Part 5 – Abandoning Political power systems

Legal Environment for a Positive Money

Ch 6 the Legal environment to use a Positive Money :

The legal environment represents the regulatory framework of the company (laws, industry agreements, rules of procedure, etc.). These include, for example: labor law; trade and commerce regulation; and safety standards.

This question is transposed in the context of the use of a Positive Money by analyzing the legal means used by private central banks and commercial banks, commercial banks, to oppose the reintroduction of a Full Currency.

summary of the diagnosis of the external environment of a Full Currency (PESTEL method)

Positive Money is ours

Second Part: Strategic Analysis:

II External diagnosis. 

Opportunities and threats in the Positive Money environment
for a new use in Life Networks.

Chapter 6 the Legal environment

Ch 1 The POLITICAL environmentCh 2 ECONOMIC environmentCh 3 SOCIOLOGICAL environmentCh 4 TECHNOLOGICAL environment
The Fight Against a Private Central Bank

Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Kennedy,

Maurice Allais warns politicians

Initiatives for a Positive Monney

The Anglo-Saxon Financial Oligarchy’s Threat

Pierre Leroux and the associations

Karl MARX and the American Bankers
Distributive economy

Free Trade/Protectionism

The additional cost of Capital

the debt burden

repayment of public debts

solution to repay debts
The impoverishment of the population

wealth inequality

violence by the rich

discrediting the elites

Solidarity villages Marinaleda, Ungersheim

les SEL Local Exchange Services

Local currencies

Private currencies
the sale of financial securities

the casino economy

the stock markets are rising, the economy is flat

the big bubble machine US

Five ways finance has gone crazy

The blockchain a common good
Ch5 ÉCOLOGICAL environmentCh 6 LEGAL environment
Global warming

energy transition, sustainable development

political ecology

What is political ecology

The Climate Convention
money controls the economy

the central bank alone creates money

off-balance sheet management of investment banks

Money in Medieval Europe

the Swiss Initiative Monnaie Pleine
money owned by commercial banks

Glass-Steagall Act, security solution

Increasing fractional reserves

” The” solution to banking crises.

These arguments and means are well known, and we encountered them during the Positive Money (Vollgeld) Initiative between 2014 and 2018.

The arguments of the opponents of the Initiative, the employers, the banks’ union, the Swiss Confederation, political parties opposed to their disappearance following the establishment of a real participatory local direct democracy without a representative system and a fiscal system, were characterized by the spread of fear in the face of this folkloric enterprise which is completely irrational, crazy, unreasonable and dangerous by the enormous risks it poses to the Swiss economy and to the citizens.

The other definitive and peremptory argument was that Switzerland would be the only developed country to use a full currency, and so would step outside the liberal economic system, bankrupting itself in the face of other countries’ hostility to such a wacky monetary system.

Apart from these demagogic maneuvers to frighten ignorant voters on the question of money creation, which the Confederation especially did not want to educate, to train to raise the level of competence of Swiss voters, a few debates between experts of the two sides made it possible to ask more serious questions about this choice of civilization.

1) money is legal because there is a political will to control the economy.

It remains to be seen whether this control is useful for citizens and who takes the power to control the economy.

Accounting records that trace the agreements established by the parties to a commercial contract may suffice.

This was the case as early as 3,000 BC at the time of Sumer and the civilization of the edges of the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates.

Clay tablets shall indicate these exchanges and the credits granted. This accounting technique is most useful for business and trade. In ancient cities, trade expeditions from one region to another had a political dimension since they were the origin of the development of the wealth of a social group.

All of them participated in one way or another. The exchange was about goods complementary to local production: what you have in excess is exchanged for what you do not have.

It is not a specialization or division of labor in the first place, as Ricardo would falsely have us believe. It is simply a question of using the principle of subsidiarity and the alliance of opposites, of developing local production according to the optimum manufacturing solutions taking into account local characteristics: mineral wealth, agricultural wealth, livestock, fisheries, etc. and processing of these products by local crafts or industry.

It is local characteristics, natural resources, energy sources, climate, etc. that determine whether production is optimal in one region and less or not at all in another.

The industrial society with the technological advances of the means of transport has freed itself from these local peculiarities to install the production of wealth near its centers of power in order to better control them.

Monarchies, empires very early imposed their power on economic exchanges by imposing their right to mint currency.

The question of the value of their currency remained to them. We know that this value was guaranteed by reserves of gold, gemstones and later, in medieval times (900-1307) by the large quantities of silver imported by the Templar fleet from the largest silver mine in the world located in Mexico.

This power over money then passed from monarchs to investment bankers,

mainly to the Lombards, the bankers of northern Italy who were concerned with the development of the city states of this region.

And here we are faced with the essential question for those who want to manage a currency: facilitate trade, make it possible to measure their values, nothing simpler through the use of double-entry accounting to promote trade and then the use of a currency to realize the immediate transfer of personal, private property.

But before that production is realized and subject to trade, how can a currency be used to finance a production that is planned but not yet realized?

How do you finance a commercial shipment before the goods are even delivered for sale? In short, how can a currency be used to finance the development of economic output?

At this level of questioning, kings and other emperors quickly found themselves out of the race, without skills and it is specialists in this essential question who took power in the shadow of the monarchs while serving the interests of their masters and especially their own interests.

A banker, of course, immediately realizes that he or she will get rich forever, as long as they can lend money to politicians

who need it and get it repaid with interest (usurious if possible but anyway, compound interest).

At the political level, the power to create and control money has thus shifted from monarchs to international investment bankers. The destruction of the Temple order allowed in Europe this seizure of monetary power by bankers except in the regions, the free cities which after 1307 kept this management of the common property and the common goods with the use of their own sovereign currency or full currency, without debts. In Alsace, this was the case of the ten free cities of the Decapolis (1354 – 1679).

The banker then has the exorbitant privilege, outside of any legislation, to believe or not believe in the success of the investment you present to him.

Without a banker’s approval for such a loan, most citizens cannot one day take up ownership of a house or develop their wealth and businesses. The banker thus has the privilege of selecting who can become the owner and who can develop his wealth without harming the interests of the clients whose fortunes he manages, or even harming the interests of the bank and the liberal economic system in general.

This exorbitant power is not provided for in any country’s constitution.

It exists simply because financiers took power in place of elected representatives in democratic countries. Legally, this power of finance is more than a sham, a real dictatorship.

” Money is non-neutral or it does not exist. “ (Ludwig von Mises, Currency, Method and Market, The Non-Neutrality of Money).

The view of rentiers who want to retain power is that the currency should be neutral and should be used only for trade.

For investment, the rentier would take care of it alone with their savings, admittedly astronomical after centuries of wealth enrichment and capitalization.

Industrial society and then consumer society demonstrated that capital requirements were such that savings were not enough and that a generalized system of consumer credit was far more advantageous for bankers.

Credit enriches the banker without limit, it generalizes the submission of his clients to the economic order based solely on the private ownership of the means of production.

Consumer credit also makes just-in-time (JAT) production possible. Demand then triggers production, which dramatically minimizes the capitalist economy’s fatal risk: producing at a loss because production is not sold, especially when markets for consumer goods are saturated, as in rich countries, and have been since the 1920s.

