Most of you have probably heard of “ Money as Debt “ by Paul Grignon who is the artist & creator of MAD 1,2,3 , however those of us who study MPE which predates Paul Grignons work by 40 odd years have categorically concluded that Paul has stolen or plagiarized most of his ideas from the MPE thesis without first conversing with Mike Montagne the original author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy. Consequently Paul is evading any formal discussion with Mike Montagne in relation to this matter.
As a result therefore “Money as Debt” is a purposed misrepresentation of MPE, which not only distorts the facts about today’s monetary system & the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations we have to one another , “ Money as Debt” purpose appears to be purely for self profit or gain in the order of millions for Paul Grignon himself.
The very title “Money as Debt“ is a contradiction & misinforming in itself simply because by the very definition of the word * debt * does not entail a theft, but rather the assumption pertaining to the legal definition of debt which implies a bank gives up lawful consideration of its own in a would be loan which is commensurable or equal to a debt that might otherwise justify interest. This is not the case at all today because there simply is: NO BORROWER , NO LOAN & most certainly NO DEBT owed to any bank.
As a result of Paul Grignon ‘s purposed misrepresentation of MPE disguised as “money as debt” we now have a plethora of 11th hour pretenders just like Paul himself who not only advocate Paul’s plagiarized work of MPE only as if it was entirely his own work, they likewise promote his videos & CDs ( making him millions ), in turn they also advocate the same lies of economy within the portrayed distortion of MPE known as “Money as Debt “ . This in turn has put the mind set delusion in many individuals/ parrots today suggesting the possibility of * competing debt free currencies * which is preposterous to say the least simply because:
1) Money is not created as a debt under the ruse of banking, but instead created by one of us ( the obligor or alleged borrower ) only to have it stolen from the get go . Its a theft nothing more & most certainly not a debt where the bank steals the sum of principal via the purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations before any book entry, & thereafter as a result the bank steals a further sum of principal again by charging interest on what is a *falsified debt* which is not even a debt at all really, considering the very definition of the word debt its a * falsified debt * that equates to a * MONUMENTAL CRIME OF THEFT * & * ONE BIG MONEY LAUNDERING RACKET *.
2) Money is a debt instrument not a debt itself. Money only becomes a debt when its exchanged or redeemed for goods & services or exchanging our labor & production to each other that also represents entitlement thereafter, however unlike MPE the money is stolen on conception creation today by thieving banks who are purposely falsifying a debt to themselves by intervention upon our contracts with each other, which is the core obfuscation & first crime where the bank is neither risking or giving up consideration commensurable to the falsified debt it imposes on the people, essentially stealing principal representation on conception creation. In effect we are really exchanging our labour & production that the banks have already falsely claimed as their very own by merely pretending to loan a sum of principal to the alleged borrower that the alleged borrower actually created upon signing & issuing a promissory obligation * before any banking book entry *.
The only reason why you have money in your bank account today is because criminal government representatives, politicians in breach of trust who work for banks (NOT THE PEOPLE), are perpetually reflating circulation with irreversible sums of national debt, borrowing back the same money we all first create & paid out of circulation over the past years on our personal falsified debts to all the local banks who only steal & launder money out of circulation into the hands of a central banking system.
3) The very reason why MPE™ shouldn’t be implemented on a micro level in any community small or large is because it will result in competing with another local currency & if we exchange money or property with another local competing currency that has a volumetric disposition such as Interest for example logically we may well inherit the other currencies volumetric impropriety by simply exchanging any money or property subject to that other currency.
NOTE : MPE™ has to be done on a national level at the very least so we can keep the money at home for starters if we are ever to compete or trade with another nation & its currency. If we did implement MPE™ on a micro level we could allow another currency to artificially manipulate MPEs 1.1.1 ratio or adversely effect the volume of circulation per represented property value making it impossible for everyone to pay down & retire the circulation without someone defaulting on there obligation through no fault of their own .
The idea of microeconomics or competing currencies fails at its core concept by not addressing the nations volume of circulation on a macro level & the act of exchanging money & property subject to artificial manipulation with another currency opens up the door for one currency adversely effecting another that wouldn’t otherwise have an adverse volumetric disposition or impropriety .
Micro currencies competing within any nation is an epic fail of rudimentary logic & is stupid as stupid gets .
4) Paul Grignon ