Mike Montagne on Mathematically Perfected Economy & long time plagiarists


Bill Still thoroughy plagiarizes my work in his purported “Money Masters” video; and it appears we only have more of the same in his preposterous “OZ” ditty. There are literally thousands of plagiarists of my work on the interenet now; the signs are all over most of this material; and in every case, their own inabilities to identify fundamental cause expose both the facts of plagiarism and the further inability to develop solution. My work formally demonstrated thirty years ago a) that any pretended economy subject to interest ultimately and inevitably terminates itself under fatal sums of artificial debt; and b) that there is one and one only integral solution to the categoric faults of these pretended economies, namely a) inflation and deflation; b) systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; and c) inherent, irreversible, and therefore terminal multiplication of artificial indebtedness in proportion to capacity to service debt.

Thirty years ago in other words, I proved that the world’s “economies” would inevitably fail; that there is one and one only solution of their categoric and even terminal faults; and I further prescribed a singular means for justly converting any such pretended economy into mathematically perfected economy™.

The questions are then, is there more than one solution to inflation and deflation; is there more than one solution to systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property; is there more than one solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of artificial indebtedness?

If you could prove a single exception, you would be the first to do so in 40 years — and believe me, many people have tried. You can find categoric invalidations of their attempts all over our pages.

You say for instance that Nate at “Economic Edge” has proposed a solution. Well in fact, tens of thousands of people are now proposing “solutions.” But what makes any of them “solution?”

Nothing but proof of solution.

You quote Nate for instance, “It’s not what backs the money, it’s who controls the quantity.”

How can that possibly be? Is solution just a cherry picking contest? We decide the flavor we like, and go with that, regardless the consequences? Why is it even necessary for someone to control the quantity? And what difference does it make, whoever might, when only an obligatory schedule of fulfillment of any and every promissory obligation can possibly fulfill that vital purpose?

How can the quantity of “the money” in fact not be consistent with whatever ostensibly backs the money, in any fact of solution? Moreover, how still is inconsistency between these two factors all that we suffer, and must solve?

Even if your friend Nate’s solution somehow maintained a circulation which is equal at all times to whatever property it represents, nonetheless, if any of his circulation is subject to interest, and circumstances engener dependence upon that circulation so as it is necessary to maintain a vital such circulation by perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of artificial indebtedness… then ever more of the circulation is inherently dedicated to servicing debt, leaving ever less to sustain the industry which is obligated to do so.

So, as I demonstrated 30 years ago, it is not only the inconstent quantities of circulation which we have to contend with, but bias in the disposition of the currency, which dedicates ever more of every unit to servicing ever escalated artificial indebtedness, until of course we succumb to a terminal sum of debt.

Bill Still’s “original” video steals terms from my work which are absolutely foreign and mutually exclusive to his concurrent presumption that interest is tolerable; that Ron Paul advocated solution; that G. Edward Griffin justified interest, and on and on and on and on.

Jacques Jaikaran (“Debt Virus”) plagiarizes my work from the first page of his “Debt Virus,” stealing my Parable of Perfect Economy — a seeming account for historic events which never happened (thus, the Parable), and which explain what Ellen Hodgson Brown later calls the Pennsylvania Currency, in MY words, issued from Franklin’s mouth. Brown makes the same mistakes, not showing us why she dedicates interest to taxation (to the ruin of actual solution), or why she claims “interest” (her obfuscation of taxation) must be introduced into circulation with the principal of a debt. She has claimed in online debates with me that interest is not the issue! She has borrowed from my article titles, declaring the cause of failure to be derivatives in, “It’s the Derivatives, Stupid,” trailing my article, which explains fundamental cause (“It’s the INTEREST, Stupid”) by ten years, and proving she hasn’t identified fundamental cause in the process… because she attributes failure only to recent misdealings which were inevitable from the inception of such a system, because it destroys not only credit worthiness, but the very possibility of legitimate collateralization.

So thousands of people are proposing differing “solutions,” long after the fact of a proof of singular solution. Bill Stills borrows directly from my pages when he claims he always says, “Follow the money.” Well in fact, in the first initial years of the official internet, the quote under the signatures of my pages became popularly quoted. The whole of it of course reads, “To find the players in all the corruption of the world, ‘Follow the money.’ To find the captains of world corruption, follow the money all the way.”

When he claims the Fed “is neither federal nor a reserve of anything,” those very words come directly from my pages. I am the original author.

Not only do these pretended authors of solution do us no service then, they in fact have only divided and confused a prospective revolution, which might well have succeeded by now otherwise.

What do I have to do, take legal action against all of them? What ARE the actual “other solutions”?

There IS no other solution to inflation and deflation, tx, but to maintain a circulation which at all times is equal to the remaining value of all represented property. There IS no other solution to inherent, irreversible multiplication of artificial indebtedness by interest, but eradication of interest. And there IS no solution to systemic manipulation of the cost or value of money or property but the integral combination of these two solutions.

I formally proved that 30 years ago, and spoke about mathematically perfected economy™ for some ten years prior. I provided the Reagan Administration with computer models which projected the failure spot on, with seemingly phenomenal accuracy, because the underlying method simply accumulates further artificial indebtedness by the very process which a bank determines your next month’s interest.

Now Bill Still didn’t prove the consequences of interest; and in fact he supported Ron Paul, who advocated the preposterous notion that higher interest rates would benefity us; G. Edward Griffin merely asserts interest cannot damage us; and I dipsroved his assertions long ago on my pages (even decades before he made them, without qualification).

Where IS the other solution? And why aren’t you promoting the ONLY solution?


Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Verbinden met %s