Green Party passed a motion to place money creation into public hands and end fractional reserve banking

Home » Blog » 2013 » September » 17 » Green Party passed…

green partyThe Green Party of England and Wales made history by joining the US Green Party in calling for an end to the private creation of money by banks at their conference (Sept 13-16). After a debate on the motion at the Autumn Conference in Brighton, the Green Party has collectively decided to instead place this power with a democratically accountable National Monetary Authority at the Bank of England. This represents a huge change in Green Party policy, as we are now calling for full reserve banking, alongside other radical policies such as a citizens income, land value tax and of course the decarbonisation of the entire economy as we move to a post carbon world.

Screen Shot 2013-09-18 at 11.11.42

The passing of the Monetary and Banking Reform Composite Motion (read the background paper here) follows many years of campaigning within the party by members concerned about the private creation of money. A group of these campaigners, joined under the banner of the Green Party Monetary Reform Working Group, have been tirelessly working to educate and raise awareness about the private creation of money. This has involved the passing of motions to recognise this, regular stalls at conference to distribute leaflets, and of course talking with other members about all the issues that Positive Money also campaigns on.

Despite the former leader and first Green MP, Caroline Lucas, supporting the Positive Money campaign, it was a difficult debate. A wrecking amendment had been submitted, calling for the full reserve banking motion to be deleted and replaced with a motion calling for the public control of banks (which is already Green Party policy). Without ending the debt-based fractional reserve banking system, we can never move away from an economic system that has inequality and unsustainable growth built into it. Thankfully the wrecking amendment fell and the motion was passed unchanged.

However, just like Brighton represents a beachhead for the Green Party, so too does this motion represent merely a foothold for supporters of full reserve banking within the party. I can understand that many members of the public are disillusioned with party politics and keen to stay outside of it. But the Green Party conference is unique in UK politics in that all the party’s policies are debated and passed there by a democratic vote by members. There is still the chance that what was achieved in Brighton could be undone. So I would implore anyone reading this, who is committed to environmental and social justice, and who seriously wants to end the debt-based money system, to join the Green Party today by clicking on this link. Yearly membership is as cheap as £5 a year for students, and £10.50 for anyone not working full-time. If you do join, and support monetary reform, then please email me at to continue to campaign within the party and build support for these policies.

This is a historic week for the Green Party. I hope that soon other political parties will follow suit, and we will soon end the crazy banking system we have to put up with today.


Read the Banking Reform Motion 

Read the Background Paper to the Banking Reform Motion


Stay in touch

Trackback from your site.

  • Mark

    This is a fools errand. All this would do is shift the problems of the monetary system from the few to the many. True monetary reform would eliminate money completely. It serves no real purpose but to give fictional value to the work we do.

    • reissgo

      On what exactly are you basing this conclusion?

    • Linards Berzins

      I was wondering what do you think would solve the problem? Genuinely interested

    • Simon

      A big ask to get rid of money completely, what do you propose ?

    • Oli

      You are right Mark. It is hard to get to grips with but resourced-based economics are the only way to have an economy that is compatible with social and ecological sustainability. Fractional reserve is only half the problem with money. the other half is the psychological effects it has doing ANYTHING requires a profit. As long as citizens are motivated by fear and accumulation, civilized behavior will be inhibited. When you understand this it explains so much about why ‘we’ appear to act in irrational ways. But maybe it’s an idea before it’s time. One hopes that mass communication can accelerate it’s adoption. One step at a time, eh.

      • Kevin

        If FRB was coupled with Land Value Taxation, Social Enterprise Reforms, Cap and Share on emissions, Direct Democracy, Closed Loop production processes and a Citizens Dividend then we would be very close to a fair and just resource based economy.

        Just sayin….

        • Oli

          Yes, these sound like sound potential transitional initiatives.

      • Simon

        Excessive profit is a problem, and monopolies and oligopolies. Too much business is done by mega corporations, we don’t have capitalism anymore, and big business and banks wield more power than governments. Certain essentials like housing, and energy supplies should have adequate public provision and be strongly regulated so everyone has a fair go.
        People would not get out of bed if there was not a profit motive in many areas of economic activity. This was why much public housing was sold off, because it was felt owner occupiers would take better care of their property compared to renters, but it has gone much too far the other way now.

        • Oli

          “People would not get out of bed if there was not a profit motive”…

          I disagree. This is a very dim view of existence. I don’t know about you but I find Saturdays far more invigorating than the rest of the week.