It is clear that financial crises, world wars, periods of recession considerably delay this crucial final point where all markets on our planet will be saturated and the overcrowding of factories and commercial enterprises will lead to the collapse of this capitalist economic system.

But it is not clear that they understand the subtle and hidden games of global finance, which enriches itself by taking on debt its clients, individuals, or states.

As a result of the indebtedness of companies and statements, financial institutions should logically no longer be interested in these customers whose solvency is questionable or even non-existent.

Debts? It is then a question of selling them as financial securities,

if possible to individuals against their savings or simply to pigeons who will buy them with credits or criminals with their dirty money. In the end, the debts will be bought up by the private central banks who will pay in exchange for new money, debt money created from nothing if not from the greedy will of the financiers themselves.

This new money will go back to the commercial banks and then back to the companies that sold the debts of the former owners. Except that the exercise of financial power is not limited to the use of the printing press.

Fresh money will return, but only if governments follow the fiscal policies and social policies demanded by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy

and, for example, the European institutions that it controls.


Pensions must be discussed: Brussels calls for reforms in exchange for European recovery plan.

Not really open-bar.

By Sébastien Grob , published the 09/02/2021 at 16:00


According to the German newspaper Handelsblatt, Angela Merkel’s government has sent out an initial version of its plan. But was told to revise its copy: its roadmap does not contain enough reforms to the tastes of Brussels, recounts the economic daily. To our already largely liberalized German neighbor, the Commission is calling for a reform to ‘improve‘ its pension system, and for the removal of a tax option that ‘discourages people from working more hours‘, says the Handelsblatt. “If Germany does not reform, the other states will not do it either,” argues the Brussels spokesman.

In order to comply with the regulation currently being adopted, the French draft should draw on the recommendations received in recent years. For example, the 2019 edition urged France to “reduce regulatory restrictions, particularly in the services sector.” Another suggested path is “Reform the pension system to progressively standardize the rules of the different schemes (…) in order to strengthen [their] fairness and [their] sustainability“. Will Macron’s government have to put its pension reform back on the job? “The recommendations pointed to the desirability of harmonizing the different pension systems, in 2019 and before. And this challenge is a shared observation with France. So this needs to be discussed in the context of the recovery plan,’ the Commission says. While specifying that there are “no prerequisites“, i.e. that no measure is fixed in advance as a prerequisite.

end of document.

In Switzerland, citizens have regained power over money creation, which they still retain over cash.

In Switzerland, from August 1307 and the declaration of the cantons to unite to live free without domination of the monarchies, mainly the power of the Habsburgs, the citizens took back power over the creation of money,

they always keep on the cash issued by the Swiss National Bank (SNB) but not on the scriptural money. In December 2015, an initiative led to a vote on this crucial political issue, which was held on 10 June 2018 and rejected, thus losing the opportunity for citizens to regain power over the creation of scriptural money and thus over the banking system and its counterfeit currency.

It is well known how bankers’ families have usurped the power to create money from scratch.

We recommend the video to the reader who has not seen it: the American dream.

The wealthy who wield power use the banking system, to be sure, but they want their deposits to be kept safe, especially from the activities of their investment banks. Security in this banking system therefore depends on central banks and, in the event of a crisis of confidence in this financial system, on political measures to protect citizens first.

2) The safety of the banking system, as a last resort, depends on ensuring that a private or public central bank remains solvent

since it alone creates money, in the liberal capitalist system.

The US Federal Reserve is a private bank owned by the eight richest families of bankers.

Most people are well educated and follow a hierarchical order, and believe that central banks are primarily national and public. Ever since people learned that the central bank of the world’s largest economy, the US Federal Reserve (FED), is effectively a private bank owned by the eight richest banker families, mindsets have changed.

We recall that the Bank of France initially under Napoleon was a private bank entrusted to two of his friends and when the emperor wanted to nationalize it in the service of his empire, he was refused by important shareholders and when he succeeded, it was the main cause of the prolongation of the Napoleonic wars until its final defeat because of the determined hostility of the bankers of London. These financed the enemies of the French Empire who, using a Full Currency, committed an unpardonable crime for international high finance.

We have since known that bankers go to great lengths to eliminate and assassinate leaders who want to govern without borrowing money from international bankers.

Since 1945, the Banque de France has remained nationalized

but that has had little impact ever since the eurozone was ruled by a private central bank, independent of the states in Frankfurt, the european central bank (ECB).

The role of private central banks in pulling countries out of the 2006-2008 crisis is well known

and the ECB’s particularly outrageous play in the Greek crisis triggered by Goldman Sachs’ bank’s action was followed and understood by citizens who saw additional evidence of Wall Street’s organized theft and racket.

But this is not the hierarchical line through which relations between central banks and commercial banks operate. Central banks ask commercial banks to create money through credit, this is normal and this corresponds to the first stage of use of a currency, investment and payment of the work of production of wealth. When it comes to putting in place a system of financial dominance, it is also normal to have executors on his payroll and on his boot, and that is what is happening.

The owners of the most powerful commercial banks are also members and owners of the US Federal Reserve. They will use their central banks to hedge their businesses, indebting them, too, and far more than their commercial banks, on the principle that, as a last resort, even a private central bank remains solvent, because it has the right to create money. Their financial system is thus cordoned off, at least in theory. The practice is much more chaotic and disastrous for all citizens. 

The relationship between the European Central Bank and commercial banks is well described. 


“The video by Mr. Ghisi, former European Commissioner in the J Delors team, shows that it is the commercial banks that create the money (except the notes and coins) for credit and then lend it to the central bankers. (3’51) 


He pointed out that Goldman Sachs had been involved in drafting Article 123 of the Treaty of Lisbon

Article 123 of Lisbon states: 

‘The European Central Bank and the central banks of the Member States, hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’, shall be prohibited from granting overdrafts or any other type of credit to Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States. The direct acquisition of debt instruments from them by the European Central Bank or national central banks shall also be prohibited.’

According to Mr. Ghisi, central banks cannot lend to governments and other public enterprises, but ALSO cannot take on debt with them!!! It works both ways! All our little people have to go through the players of the Casino of Finance…

In short, the growth in the volume of central banks’ balance sheets is the result of leverage by national central banks (including in the eurozone) with commercial banks.

A central bank cannot, for various reasons, be compared to a private firm, let alone another bank. The problems arising from insufficient capital allocation therefore do not arise, or at least they do not arise in the same way.

For one thing, a central bank cannot confront liquidity problems.

Moreover, a central bank always generates medium- and long-term benefits. Through these, it can rebuild sufficient capital over time after losses.

The first reason for a central bank’s specificity is that it is not “illiquid,” and thus has no short-term payment problems.

A central bank can, at any time, meet all of its financial commitments, because it can create the necessary liquidity itself.

This difference from private companies is a very decisive aspect.” 

This link to Liliane Heldkhawam’s document, date: /2018/01/08 

The consequence is that the central bank’s monetary policy, by playing its key interest rate, is used to regulate loans, and it is only through the loans granted by the banks that a structural policy of major works can be financed, just like a cyclical policy of stimulus through the budget deficit.

