings of that Bank, and how it was sabotaged by 1923 never to function like it had in those preceding 11 years.
The ebook is called: "The Story of the Commonwealth Bank" by D J Amos and it is only 16 pages long.
When the people regain their functional sovereignty, then the formula for banks to serve the people has been determined.
One glaring omission by Werner is the reference to the bankruptcy of the late 1920's/early 1930's imposed on UK derived jurisdictions and creation of the new legal jurisdiction wherein the people volunteer to commercially operate as legal fictions via the Birth Certificate.
It is this change that in effect is the real bonds that commercially enslave humanity.
That's really interesting, Peter. I hadn't heard of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia before. I call my model a commonwealth bank based on Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania example but it seems like this name has been usurped and corrupted also--from it's good origins in 1912.
What is the difference between a securitized promissory note and a collateralized PN?
As someone deep into the workings of banking, you might like the chapter I read into my stack last: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/19-banking-is-governance
1) Re Dick Carlson: Are you sure you meant FBI rather than CIA. I've always heard it as him being connected to or directly in the CIA. Being in charge of the VoA would be more than a bit odd, no?
2) Viva & RIP Joe Bageant! Found him via someone else's blog about a dozen years ago and went on to read pretty much his entire blog output soon after. And the books are quite the journey.
3) This is probably a repeat, but in case someone wants a musical break with the word 'Empire' in it but isn't a Kantner/Slick fan... www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYjKElFCUjE
You're totally right, of course. I changed the YT title and will edit the Substack to match.
Of course? One slow pitch down the middle and I can usually connect and get to first base, but my swings & misses are legion, but not yet legendary, thankfully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uT4X2kqoMs
Braniff & Baseball, a bygone era? www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im1I1fch8W8
Oh I thought for sure Nick said FBI but you're right, that makes no sense with VoA and Iran/ Contra. Someone else said that on YT, I'll listen again and change it in the morning.
Love Joe Bageant! So funny, so wickedly pointed.
I'll check out the music break tomorrow too. Haven't seen you for awhile. Are you doing okay?
Yes, doing OK, generally...thanks for asking...the music clip is short, Della Mae & maybe a repeat.
I think the Goldsmiths storey if true is "something like", Goldsmiths at the time (In Venice?) would keep say, 20 x 1oz bars of gold for some person (for safekeeping in a vault) & if he wanted to buy say, 100 cows worth 5 x 1oz bars of gold he could go get the 5 bars of gold & give them to the seller of cows or give a note the Goldsmith the transfer 5 of his bars of gold to the seller. The seller could chose to get a piece of paper from the Goldsmith noting he was holding this 5 pieces for him in safekeeping or collect his Gold. After a while few people came in to physically collect their gold and it was just pieces of paper doing the "payments/assets transfers". The many Goldsmiths collectivly decided as almost no-one collected the their gold bars, they could just give loans AT INTEREST with mere pieces of paper ie fake loans with no real money, (ie a swindle) and if the 5 pieces of Gold was required to handed up they would all do that for each other, & settle that up with each other later.
Your interpretation of Richard Werner's economic theories is wrong. He is not against the creation of money by banks. He is against banks' lending that does not take into account the welfare of the nation. He recommends that banks lend money to businesses for productive purpose and not for speculations. He bases his recommendations on the German economic history in which small regional banks had an important role. Why would issuing of money by the government be better than by small banks whose officers are familiar with the local economy and understand the needs of their community? If big American and multinational banks are exploiting people, that does not mean that all banks, everywhere and always, have been harmful. Werner is not a creator of quantitative easing. He only coined that term. He was never in a position to make decisions regarding bank's bailouts. He is only a professor and advisor. He believes that quantitative easing could be beneficial in certain circumstances. In his book, Princes of the Yen, Werner described how the Japanese Central Bank was transformed under the Western pressure, and from a central bank that funded the Japanese economy by giving loans to businesses for productive purposes, it became a central bank that is concerned mostly with profits of the financial industry, which led to enormous inflation, economic stagnation, and overall depression of both Japanese people and their economy. Why do you think he should not have gone to Davos to see what was going on at the WEF? I would go. Later, he was critical of the WEF. Then he was fired from his job at the University of Southampton because of his views. He is an outstanding economist and human being.