          Consider the following:

          • Simon

            Hi Oli,
            Interesting video. Much work for many people is a tedious necessity to earn money. I quite like what I do, but there are times when I think there is something else I would be much rather doing, like learning a language or how to play the piano. Our automated world should relieve us from much of the drudgery of work, and to some extent this has happened with much less manual labour, and many forced into unemployment. I agree much work is unnecessary, and we should not all be forced into being entrepreneurs to survive, because not everyone wants to be like Richard Branson, for example. I see many people out of work, or doing little work, and I do think we need to move away from work as the be all and end all in society. How do we make these people feel valued and useful ? Much is done that is not paid, or undervalued. For example, there are 6 million people in the UK who care for sick or disabled relatives.
            The counter argument is that tedious, necessary stuff has to be done, like emptying the bins, cleaning hospitals, building or maintaining the roads etc. Pleasure can be enhanced after doing some hard, boring work. For example I need to decorate my house, which I find uninteresting, but I will enjoy the result. If people are dis-incentivised to do the hard, boring stuff, then society could end up like a teenager’s bedroom. Untidy, and “I can’t be bothered” sort of attitude. To some extent, this is happening already, when many people can opt out of looking after themselves, and expect others to do necessary tasks. The fields after the Reading music festival with the huge rubbish left by people were a disgrace, and I went to festivals in the 1970s, but we never left a place like that.
            I do agree with many of the sentiments in the video, and a re-ordering of society and the economy is necessary, especially when work hours have barely reduced for many in 50 years.

      • Govinda Nandahar

        The is what you are talking about Oli.

    • bonashNZ

      It doesn’t give fictional value to work, it gives nominal value to work. That is what it is supposed to do. Without it modern production cannot occur.

  • Richard

    Well they have just secured my vote and I’ll be signing up for their party membership. That’s a pretty momentous and fundamental decision by them. Anything has got to be better than the current system of moving wealth from the man/woman on the street to the hands of the rich. It also distorts nearly everything that happens in society and at the heart of it, it is fraud on a mass scale, no different to someone breaking into your home and stealing you possessions.

    As for Mark’s point I agree that the ideal is to end the use of money.

    To answer resissgo and Linards points I would like to see more investigation into the idea of the resource based economy; but I still think a lot more work needs to be done on the idea to see whether it is actually feasibly possible, not the technological aspects but how you would deal with the human issues. One day in the future this is how the world will work but I am not sure as a species we are ready for this.

  • PJM

    The second paragraph began with: “The passing of the Monetary and Banking Reform Composite Motion follows many years of campaigning within the party by members concerned about the private creation of wealth.”

    Surely the writer meant the private creation of money — not wealth? Bankers don’t create wealth. Rather, they steal it by subterfuge — through fractional reserve banking — from the rest of us. It is we, the rest of us, through our entrepreneurial spirit and our labour who create wealth!
    As for the Green Party’s continuing to call for a carbon-free world, this nonsense ought to stop. Just read what Climatologist Dr Tim Ball has recently written on the subject, at

    All the Green Party needs to do to secure my vote is to understand how we’ve been duped by the bogus claims of the IPCC, drop all reference to ‘climate change’ and ‘alternative energy’ and then focus on the real problems: Firstly, fix the money system, and secondly, focus on lessening the chemical pollution that is having such a pernicious effect on our planet. As but one example, vast quantities of toxic chemicals are pouring constantly down China’s rivers and into the Pacific Ocean.
    It is also time that people everywhere grasped the fact that oil is not a fossil fuel, but is a natural product of the planet itself — resulting from the reaction among calcium carbonate, iron oxide and superheated steam, occurring continuously about 100 kilometres below the planet’s surface. We are not short of oil. Rather, we are short of engineers, scientists and tradespeople to find it, drill for it safely with due precaution to minimise any harm to the environment, refine it and distribute it.

    • Whovier

      So you’re saying that the planet, which took 100’s of millions of years to produce the oil we have burned in the last 50, can be replaced by the planet at the same rate as our consumption? Wow, that’s quite a revelation! Quick, call Canada because they’re tearing their natural resources apart extracting tar sands which, according to you, is completely unnecessary. Amazing stuff. Either that or your as full of shit as Dr Ball.