Borrowing, in theory, when government revenues are insufficient to meet planned spending, boosts economic activity. This stimulus is reflected in higher demand for businesses, higher production and higher distributed incomes. The beneficial effects are higher tax revenues (owing to higher distributed incomes) and lower public expenditures (such as lower unemployment benefits). We are here in the case of financing the budget deficit by borrowing, which automatically restores the budget balance.

This theory is not wrong in itself, except that too much public borrowing leads to a decline in private investment and economic activity in general.

In practice, a bank that wants to get richer through the increase in its clients’ debt will prefer to indebt states rather than individuals, solvency obliges! When states have debt close to 100% of GDP, the interest burden of the debt to be repaid each year becomes enormous, so that only interest payments are possible, and not the interest payments on capital. There is a snowball effect. The state is facing a downward spiral of debt.

Before they get to that point, and before the social explosion that global financial leaders mostly want to avoid in rich countries, they demand austerity. To put it bluntly, drastic cuts in appropriations.

If you want to find extra revenue to balance your budgets, sell assets, divest all or part of your wealth, privatize public wealth and public services. We, investors, financiers, bankers, will buy it back from you at the price we will value it.

The French state, regions and municipalities have learned to sell more and more of the country’s public heritage, because they are unable to maintain it while priority needs demand an immediate solution. A commune that owned historic buildings from the 11th century (medieval times managed through communal ownership and commons through participatory local democracy and communal assemblies) will sell them to the highest bidder so that it can maintain its communal school and subsidize the children’s meals.

In this way, the organizations that sell their assets reduce their own funds, their financial reserve. They become more fragile and more exposed to cash-flow problems.

In short, they can no longer invest easily to become profitable again, and that’s the beginning of the end, that is to say the purchase by competitors or investors who have sensed the good deal.

For commercial banks and private central banks, the issue of equity capital seems to be different.

The private central bank shall have the right to issue the fiat currency or central bank money. To ensure price stability, which remains its primary purpose, it can create bank notes and distribute them throughout the economy through the network of commercial banks.  When it decides to create scriptural money, and better when it uses quantitative easing, the central bank uses unconventional monetary policy measures. Usually, the main instrument of monetary policy is the interest rate at which the banks can rely on the central bank.

The scale of the crisis led central banks to take unconventional measures in late 2008 and early 2009, hence the term quantitative easing,

These include buying corporate bonds or commercial paper, taking over or guaranteeing suspicious bank assets.

Launched in 2015, the European Central Bank’s massive asset-purchase program has injected €2.0 trillion into the economy.

Quantitative easing is a modern version of the printing press. It involves the central bank creating money to buy government or private debt held by investors on the market. The goal is for investors to put the cash they get back into the economy, lending to households and businesses that, in turn, need to stimulate growth and inflation.

The ECB first buys back €80 billion per month, then cuts that amount to €60 billion at the end of 2016. As it concerns nineteen countries using the same currency, the ECB’s purchasing program is more regulated than that of the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan. In particular, the ECB refrains from buying too many bonds from a targeted country in order to avoid being accused of financing its public debt.

In short, the debts that can no longer be repaid without a collapse of the economic system, debts resulting from the anachronistic distribution of credits by private commercial banks that have thus sought to maximize their profits, these debts are repurchased by the private central bank independent of the states.

To be sure of being rescued in this way, one must be a very large financial institution whose collapse will bring down that of the entire economy (to big to fail). We might as well concentrate the power of commercial banks in a powerful oligarchy that now knows that maximizing its profits is virtually risk-free.

In the process, a commercial bank might lend to a multinational firm to buy back a crisis-weakened and heavily indebted competitor.

That debt will eventually disappear into the private central bank’s assets, and the multinational firm will be relieved of that debt burden. The multinational firm will see its place strengthened in the oligarchy to which it belongs, the commercial bank and the central bank will have done their job to maximize the profits of the private owners of the means of production through their big business.

public and private debts are bought up by the central bank, which in exchange issues “new” money to balance its accounts.

Finally, for citizens and taxpayers, apart from the fact that the practice of high finance is contrary to the laws and treaties which describe a “neutral” mission and protective of the private or public central banks and in particular of the ECB, the scandal is glaring and revolting: public and private debts are bought by the central bank which in return issues “fresh” money to balance its accounts.

This new money goes to states and clients who submit to its neo-liberal conditions: privatization of public services, drastic cuts in social spending (pension, health, education…).

But that is not all, the financial system wants to clear the liabilities of the private central bank and demands that debts be repaid, the logic of maximizing profits for the private owners of the means of production including money.

This requirement alone demonstrates that this financial system has as its mission the domination of states and peoples.

It refinances itself by creating money on its own and gives itself the means to continue its dominance without end but not content to ensure its development, it also seeks to maximize its profits not on the profits derived from economic activities but also on debts and their repayments impossible in the short term but possible if these repayments weigh on several generations to come.

To put it bluntly, the security of the banking, financial and Anglo-Saxon oligarchy is the domination of states and peoples, the imprisonment in the system of debts and their endless repayments.

scheme: conventional and unconventional monetary policy.

politique monétaire classique et Quantitative easing

3) Off-balance sheet management in investment banks, deposit security for the wealthiest but not for the others.

The aim here is to secure the wealth of a bank’s clients so that it is not affected by the bad fluctuations in the business managed by that bank.

This wealth is not pooled in the bank’s accounts but is managed separately, off balance sheet. It’s basically a privilege for the wealthiest customers.

They manage their wealth directly by giving instructions to the banker. Customers thus retain direct responsibility for their affairs unless the banker does not act in accordance with the client’s instructions and will in this case be ordered to repair the damage caused to his client.

The problem stems from the fact that the bank manages two categories of clients, the richest and most privileged and the others. This situation is peculiar to the system of financial power that developed after Friday, October 13, 1307 and the development of royal absolutism in France, the destruction of the order of the Temple and its bank as well as the end of the flourishing medieval period, the time of the cathedrals.

3.1) In medieval Europe, things were different, the law was different.


The “BRAKTEATEN” Monetary System in Medieval Europe. 

When monetary wealth cannot accumulate, real wealth grows.

Between the 12th century and the 15th century in Europe, there was a monetary system called “Brakteaten”. Hit by different cities, bishops, and sovereigns, it not only facilitated the exchange of goods and services; it also collected taxes. Each year, fine gold and silver coins were “recalled” and struck again two or three times, losing 25% of their value. Because no one wanted to keep that currency, people would invest in furniture, fine houses, art, or anything else that might retain or increase its value.

It was at this time that some of the most beautiful works of sacred and secular art and architecture were produced. For when monetary wealth cannot be accumulated, it is true wealth that is born.”

It is believed that this era was one of the highest points in European cultural history. The craftsmen worked five days a week, the apprentices enjoyed the “holy Monday” (Monday off) and the standard of living was high. Moreover, there were very few conflicts and wars between the different powers.

However, people did not like this currency whose value collapsed at regular intervals and, finally, towards the end of the 15th century, the “eternal” penny was introduced; with it appeared the interests and the concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, at the same time as the economic and social problems which result from them.

The lesson to be drawn from all this is that taxes must be levied separately from the cost of moving money and not be associated with it.


Taxes separate from currency circulation have developed mostly with the development of royal absolutism in Europe

after 13 October 1307, which changed the Brakteaten monetary system, which was not designed to be a base for this type of tax but to finance the commons, the finest works of art and architecture.