You may well be right, Sonja. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about someone.
But my complaint about Richard's economic theories is that he's NOT against the creation of money by banks. Why should banks have the exclusive privilege that belongs to gov't, that enables them to organize labor in a way that the people want? It seems impossible that Richard isn't smart enough to figure that out.
If the banks usurp ownership of the homes and the power of credit creation, we all work for them. Nothing can be fixed without fixing that. So lending to businesses or creating more banks is a limited hangout--he identifies the problem and gives a false solution that doesn't address it.
I have an article on Gottfried Feder, the genius behind Germany's economic miracle: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/gottfried-feder. However, if his had been decentralized and backed by local mortgages, it couldn't have been undermined by Schoch and Schicklgruber, aka Hitler, and given back to the Rothschilds.
Why does Richard propose a 'solution' that doesn't solve the problem of private bankers creating the money? He may be critical of the WEF but he's representing a solution that merely makes their power more granular. That's usually what those who control the opposition do.
Thank you for your reply and the post about Gottfried Feder. I will look into his work closely. Did you attend the recent online annual conference of the American Monetary Insititute? The key speaker was Kaoru Yamaguchi, a Japanese economist who shares your view on the creation of money that he described in his book: Public Money: The Systems Solution to End National Debt, Banking Crisis, Built-In Inequality, Inflation and Control by CBDC. He has the same problem with Richard Werner as you have.
It seems to me that there is not a big difference between public and private creation of money, as public officials can be as corrupt and greedy as bankers, and bankers can work for the common good. For example, German Chancellor Shroeder, introduced tax rate reduction for capital gains which (neo)liberalized and destabilized the German economy. Prior to this reform, German companies paid high capital gain taxes, which discouraged them form selling shares in other German companies and stabilized the national economy. After the reform, American corporate investors began heavily investing in German companies but also fast selling their investments, as soon as they are not getting desired profits, which began creating booms and busts.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Sonja. You clearly know and care about economics, which is something I've wished more women cared about since my economic plan is to empower mothers to care for their children.
I didn't attend the AMI conference. I was connected to the Public Banking Institute for many years, and one of the co-founders was the editor of my book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607.
I've been reading it into my Substack every third episode, and I'm now in the final section on the framework that would enable community sovereignty. Here's the compilation of links to the first five sections: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/section-five-lands-of-milk-and-money.
I agree with you that nationalizing the Federal Reserve and giving the Federal gov't the ability to create money directly doesn't solve the problem, nor do public banks. My plan combines public banks with distributing the credit ahead of time for the collective mortgages in a local currency I call a caret. The only rule is that it has to be distributed equally to all commoners, as defined by the commonwealth, which prevents corruption.
My plan is based on Ben Franklin's, which I talk about in this chapter: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/05-the-short-eventful-life-of-sovereign.
Well well we’ll, Werner is a Weffie?!? Damn. I love how easily this guys makes it to understand economic models. But that he was a young globs on leader, I did not know. I have that tucker interview in my long queue but doubtful I’ll get around to it. But I am a little taken back now by this news.
I dunno. What I keep coming back to is deciding what to believe, not who to believe. He comes right up to the brink of the problem, by identifying credit creation by banks. But he never takes it to the next step, that it usurps ownership of the homes and labor. Or comes up with an alternative.
That he was a WEFfie YuGL is definite. But he's so darn likable and is handing us great information and insight on a silver platter. I'd say I'm still 50/ 50.
I am late to his thread and I have an idea, not too original but hey... :) why not to start your podcast?
You could then interview Werner and Manookian for a starter and have a great discussion with them with pertinent questions. I'd love to listen to that and unlike many podcasters, I trust that you'll do an excellent job at it.
A propos, have you done the promised follow up podcast with Malik?