      • PJM

        1. When you have read and digested the two papers on the website of the Proceedings of the American Academy of Sciences, PNAS:

        1. August 20, 2002 vol. 99 no. 17 10976-10981 The evolution of multicomponent
        systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the
        hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum and

        2. September 28, 2004 vol. 101 no. 39 14023-14026 Generation of methane in the
        Earth’s mantle: In situ high pressure–temperature measurements of carbonate

        you may be qualified to comment on the veracity of their contents. The first PNAS paper details an
        experiment in which oil was manufactured in a laboratory reactor vessel, simulating the natural process by which oil is the product of the high
        temperature (≈1500 °C), high pressure (≈5 GPa) continuous reaction among calcium carbonate, iron oxide and superheated steam, occurring naturally about 100 km below the earth’s surface.

        Thus oil is not, and never has been, a “fossil” fuel. In fact, by the same definition by which geothermal
        energy is classified as a renewable resource, oil is a renewable resource.

        2. So, just which part(s) of what Dr Ball has written in his brief essay, the URL for which I provided, do you consider to be erroneous? Please, let us confine ourselves to commenting on the physical evidence!

  • Dai

    Great news. Now all we need is for the Green Party to announce that they will pull out of the EU. It would be impossible to maintain a full reserve currency and still be a member of a club that is transitioning into a country with it’s own currency.

  • Malcolm Henry

    This is a very encouraging step in the right direction, but replacing private creation of money for profit with public creation of money for public good will only fix half of the problem.

    The productive economy will still be starved of the currency that it needs for commercial exchange because of our obsession with hoarding money.

    The illusion that money = wealth is ingrained in our culture and until we introduce mechanisms that discourage hoarding (e.g. negative interest) then we will never have a thriving commercial economy.

    Those of you who think that money should be abolished are confusing the abuse of money as a proxy for wealth with the genius of money as a means of exchange.

    Money is a tool which, when used properly, works extremely well. We are currently using the tool in the stupidest way possible, but that’s no reason to throw it away.

  • Doug Rouxel

    “A wrecking amendment had been submitted, calling for the full reserve banking motion to be deleted and replaced”

    This is a completely incorrect, and your article should at least reflect the facts of the situation – the alternative motion was submitted at the exact same time as a discrete motion, and was brought together with this motion by the Standing Orders Committee, as they both edited the exact same sections of the PfSS – the suggestion that the amendment was a deliberate attempt to derail the motion is entirely misleading and a distortion of the truth.

  • democraticrepublicanparty

    100% reserve banking would shift all the risk onto savers. By being able to lend out more than they borrow banks can absorb the loss of defaults. And defaults are a very much fact of life – unless you want an economy dominated by Mega Corp. Without the cushion of fractional reserve the savers would have to take the hits of defaults. Frankly you would have to be mad to save with a bank that operated on 100% reserve. Also 100% would starve the nation of credit and businesses would go belly up left, right and centre. Banks would have to play ultra-ultra safe and start-ups would be a thing of the past. The idea that the state would take up the slack would shift all the risk onto the tax payer (the Credit Lyonais fiasco is a good example of what happens when the state lends to businesses). You might say it is already there but that is because of the size of the banks not because they are not 100% reserve. I agree with all the other PM proposals in “Our Statement of Purpose” but 100% fractional reserve is a non-runner.

    • Malcolm Henry

      I don’t share your concerns about defaults. Wise investors spread their money around to minimise risk and use profits from successful investments to absorb the costs of failed ones.

      Investors in start-ups have always demanded high returns to cover the additional risk. The promise of high rewards will always encourage wealthy optimists to take a punt.

      I do, however, share your concerns that the (safe) transaction accounts proposed by PM will encourage hoarding (reinforcing the illusion that money = wealth) while discouraging people from risking their idle money, leaving the productive economy short of investment.

      To counter this I have proposed a development of PM’s ideas where a small proportion of all money is constantly being collected from wherever it is held and periodically redistributed throughout the population.

      This “negative interest” will encourage investment in the productive economy and the periodic recycling of money throughout the population will ensure a steady demand for goods and services that are produced by the productive economy.

      Profits can be re-invested or converted into material wealth.

      • democraticrepublicanparty

        You seemed to have missed the point I was making. I was talking about banks’ risks not investors. Independent investors can lose their money and only they suffer. If banks running on 100% reserve lose money, that loss has nowhere else to go but to the depositors. It cannot go to the shareholders for if it did no one would hold the shares. Any UK depositor who was well advised would place their money overseas in a country where 100% reserve was not obligatory.