In France, in the medieval period, we saw that the silver was brought by the Templar fleet from the world’s largest silver mine in Mexico to the port of La Rochelle.

It did not circulate between people but served as local deposits in the Temple Bank, deposits that guaranteed the bills of exchange that circulated between traders, craftsmen and the Temple Bank. That system was French, not Anglo-Saxon.

The beginnings of capitalism are linked to the transition from the common ownership of the commons to the private individual ownership of nobles, king and craftsmen. It is the plundering of the wealth of the cathedrals’ time for the benefit of the monarchy and the nobility, which wealth is quickly lost during the wars between kings because of questions of succession and conquest of new countries, including the Hundred Years’ War, especially in France.

3.2) The Swiss initiative Currency Full.

from 2014 to 2018, the main objective, before the use of a full currency generalized to the country’s economy as a whole, was to begin by granting this privilege of managing off-balance sheet accounts to all citizens and not just to the wealthiest ones.

The argument was to make citizens’ money safer by shifting their current accounts and savings to off-balance-sheet management. The currency was no longer created by the commercial bank with its credits but by the central bank, the Swiss National Bank (SNB).

The vote, if successful, turned debt money into legal, sovereign, secure money through its off-balance-sheet management in banks. Citizens were thus protected against financial crises and the risks of currency devaluation.

In response to an article by Myret Zaki in Bilan on November 30, 2015, it was clearly stated:

‘The initiative focuses on the difference between the bank’s ‘balance sheet’ and ‘assets managed and administered’ outside the bank’s balance sheet.

A glance at Swissbanking’s 2014 Bank Barometer will show that banks’ balance sheets amount to around 3000 billion, when banks manage more than 6000 billion customer deposits off their balance sheets. The Full Currency Initiative proposes to push about $370 billion of payment accounts off the balance sheet, or 6% more: and they want to scare us because the banking world would not be able to do that? That small difference for banks will make a big difference for customers: it was evident in Hottinger’s bankruptcy that there were no losses on assets managed off-balance sheet. Why should this competitive advantage be reserved only for the “rich”?”

The following diagram shows the scope of the measure recommended, but this gateway to a Full Currency was not accepted or understood by voters.

système monétaire suisse en 2015

A glance at Swissbanking’s 2014 Bank Barometer will show that banks’ balance sheets amount to around 3000 billion, when banks manage more than 6000 billion customer deposits off their balance sheets. The Full Currency Initiative proposes to push about $370 billion of payment accounts off the balance sheet, or 6% more: and they want to scare us because the banking world would not be able to do that? That small difference for banks will make a big difference for customers: it was evident in Hottinger’s bankruptcy that there were no losses on assets managed off-balance sheet. Why should this competitive advantage be reserved only for the “rich”?”

Positive money is managed off the balance sheets of commercial banks in a monetary department that is quite distinct from the others.

So if the commercial banks fail, the positive money (full currency) is not destroyed; it goes back to the central bank.

Likewise, customers of failed commercial banks are not ruined. The management of their accounts and loans shall be transferred to a bank which is not bankrupt or to a temporary management unit of the central bank while new commercial banks are not in operation.

The image that can illustrate this principle is a shoebox in which the citizen deposits his quantity of full currency. It’s separate from the business that the bank owns. In the event of a problem with his bank, the citizen takes his shoebox with his full currency and places it in another bank in which he has more confidence and which presents less risk of bankruptcy.

Obviously, the central bank controls the activities of commercial banks and does its best to avoid the failure of a commercial bank, especially in an economy based on networks of life that uses the 3 levels of human activity and the complementarity between the 3 forms of ownership.

Speech by Ada Marra at the Swiss Parliament on 7 December 2017 to support the Initiative Monnaie Plein:

In addition, banks will administer payment accounts as securities deposits. The money will then belong to the account holder and will not be lost if the bank fails. But, like cash, it won’t pay interest. For those who prefer to earn interest rather than have safe money, the bank can always offer a savings account. But that settles the senseless binomial interest-debt problem that, it has been widely seen, was at the root of the crises. “.

the pattern of accounting for a customer deposit in the bank’s balance sheet and in its off-balance sheet managed assets:

comptabilisation d'un dépôt client dans le bilan de la banque et dans ses actifs gérés hors bilan

The banks and the employers, the political parties strongly advocated the rejection of this initiative.

Clearly, the ownership of banks is not affected, but it needs to be clarified.

3.3) scriptural and fiduciary money is owned by commercial banks in the liberal economic system.

Of the tasks that banks perform, the management of accounts receivable in cash and scriptural money has an obvious particularity. The tickets you deposit will not be the same with the same numbers when you withdraw them. In law, money is something like that. Therefore, in order for the bank to be able to use and make a profit on your deposits in cash or cashflow, there must be a transfer of ownership.

When you deposit that money in the bank, it’s no longer ours…the bank acquires ownership of it. Which explains the imbalance.

This was an unnatural outcome of a late-nineteenth-century jurisprudence that tipped the banking system into modern finance. 

The civil code clearly treats cash as property, as things that can be owned. See in particular Article 1238. That is because in 1804 cash was really property, because it was, or represented, a claim for gold or silver. That is no longer the case. For more than three decades, no currency had ever been pegged to a metal, directly or indirectly. This effectively separated cash from the world of goods, rendering it merely the subject of an obligation.

The relationship between banks and their customers is therefore only contractual with bond exchanges.

To put it bluntly, we no longer have any money at our banker’s. After all, once a bank is deemed to own your funds, and of course if it owes you a debt (which becomes a credit to you), it is free to do whatever it wants with it. It is this huge legal sham that is unique to banks and to them alone that gives rise to all the financial pitfalls we know today.

 In legal disputes, the idea that money should be owned never seems to have gone anywhere. To accept the principle of claiming species in the event of theft (cf. Cass. req., 25 Nov. 1929, DH 1930, p. 3; RTD civ. 1934, p. 184, obs. Solus). But, in practice, the claim is hampered by the impossibility of individualizing the species in the thief’s patrimony. Likewise, there is never a question of when a currency’s ownership should be transferred. It’s that you don’t pay with a property right. And we can add: necessarily since common property is prohibited because in common property the exchange of a social right which confers a value of use on a common property does indeed represent a one-off transfer of a title of common property… but obviously this is not possible when one remains solely in private property. As a lawyer, therefore, the euro will not be a real currency, so long as it is devoid of legal tender status and exists only as legal tender. To be clear, as long as the euro remains money in debt, it is not a real currency for a lawyer. Sovereign currency, full currency of course is a real currency for a lawyer. But for the moment it is the financiers who have taken power in the liberal system and not the lawyers!

However, according to the case law, the same does not apply to financial securities. 

document: Ref. : Cass. com., 10 March 2015, n 14-11.046, F-D ( N° Lexbase: A3237NDA )

The judgment of the Court of Cassation of 10 March 2015 provides an opportunity to reconsider the banker’s obligation to return as a depositary. Firstly, it is the essential obligation of bank and monetary deposits, which are seen as irregular because, according to the principles of civil law, they transfer ownership to the institution: the trader must only return the equivalent; a more adequate analysis of the monetary and banking system further confirms the strength of the obligation to return. Second, but according to different rules, deposits in securities accounts maintained by an authorized banker as an investment service provider (PSI) imply a repayment obligation. It is obliged to keep the securities, which the law provides it does not own, which also presuppose their custody, a kind of sophisticated administrative management (little discussed in doctrine) of the financial securities (stocks, bonds or other).