Hello, yulia! That's a good idea. I'd love to talk to Werner. When I had my radio show a dozen years ago, I did a few interviews. Both Barbara Ehrenreich and Daniel Pinchbeck said it was one of the most interesting interviews they'd done--mostly because it was a conversation and not the usual questions.
My next interview with Ahmad is scheduled for Oct 19, although it will air later. I'm setting up a studio in my garaj mahal for it, and just got some electrical installed today. I'd thought of it so I could make sure I was ready for any interviews done of me--hardwired, good lighting, sound absorbing. But once I have that set up, it would make it easy to interview others. And I was surprised back then that you could get just about anybody to talk to you (Charles Eisenstein) just by saying you want to interview them ...
Thanks for the suggestion!
Also, the films below might be of interest.
A documentary based on the Princes of the yen. One can see and hear young Werner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY
And this film on Stakeholder Capitalism/Communism by a Brit Richard Jeffs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4rvnBlIito
His website is https://yellow.forum/
Yay for the garaj mahal setup!
I look forward you conversing with your guests!
Yeah, same. I wish his Substack wasn’t paywalled.
Oh I didn't know that. Thanks for saving me the trouble of going to it.
How would he know that the WEF was not a good thing, if he did not go to see it for himself?
I guess we won’t know until he starts addressing it. Or maybe he has and I missed it. If I was in his shoes and had had a change of heart, I’d make sure the world knows and wild use that lens as a unique inside view of the blob.
I was beginning to respect Candace Owens. Hangin' with Tucker; not a good sign.
I've liked Candace too. I did this video (pre-Substack) on Russell Brand's interview of her: https://youtu.be/fDWVGdExV-A. I was disappointed in Russell that he didn't defend her when his next interviewee, Kehinde Andrews, called her all kinds of names.
Here's my description of it: Russell Brand has a vigorous debate with Candace Owens where they jest, they joust, they hold hands and they redesign the system on a yellow pad. Russell's next interview, Kehinde Andrews, calls Candace contradictory, wrapped around a bubble, an empty void, like talking down a hole, belongs on a plantation, crazy ideas, dangerous nonsense, irrational, ridiculously delusional, and a black face on white racism. Who's right? I present their positions and solutions, and then show how we could enable Kehindeville, Russelltopia and Candaceland, along with my own system of community reciprocity.
Great work again Teresa, CHEERS, this really cuts to the heart of ALL the bad Gov...and MSM et al....the Media is paid for...& what was this "the sinecure" if not bribery? ....not just usury, also theft of public money via fake public debt to be serviced with interest (ie the extractions of work & capital).... a quote I once heard; "If "they" can print as much money as they like & counterfeit money "legally" who controls the Gov"? And just who was getting access to the billons in loans & the negative interest loans to buy up vast amounts of income producing asset? The problem is in part, they are doing these things with no transparency and, public knowledge/oversight/approval and, of course, "selective non-prosecutions" for fraud & swindling...& impunity. What haven't they corrupted by now?
Tucker Carlson & Richard Werner
https://open.substack.com/pub/thirdparadigm/p/tucker-carlson-and-richard-werner
TEREZA CORAGGIO 2025.08.08 Friday
https://substack.com/@thirdparadigm
Tereza, do you know your Substack page is not giving a "Subscribed Free to an "Upgrade to Paid" option like others do? Perhaps it is deliberate? Thanks for your work, great!
Hi, Billy. I don't monetize my Substack or my YT. I also declined the option to have people pledge their support if I monetized in the future. I didn't want to have a two-tier system of those who paid and those who don't. But I appreciate you looking for that option!
Thankyou for reply. Consider making it Free & also, Supporters with optional small monthly subscription,...James Corbett whom is terrific & I guess you know of, has always done this. "GOOD unbiased" Journalism & information is a lot of work & valuable (& saves readers a lot of valuable time) &, it is also crucial for Justice & Human Rights & I think we all ought value it & support. KEEP UP GREAT WORK Tereza .