        With regard to “hoarding” this is a Keynesian obsession that ignores the fact that it is what everyone who has savings does. Unless you are a Dragon’s Den type venture capitalist you place your money for a return. Keynes criticised this, failing to understand that savers demand low return for low risk. Investment does not come from savers, it comes from banks who can take a flyer on loans because of their freedom to create credit and absorb the loss in the case of default.

        • Malcolm Henry

          I haven’t missed your point, but failed to explain fully what I mean.

          Under PM’s proposals we’ll have a choice of hoarding our money in a safe (transaction) account that is non-interest bearing, or putting it in an investment account where we bear the risk of losing it in return for a share of the profits that it helps to generate.

          Banks’ and investors’ risks become one and the same, which is as it should be.

          “Saving” as we currently understand it will effectively be abolished, which is a good thing. Paying interest on money that’s lying idle is a ludicrous notion. It’s not doing anything. Why should we expect to get an income from it?

          Hoarding money is a drag on the productive economy. Paying interest on hoarded money makes it even worse.

          If we want to save ourselves from drowning in debt then we need 100% reserve banking as proposed by PM.

          If we want a thriving productive economy and a stable (non-inflating) currency then we have to stop hoarding and start investing.

          • democraticrepublicanparty

            Thank you, that is clear. In a capitalist economy it is essential that people can accumulate wealth and have a satisfactory means of storing and maintaining it. Hernando de Soto famously explained how shanty town dwellers in the third world can never pull themselves out of their situation for although they work and save money they are unable to purchase assets that will store it for them and enable them to pass it on to their children. This is damaging to the individuals and also damaging to the economy they live in. You won’t agree but I believe that there has to be an availibility of safe investment vehicles for everyone. That means there have to be safe interest bearing accounts. There also have to be safe government investment for pension funds to use and store people’s money for their retirement. This is not “hoarding”. It is having the right to accumulate a life time’s working and earnings. One of the great economic fallacies is that investment comes from savings. It never has and never will. It comes from banks creating credit. Always has and always will (apart from a handful of venture capitalists). And if we do not provide for safe interest bearing accounts in this country the money will simply go abroad.

          • Malcolm Henry

            I wholeheartedly agree that “there has to be an availability of safe investment vehicles for everyone.” but I disagree that these have to be “safe interest bearing accounts”.

            We’ve seen how “safe” these accounts are under our current banking system. Had they not been underwritten by the taxpayer most of us would have lost all our “saved” money.

            Banks, insurance companies and the like have always provided a range of investment vehicles with differing risks/rewards and that will continue to be the case under full reserve banking.

            Likewise, there are many assets that are already used as long terms stores of wealth in preference to money.

            As for the pension argument I’m one of the few lucky ones in the UK that was too poor to buy into a pension 20 years ago. Those who did have lost most of their “savings”.

            Expecting money “saved” today to provide you with a living income in 20 or 30 years time is naive to the point of stupidity.

            We are looking into a pensions abyss which can never be filled by the current system of “saving” and no-one in charge appears to have a clue what to do about it.

            If you read my book ( you’ll find that I’m proposing a universal basic income paid for by the recycling “negative interest” money. This will give everyone, including pensioners, enough income to pay for essentials regardless of how well their investments perform. This will be much more reliable than “saving”.

            On your final point, for much of the last five years real inflation has been considerably higher than the interest rate being paid on savings accounts. Idle money has been losing value year after year. Why hasn’t all that money gone abroad?

          • democraticrepublicanparty

            It is true that insurance companies have offered extremely dodgy investment products in the past. But these were never flagged up as risky to the buyers – hence the ‘misselling’ scandal. But this has to be seen as an aberation. No banks ever offers investment accounts on the high street where you stand a chance of losing the lot – or losing anything at all. You might lose as in Cyprus when the government helped themselves to depositors’ money but there is no sense in which the risk that this might happen was reflected in the interest rate the customers received. You are confusing legitimate upfront stated risk with people being ripped off by malpractice. Show me an investment account on offer in any bank which states upfront you might lose money. You cannot because no such thing exists. You obviously want these to exist. It is a shame you will not get the chance to sell them to the public and find out for yourself that there will be no, repeat NO, buyers.

            It is a pity you have bought into the propaganda that tells us that saving for a comfortable retirement is “naive”. It is only difficult now because the global superrich are sucking all the earnings out of the economy and stuffing it in offshore tax free accounts. Yes, the Tory consensus tells you it is in the natural order that we are all condemned to be wage slaves all our lives with no retirement prospects and no hope for our children. In your case they have obviously been successful in pulling the wool over your eyes about what is really going on. I hope you enjoy your pessimism and misery. Some of us are standing up and doing something about it. We will never accept injustice on the scale we currently see all around us.

            The idea of a ‘basic income’ has some merit but the dangers outweigh the promise. It is fraught politically and for many people it is rather distasteful having a regular handout. Far better to revitalise the economy and see people with pride in their jobs. I cannot explain here how this is to be done but a first step is to chuck out all orthodox Smithian Nobel prize winning economics which is nonsense from top to bottom, and study real political economists such as Friedrich List and Henry Carey.

          • Malcolm Henry

            “No banks ever offers investment accounts on the high street where you stand a chance of losing the lot..”

            They most certainly do. Every penny that you “have” in the bank belongs to the bank, and if the bank goes bust you lose the lot.

            (The government currently promises to repay you for losses up to a certain amount but the your contract with the bank is certainly not risk free).

            You say that there’s no appetite for investment among individuals but the growth of direct investment (e.g. crowd funding) suggests otherwise.

            Perhaps the strongest agrument for 100% reserve banking is that it’s already in existence and working perfectly well.

            Triodos Bank ( operates on 100% reserves and provides a range of opportunities to share in the profits of the enterprises that it backs.

            It calls some accounts “saving” accounts but the money in them is invested directly by the bank, and section 13 of the terms & conditions makes it plain that the bank will not repay you for any losses that are caused by events “beyond our reasonable control”.

            The RBS T&Cs have a very similar disclaimer as I’m sure all other banks do.

            Money in the bank is always at risk. The public might not understand it but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

            I haven’t bought into any propaganda about the naivety of “saving for retirement”. What I’m trying to do is point out is the distinction between saving and investing.

            “Saving” as we know it means leaving money lying idle and expecting an income from it regardless of the fact that it is contributing precisely nothing to the productivity of the economy.

            Investing means doing something explicitly productive with your money, which keeps it active in the economy, which is what the economy needs in order to thrive.

            I want everyone to be able to get a decent income when they retire but that will never be achieved by leaving money stagnating in the accounts of banks that are creating money as debt. Never. No matter how much you “revitalise the economy”.

            As for standing up and doing something about it I have spent several years researching the subject, and writing a book about it in an attempt to explain in simple terms how the system works, why it’s so dysfunctional, and what can be done to reform it.

            If you’re interested in debating further with me then please read the book. You can find a link to it on my blog:

          • democraticrepublicanparty

            You’re obviously locked into Keynesian thinking about the fear of “hoarding”. And you seek to justify risky saving on the basis that that is already what we have anyway because the present system is shaky – a very strange argument. The examples of alternative investments you mention are fine in themselves but you cannot project these onto the system at large. They simply will not deliver the liquidity a prospering western economy needs. Like a lot of people committed to 100% reserve you resent the idea of banks creating credit. This is understandable in view of the fact that the banks are at present run by sharks and backed by sharks in the government. You see the money supply ballooning and see this as debt piling up in individual’s accounts. But this is nothing to do with fractional reserve. Yes if you imposed 100% at a stroke the money supply would decimate – but so would the economy for it would be starved of credit. People are in debt not because of fractional reserve but because the global rich are bleeding us dry. Thanks for the discussion. I will promise to read your book if you promise to read List.

          • Malcolm Henry

            It’s not a question of “justifying” risky savings, all I’m doing is acknowledging the truth that there is no such thing as risk-free saving. Someone always has to bear the risk of default. Banks spread the risk across all of their customers by investing in a variety of things but the ultimate risk lies with the owners of the “savings”. Banks can and do fail.

            I don’t “resent” banks creating credit. I see it as impractical. It creates bursts of temporary liquidity which are reversed as the debts are repaid. This feature is at the root of the boom-bust cycles that do so much damage to our productive economy.

            Furthermore, bank credit demands interest payments which can only come from additional credit. For the system to continue debt must increase exponentially, which means interest payments must consume an ever-greater proportion of the money supply. Eventually interest payments will overwhelm the rest of the economy.

            Yes, the system is being abused by sharks but even if they weren’t trying to milk it, it would still fail. It’s a failure of design, not operation.

            100% reserve will not “decimate” the money supply. PM’s proposals have a transition period where existing debts are repaid to banks and converted into permanent money at the central bank, which is then spent into the economy over time by the government at a rate that matches it’s normal spending. Thereafter the money supply can be whatever the Money Creation Committee decides it needs to be.