 In the present case, Ms X opened a “current and securities account” in the books of Crédit du Nord in 1996. It obtained from the bank, after having summoned it for interim measures, information relating to the operation of its accounts. In the light of those factors, it took the view that the bank had, from January 2001 to April 2003, carried out various transactions without order or authorization and assigned it to order the annulment of the transactions at issue and to obtain its order to pay it various sums. The appeal judgment ordered the bank to pay Ms X the sum of EUR 230 978 with interest.

So there are two ways in which customers’ assets are managed in a bank: what is on the bank’s balance sheet and what is off the balance sheet.

Assets that the banker must return you an equivalent because they are on the bank’s balance sheet and assets that the customer still owns and that are managed off-balance sheet.

In the balance sheet, the accounting for exchanges between customers and banks takes place as follows.

a comptabilisation des échanges entre clients et banques

Comment by Blaise Rossellat 30 August 2015 posted on Facebook and republished here

Today, banks reserve the true “bank deposit” – which is protected in the event of a bank failure, like a deposit in a safe or a storage locker – for the rich. This is what they call wealth management in Switzerland, for example. For the non-rich, deposits are no longer deposits; the meaning of the word has been distorted; they are loans to the bank, with the risk of losing everything if the bank fails. To give an order of magnitude in Switzerland, it is 3 Million Million (MdM) in the balance sheets of banks. And that’s $6 million in assets under management, wealth management of the rich.

So, to caricature, banks diverted deposits from rich countries, making the fortunes of the rich – including themselves – flourish. In fact, are there still rich people who are not bankers’ families?

80% of the loans of the three big Icelandic banks were granted to the owners of these banks and their friends, who bought with shares of their banks to be able to make even more credit.

The parliamentary audit that revealed that was done after the bankruptcies of those banks, but do you think that such an audit was done in Europe and Switzerland?

end of comment

As customers who have no money left in the bank but only assets, we know that we can withdraw them under certain conditions.

But in the event of an economic and financial crisis, we know that the bank can stop our asset recovery. It cannot return all the assets of all the customers at the same time because otherwise the bank is in default and therefore bankrupt. By contrast, wealthier customers with off-balance-sheet deposits will recover assets from which they have never surrendered private ownership.

The new law allows banks to draw down a certain amount from their current accounts and savings books in order to bail out a failing bank.

The prescription has been made in France: now a bank to bail itself out can tap into the accounts of its customers. No debate, no legislation, just an order. If your bank fails, it can bail itself out by sucking up your accounts, but there are no other ways. It is called the “European Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive.” First tested in Cyprus where accounts were largely siphoned, the measure has now been applicable in France since 20 August 2015. This measure is a direct consequence of the fact that the sums deposited by customers form part of the bank’s balance sheet and have become the assets that the bank owes to its customers. This measure could be extended.

Conversely, when a commercial bank grows, prospers, its balance sheet is bound to increase. We know that the main explanation for this development of the wealth owned directly by the bank comes from the creation of money ex nihilo that it gives itself to buy the assets that it wishes to include in its wealth. With this credit granted to oneself, an exorbitant privilege unlike any other, it buys mainly financial securities, including shares of major industrial, chemical, pharmaceutical, defense electronics and arms groups, etc. that this increase in our bank’s balance sheet is a guarantee of security because it is now more powerful on the financial markets.

What’s in the off-balance sheet?

Off-balance-sheet items include items that may result in financial transactions but are not yet such as irrevocable credit commitments to be granted, guarantees, purchases and sales of securities not yet recorded to take into account settlement/delivery times, commitments related to term financing instruments… 

The most important item on banks’ off-balance sheet is the item on liabilities in financial instruments with agreed maturity, i.e. derivatives transactions. In short, this is the anticipation on the values of financial products, which is called speculative activities. In 2013, the liabilities on financial futures of all banks amounted to more than €86 000 billion, almost 11 times the total value of their balance sheets.

Of these derivative liabilities, the largest are transactions in interest rate instruments: EUR 77 520 billion for 2013. That is 32.5 times the total amount of credit banks extend to their customers. This figure is a striking indicator of bank activity in financial markets. There are two types of derivatives. Those traded on regulated markets, involving clearing houses (such as LCH.Clearnet in France) which check the seriousness of the guarantees (referred to as collateral) assigned to contracts awarded and demand remittances in the event of a loss of collateral (referred to as margin calls) and those traded over the counter (i.e. between two players who pass through a bank and not through a clearing house).

OTC derivatives are therefore traded outside any regulated framework. Because of the opacity surrounding them and the role played by credit derivatives, especially CDSs, in spreading US “bad” real estate assets throughout the global financial system, these OTC derivatives were identified as having been the source of the contagion of the sub-prime crisis in 2008. That is why, in September 2009, G-20 leaders committed to introduce regulations to make trade in these products safer and more transparent.

In the United States, the 2013 implementation of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010, meets this requirement. The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), adopted by the European Parliament and the European Council on 4 July 2012 and which entered into force on 15 March 2013, pursues the same objective. EMIR thus aims to regulate OTC derivatives markets by imposing different obligations on market participants (or counterparties) to secure and ensure transparency in trade.

 Off-balance sheet is characterized by the fact that it contains banking transactions (mainly contracts or agreements concluded with third parties) which have not yet affected the bank’s balance sheet but which are likely to do so at any time when a condition for the implementation of the transaction is met.

For example, a bank may grant a line of credit to a company in the amount of EUR 10 000. If the company uses only EUR 4 000, then that EUR 4 000 is on the bank’s balance sheet (short-term loan) and EUR 6 000 is on the off-balance sheet as part of the financing commitments given. At any time, the company may request to use the EUR 6 000.

It is therefore clear that the off-balance sheet contains potential risks for the bank because it may have committed itself to very large amounts.


The bottom line is this: the very rich are protected from bank failure, because their assets are managed off-balance-sheet, while the rest will be ruined with the bank, because their assets have been lost on the bank’s balance sheet. In the absence of crisis or bankruptcy of the private commercial bank, all citizens are penalized by the dilution of the currency money debt when the balance sheet of the bank increases following the asset purchases of the shareholders of the bank from a creation of money ex nihilo that they have granted themselves to enrich themselves ever more. These are just some of the reasons why debt money, the counterfeit money created from scratch by commercial banks, should be abandoned, and why the use of full sovereign money, whether at the level of a country or of a monetary area such as the euro, is indispensable and urgent.

Structural developments between 1980 and 2013 took place in banks’ balance sheets: Relatively fewer loans and deposits and more securities.

Taking the balance sheet of all French banking institutions, deposits which accounted for 73% of liabilities in 1980 were only 30% in 2011. Credit, which accounted for 84% of total assets in 1980, also accounted for only 30% in 2013. This is a consequence of the financing of banks in the financial markets, where they play a major role in intervening either on their own account (direct holding of securities) or on behalf of third parties or as providers of financial products or market makers.

At the balance sheet level, this is reflected in the growing importance of interbank securities and loans, which accounted for 19% of French banks’ liabilities in 1980 and 51.5% in 2013. A financial security is characterized by a series of future cash flows that are more or less risky. A distinction is made between securities representing equity (shares), securities representing debt (bonds, commercial paper, certificates of deposit, Treasury bills, etc.) and optional or conditional securities (options). They reflect the savings and investments of the wealthiest homeowners, including assets purchased directly by commercial banks with the debt money that it creates ex nihilo for their own account. Like any financial operation based on debt money, this asset purchase can lose its value, be destroyed in a financial crisis. And it is this deliberate lending to insolvent borrowers that creates speculative asset bubbles and severe economic crises when those bubbles burst. Of course, these risks do not exist with a full currency, and citizens and businesses are protected from a financial crisis.

The current activity of banks in 2010 and beyond:

“John Kay, former director of a major British bank, analyzes what has become of finance. […] Lending to companies and individuals engaged in the production of goods and services, which most people imagine to be the occupation of banks, represents only about 3% of their total liabilities.”


4) The Bank Bailout: Glass Steagall

Financial crises and stock market crashes quickly lead some banks into bankruptcy and their disappearance further concentrate the banking system in an oligopoly in the hands of international banker families.

But when the oligopoly banks fail, there is an urgent need to bail them out.

We already know how. We have just seen that private or public central banks, as a last resort, create money, fresh debt money to buy back the assets they covet for the greater benefit of their owners. But this low-hanging fruit can be perfected. Instead of intervening with its creation of money, the central bank can help allied commercial banks ask states for help to increase their debts and thus have the means of influence, of additional pressure to strengthen its world government.

During the crisis of 2006-2008, in order to prevent a collapse of the banking system and economy, the too-big-to-fail approach was used to rescue the most powerful banks with insolvent toxic assets on their balance sheets first. In our page dear enemies, we show the processes they use, how the permutation of unpaid debts from the banks’ balance sheet to the public debts of the states took place, the most formidable hold-up in history since it is the taxpayers who will pay for the rescue of the world’s banks.

Nevertheless, in order to avoid a financial crisis and minimize its impact on citizens and their states, it makes sense that banking activities should be separated between deposits and loans granted to customers on the one hand and activities related to the bank’s own affairs on the financial markets on the other. A bank must then choose its status as an investment bank or a deposit bank.

But is this separation efficient and does it guarantee the safety of deposits?

The uselessness of separating banking activities.

An important argument put forward by the leaders of the liberal financial system to dismiss the optimal security provided by a full currency: to secure the banking system and protect the citizens, it is to separate banks into deposit-taking and investment banking. This was a solution put in place after 1929 by the Roosevelt government. Glass-Steagall Act is the common name for the US Banking Act of 1933, which introduced:

  1. the incompatibility between deposit and investment banking;
  2. the Federal Deposit Insurance Scheme;
  3. capping interest rates on bank deposits (Regulation Q).

Defeated since the mid-1970’s and largely bypassed by the entire banking profession, it was eventually repealed – under the Clinton administration, on November 12, 1999, by the Financial Services Modernization Act, known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, just in time to allow Citigroup’s constituent merger

That argument in 2014 is no longer relevant, because the financial risks are tied to the sale of financial securities made from a mix of more or less risky debts. Speculation plays into these risks. Securities sales affect all banks, and commercial banks bought a lot of them before the 2007 crisis erupted. Today, bankers are unable to justify whether the loans originated from deposits or from money borrowed from the central bank and thus created ex nihilo. 

The Swiss initiative Currency Full had to treat this objection as if, in case of banking crisis, it is enough to separate the two activities and therefore it is unnecessary and too risky to leave this banking system to use a Currency Full. Christian GOMEZ, of the Romandie group, took responsibility for responding to a press article presenting this objection.

document: Proposal for a reply to Professor Rossi: The unspoken word of the economy (7/4/2014): 

EMPTY MONEY AND FULL MONEY (Positive Money) by Christian GOMEZ.

Professor Rossi, with his usual open-mindedness, has fully appreciated the importance of the debate launched by the “Full Currency” initiative for a fundamental reform of the functioning of our banking system. It is crucial to put our economic future on a solid footing and to make Switzerland even more competitive economically and socially. 

No, it is not “normal” for private agents, in this case the banks, to be able to “beat money” and create purchasing power over production from scratch. No, it is not ‘normal’ for the latter to be able to draw an annuity from a privilege which was always held by the Community throughout its State; No, it is not ‘normal’ for the variation in the currency in circulation to depend on players who may be subject to crises of absurd euphoria or outrageous pessimism; No, it is not normal for the nonsense of a bank, provided its size is significant, to be able to bring about a collapse of the payment system and thus damage the entire economy; No, it is not normal for this whole system to be able to stand only on price a brazen waste of capital (increase in capital ratios) and, finally, because all the players in the banking sector, depositors and savers know that the state is the guarantor of last resort and that the citizens will pay all the costs if it is really serious…. 

By proposing to distinguish between credits that add to a community’s monetary income and credits that are based on current production (which is basically financed by savings), Professor Rossi sees the problem and sees it as a capital problem. But, by rejecting what he considers to be a radical solution to the transformation of the system, Trump has painted himself into a corner. No bank or banker will ever be able to tell whether his loan is financed with “a writing game” or “real savings.” Most bankers don’t know what they’re doing, and they don’t need to be “good” bankers. The rules of operation of the banking system as a whole must be considered, as most of the leading economists have clearly seen, whether liberal (for example: Simons, Stiegler (Nobel 1982), Marshak, Machlup, Fisher, Friedman (Nobel 1976), Allais (Nobel 1988)…) or Keynesian (like Tobin or even Minsky), all of whom were ardent supporters of the reform brought about today by the new initiative.  

The proponents of this reform did not leave without solid arguments and they expect their opponents without aggression but without complexes, with the certainty of defending a cause that goes beyond Switzerland by its stake.

wednesday 04 june 2014 

end of document. 

5) The increase in banks’ fractional reserves.

This is the solution put forward by the leaders of the liberal financial system to close the debate on positive money.

One should not risk fundamental changes to the system (they refuse to consider the alternative of humanist culture and the possibility of abandoning their financial system). All that is needed is an increase in the level of minimum reserves and capital to secure the functioning of the banking system, and elsewhere, as provided for by the rules of the financial system. This is a small step in the program for the next few years, and we must reject this great foolhardy step forward that is a full currency and which is a source of serious danger.

The problem with this argument is that it denies the real situation of the financial system with, on the one hand, as we have just seen, a state debt that ruins citizens slowly and endangers for a long time the return of economic growth and, on the other hand, the fact that the speculative machine continues to operate as before the crisis on the stock markets. And there is a real possibility that people will refuse to submit to the liberal financial system. But consider this argument.


Despite the fact that history is replete with examples of sovereign defaults – in the last 20 years, 15 countries such as Russia, Argentina, and Brazil have defaulted – most banks still believe that the bonds piled on their balance sheets are safe…

Let us focus on European banks. You may not be familiar with banking law, but European banks must comply with Basel II, which is a set of capital requirements and other specifications meant to limit systemic risk (widespread failure).

It’s the Banking Route Code. This rule was supposed to limit banks’ lending capacity to €16 for €1 at the till: this is called bank leverage. Yeah, but… European banks seem to be lending well beyond the requirements of Basel II! Indeed, they use an average of 26:1 leverage on the European continent. And some (including famous French women) openly “violate” this right by far exceeding the authorized limit! Look for yours (for the year 2012):”

l'effet de levier bancaire : SIFIs :real Leverage année 2012


end of document.

This graph shows that US banks comply with Basel II and III, while European banks, including Swiss banks, are well above the planned safety threshold.

The explanation has been clear and consistent since 2012: US banks that created the 2007 crisis by industrially producing toxic securities sold them mainly in Europe, and, while the FED used the printing press starting in 2010 to bail out American banks by buying up their remaining toxic securities and allowing them to borrow at a rate of 0.01% to replenish their equity almost freely, European banks have not been bailed out in the same way, and to save themselves are condemned to get rich while doing as much, if not more credit to improve their balance sheets, cover losses and rebuild capital. In short, European banks still pose significant risks of financial failure.

Add to this the situation of the European states which are particularly indebted and, in the end, Europe is indeed under the domination of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy and any European revolt is financially compromised, unless precisely the European states are freed from this financial dictatorship by adopting their full currency and exhibiting sovereign defects for the interests composed of their credits.

It is easy to downplay the calamity that is being sought to be papered over when defending the liberal system and its culture of free markets and free contract that naturally favors the richest and most powerful people in the world.

It is also easy to promise a simple solution when no country today can force the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy to abide by their laws. On the contrary, with the transatlantic treaty, Europe’s governments risk being forced into private arbitration when their laws cause conflict and damage to the affairs of transnational and multinational firms. Domination by a country is no longer only financial; it is entirely economic.

To conclude on this major argument of opponents of full money, we can show that bankers themselves do not want it because this would raise interest rates, which would reduce lending and credit, thus banks’ source of wealth and secondarily reduce economic activity. 

6) This woman thinks she has the solution to banking crises… And Wall Street is shaking.

document: by Audrey Duperron · 12 August 2014

 Because banks don’t use their own capital, but mostly operate with borrowed money, they take on more risk, and as a result, they leave the economy vulnerable and provoke recurring economic crises, says Anat Admati, a Stanford economist in her new book on the future of banking, “The Banker’s New Clothes: What’s Wrong With Banking and What to Do About It”.

His solution?

It proposes forcing banks to behave more like corporations by forcing them to reduce their reliance on borrowed money.

It suggests that “major banks should be required to increase their equity funding by at least 30%,” which is “six times the current average for the largest US banks.” This would make the financial sector “more rigid and less profitable.”

Admati’s proposals have met with limited enthusiasm in the financial sector. While Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said he found his ideas interesting, he objected that they could not be implemented, because the US government is already asking banks to reduce their reliance on borrowed money by raising their capital-holding standards. “Officials are concerned that larger changes could cripple banks, leading firms to move through other types of domestic financial firms and foreign competing banks,” he said.

Banks agree: they argue that forcing them to increase their equity capital will raise interest rates, reduce lending, and thus weaken economic growth.

But US President Barack Obama has already shown interest in Admati’s work. Recently, she was invited to a White House luncheon with five other top economists, where everyone had an opportunity to pitch their ideas.

end of document.

Finally, there is the legal environment for a Postive Money (Full Currency).


Financial leaders’ arguments to save their banking systems and reject full money fall short of the political, economic, and social stakes

exacerbated by recent financial crises, the improvement of the system through small increments does nothing to change the widening income and wealth inequality to the benefit of a tiny minority of the wealthy.

The position of financial leaders does not change: they must maximize their profits by indebting as much as possible their customers who have no other solution, because if they do not have enough capital to develop, they will be squeezed out by competitors who have been able to find that capital. Politicians proclaim this dogma: the wealthiest must become richer first, because it is they who increase the size of the pie and increase the wealth, and then, once produced, it becomes conceivable to distribute it without harming the increased capitalization of the wealthiest.

In France, this doctrine of trickle-down wealth was coldly enunciated by President Sarkozy, well after Mrs. Tatcher and Mr. Reagan.

Their objections and proposals do not resolve in any way the unacceptable and scandalous nature of the level of indebtedness of the public finances of most states and these objections do not in any way alter the will to establish a world government for the benefit of the richest.

Their proposal is limited to the recitation of the dogmas of the most deregulated liberalism and the perpetual stupid incantation: there is no alternative to the liberal capitalist system. He is not deaf, but he who does not want to hear!

The actions of private central banks are trying to save the liberal capitalist system by using the printing press now called Quantitative Easing or helicopter money.

Most people were no longer impressed by the “legal” side and understood how this usurpation of power took place by international bankers’ families.

Measures to make banks safer have not prevented financial crises from occurring, and that makes sense. The organization of financial crises, America’s bubble machine, is struggling to find new ways to attract and indebt the “rentier,” and, for that matter, the pigeons of 2006-2008 have become eagles. Investors, abandoning investment bankers and their traders, the Wall Street sharks, have banded together in investment funds to dictate orders to bankers, who are only following them.

Similarly, the management of pension funds from Calpers and the others, battered by this succession of crises, begins to understand that stock market speculation cannot be the path of the highest profits.

While they are not yet ready to grasp the full value of managing the commons for pensioners, end-of-life and real estate, and life-prolonging personal services, there is an opportunity here to replace both funded and pay-as-you-go systems.

Once these investors move to the Full Currency and social rights to develop the Common Goods, will remain only the professional rentiers, the pillars of capitalism that, given the concentration of wealth, are no longer legion.


These threats are present and powerful.

Demagoguery and the false, unfair and fascistic arguments used by employers and certain political parties.

The results of the Mint Plein vote in Switzerland on 18 June 2018 after demagoguery and the false, unfair and fascistic arguments deployed by employers and certain political parties, including the services of the Confederation, provide tangible proof of this. The power of rentier and rabid individualist citizens tooth and nail to defend their few economies goes far beyond mere ambient conformism to respect the legality of the leaders of the liberal system.

The means of communication and manipulation of public opinion to develop social influence in the form of voluntary submission are powerful and effective.

By rejecting the right they forbid us but that we use on, the ignorant find themselves convinced that there are no other alternatives and kneel before T.I.N.A. affirmed brazenly in the 1970s by a British Prime Minister, certainly after an American President.

Living without debts and on the road to prosperity, in short everything that is forbidden to us, illegal still remains the ignorance of a real opportunity for the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Earth, except for a few poets and initiates to the forbidden law.

Evaluation of the External Diagnosis:

As much as the balance sheet of the internal diagnosis is favorable to the development of a full currency, the balance sheet of the external diagnosis, and this is not a surprise, is unfavorable.

This obviously describes the hostility of the liberal capitalist system towards the use of a full currency and everything that goes with it,

mainly participatory local direct democracy. This alternative is rejected, denied and hidden in this liberal system of power.