            You are right to be worried, however, about the economy being starved of money for investment and cashflow funding. PM’s proposals will encourage hoarding in safe accounts. This is why I argue for “negative interest” on all money regardless of what type of account it’s in.

            For an economy to thrive money must be available and mobile. Anything that we do to reform our financial system must be tested against this fundamental requirement.

            I have read a bit of List but not enough to debate his merits. I promise to revisit him.

          • PJM

            Democraticrepublicanparty wrote “Yes if you imposed 100% (FRB) at a stroke the money supply would decimate – but so would the economy for it would be starved of credit.”
            This statement proves that Democratic-republicanparty has not understood — or possibly has not even read — the Positive Money proposals. Had he done so, he would have quickly understood that the money with which to expand the economy would be injected into the economy via government spending, with a corresponding reduction in taxation, leaving taxpayers with more money that they could invest.
            Democraticrepublicanparty’s previous contention that investment never has come from savings is nonsense. When banks create credit they are in effect robbing a little of the savings of the entire population, as fresh money in excess is the primary driver of inflation.
            Methinks it’s best to ignore the ignorant and consider carefully what the enlightened write and say.
            Let us consider what Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, said:
            “Of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today.”
            My source is the pdf file downloadable from the Bank of England’s website

  • bonashNZ

    I am pleased that you acknowledge the part played by Positive Money in recent years. Now how about acknowledging the part played by Social Credit over the last 80 years

  • Govinda Nandahar

    @PJM you’re right. Think it to the end (or the beginning)! It is our creativity, labour and entrepreneurship that creates wealth, exange of wealth (products, artefacts etc.) is made with money (a symbolic holder of wealth). So we create the money, cause if there is nothing to exchange, no need for money.

  • wolfmanjack

    Wise words. I’ve nothing against the Green Party per se, but there are large numbers of people who are scared of anything outside the ‘conventional’, which is what it is. PM must follow its own, independent, route frustratingly slow though that may sometimes appear to be.

  • Trueriver

    there are other important reasons for joining the Green Party, but thank you for identifying this one so explicitly to positive money supporters. As a long standing Green and long standing positive money supporter this is a good day for me as it is always great when others see how the ideas fit together.

    you are right, it is not the end of the debate within the Par ty, but it is a big step forward.


  • michael

    Finally – A Benevolent Common Sense Political Party with the Balls to Challenge the Established Rothschild Private Central Bankers ! SURELY THEY DESERVE SUPPORT FROM US ALL – WE COULD EMULATE ICELAND, HUNGARY AND RUSSIA AND REPLICATE CLEMENT ATTLEE’s ACHIEVEMENTS WITH RENATIONALISATION ??

  • anti-zionist

    ‎”it’s not what backs the money, it’s who controls the quantity and if you’re sitting in the banks drivers seat and you are controlling the quantity of a national money then by defacto you control the political situation as well, because if the government needs loans and you are not willing to lend that money then you are in absolute control of the government” – bill still

  • anti-zionist

    ‎”government is now no longer responsive to the people and we believe that it has slipped away because we gave away the money power, the ability to create for ourselves, our own debt-free money, 100 years ago to a private corporation, the federal reserve system. we have to take back the money power if we want to take back our government and make it be responsive to the voters once again. this is the most important power of a sovereign nation, in fact it is what makes a nation sovereign and without it our electoral process is nothing but political theater” – bill still

  • anti-zionist

    “You are about to learn one of the biggest secrets in the history of the world… it’s a secret that has huge effects for everyone who lives on this planet. Most people can feel deep down that something isn’t quite right with the world economy, but few know what it is.

    Gone are the days where a family can survive on just one paycheck… every day it seems that things are more and more out of control, yet only one in a million understand why. You are about to discover the system that is ultimately responsible for most of the inequality in our world today.

    The powers that be DO NOT want you to know about this, as this system is what has kept them at the top of the financial food-chain for the last 100 years.

    Learning this will change your life, because it will change the choices that you make. If enough people learn it, it will change the world… because it will change the system .

    For this is the biggest Hidden Secret Of Money.

    Never in human history have so many been plundered by so few, and it’s all accomplished through this… The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind.”

  • dk

    Why even have banks when alternatives like bitcoin and more environmentally friendly solarcoin have been invented a government could easily adapt these innovations to create ethical and sustainable monetary systems without the need for a central banking cartel.

No Announcement posts

back to top