On the political level, the few and not so many US presidents who struggled against the power of bankers and big finance long before Wall Street cannot help but notice that ever since, all of America’s elected presidents have been backed and financed by the big Wall Street investment banks, mostly Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan.

We have recalled how the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy selects knowledge to form oppositions to its pay, mainly communism, and how Pierre Leroux’s French socialist movement, which wants every worker to be associated with his enterprise and its management, has been dismissed, eliminated by licensed obscurantists like Proud’hon and then by German scientific socialism controlled by the bankers of New York and London.

The most serious and immediate opportunity lies in the field of ecology with communal ecology as close as possible to the needs of the citizens.

But greener capitalism is already on the other side, with large industrial groups working, for example, to produce steel and concrete for wind turbines, which are more ecological impostures than pertinent solutions.

The political ecology that is a major opportunity for the use of a full currency and the abandonment of the liberal system of power is already the place of rifts between politicians, lobbyists, executives of high finance, rentiers and investors against citizens and activists of humanist culture and participatory management.

The crushing burden of public and private debts is also a major crossroads for a change of direction and a resolute commitment to the new legality of living without debts on the road to prosperity.

In a world rocked by so many threats to life on earth, the abandonment of centralized, hierarchical systems of power in which wealth is concentrated on a tiny ruling minority, the opportunities to leave them have never been so numerous and so judicious.

The scandals that are roaming the health crisis of COVID-19 and its mutants, the evolution of lifestyles at work and in private life are certainly ferments of change not towards a voluntary submission but towards more organized and enlightened resistance, learned capable of reestablishing this prohibited right, our citizen power and first and foremost our power over the creation of a currency that belongs to us.

The postive Money, full because without debt, guarantees a new prosperity, as Lionel de Rothschild in 1865, in London, had already so well perceived and asserted.

These bankers know how to control the creation of money and how to get rich without limit. More than 80% of the public is simply unaware of the techniques used by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy, and those who have learned the basics of political, economic, and social economics are now being vilified as plotting…against the masters of the global monetary conspiracy.

But education is the most powerful weapon with which to change the world. Let us hope that these files on Our dear enemies and on the Mint Pleine, without debts, can participate in this most powerful weapon to change the world by leaving these systems of power to develop once again another humanist civilization, Our Networks of Life.

Review of the Strategic Analysis from internal and external diagnosis.

We will give a detailed presentation of the axes of progress derived from this strategic analysis in Part 4 of the Networks of Life when we present the organization chart of the different networks of life and their relations under the direction of their political institutions. For the moment, here, briefly we identify three areas of progress or development to ensure the use of a Full Currency.

First priority: securing the assets of commercial bank customers by introducing the Mint Plein

As soon as possible, the assets of commercial banks’ clients should be secured by introducing the Full Currency, i.e. converting the clients’ assets into legal tender and placing these sums in an off-balance-sheet account. This is what the Swiss initiative Monnaie Plein wanted to change, and this step is essential if a financial or political crisis triggered by the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy is to lead to economic chaos in order to eliminate the abandonment of the liberal system of power.

Second axis: an Emergency Fund and the Work Orders to launch the achievement of the objectives of the work teams

To create in each free city an emergency fund and the work vouchers to launch the realization of the objectives of the work teams at the level of work essential to life and survival. Whenever the present production and distribution of wealth cannot be maintained or modified because of the refusal of the Liberal leaders and the shutdown of businesses, these means of production and distribution will be placed by free cities and the Confederation in collective ownership and managed by the Relief Fund and the Labor Vouchers. Subsequently, these means of production and distribution can be transferred to common ownership under the status of Common Goods managed with social rights.

Third axis: communal ecology or the ecology of a free city

The main mission of the Life project teams is defined through the communal ecology or the ecology of a free city. The high finance of the liberal system can oppose the development of the Networks of Life by stopping the use of energy by free cities. This threat is countered by the development of autonomy from renewable or non-carbon-based energy sources and also by construction, renovation of housing that is better suited to this local energy autonomy. We are here at the starting point of the development of the Common Goods through major infrastructure works and major construction projects in the building and civil engineering sector to realize the housing and real estate and furniture equipment that citizens need at different ages of their human life.

As the German economist Lautenbach pointed out in a Keynesian interpretation of monetary economics in 1930, government infrastructure spending is not inflationary. Hjalmar Schacht will go further without using the printing press by setting up the system of works orders, “Mefo-wechsel”, the “Mefo” effects, which corresponds to a full currency without debts. These examples of the success of a rapid development of a national economy show that the development of the commons in the Networks of Life can also be rapid and important.

These axes of development of the Networks of Life are since yesterday, the missions of the networks of resistance that prepare the abandonment of the systems of power.

These networks are then informed, trained and plan the work and skills necessary to successfully emerge from the domination of power systems. These networks of resistance unite in the FFI, the French Interior Forces associated with the Secret Army, which bring together professional soldiers engaged in the abandonment of the capitalist and liberal systems of power as well as the sectarian and terrorist theocratic systems, military dictatorships. The purpose of the FFIs is to form, when the power systems leave, the National Guard at the local level in a Free City.

What was out of reach of the program of the National Committee of Resistance in March 1944, due to a lack of knowledge and means, becomes again this program long awaited by the French and their allies to regain the prosperity of the times of the cathedrals based on the knowledge and methods of the Mediterranean civilizations of Egypt, Greece or even older.  

The target of the Resistance has not changed since the Second World War: our enemies are the organizers and funders of the two world wars and from the other wars to the present day. We said this in our speech by the poet at the plateau des Glières published in January 2011.

On the other hand, our Resistance has changed and it has raised its level of competence to use this Right that they forbid us and to put an end to this religious root that they invoke to present themselves as the elite predestined to govern the World according to their myth of their common good, myth that they impose on us to structure their ideology and their criminal policies.

We do not need a myth to develop and manage our Common Goods in our Networks of Life, only the will to exercise our power and mission of authority.

The documents cited in this dossier Monnaie Pleine are dated from the crisis of 2006-2008 until around 2011, 2014. They are not outdated and they are quite current. This financial crisis is not over; it is evolving with the COVID-19 crisis, the war in Ukraine, the inflation of the 2020s, and the establishment of once again authoritarian political regimes. In March-April 2023, France’s pension reform demonstrated the authoritarianism of ruling politicians in the neo-liberal capitalist system. The leaders of Anglo-Saxon neo-liberalism have behaved as if they had won and as if they could impose their global government more quickly and harshly. To stop them, to abandon them, to ruin them, we can use the words used by some journalists and economists or politicians to describe the Swiss initiative on a full currency: “a financial and economic atomic bomb”. Which makes this metaphor accurate. In 1865, Lionel de Rothschild in London’s The Times wrote nothing but the ultimate threat of ruin for the families of international bankers.

They know it, and it is up to us to know it, despite their prohibition on knowing and using the same economic, financial and monetary knowledge.

This dossier Full Currency is not intended to archive technical documentation but to serve as documentation for this crucial mission to teach as many of our contemporaries as possible how the leaders of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy act to indebt us and subject us to their despotism, their tyranny.

Beyond a simple criticism, this dossier is also intended to be educational in order to show how to get out of this neo-liberal and financial system of power and how to develop our Networks of Life with a Full Currency, the management of our Common Goods with the use of common property.

Continue reading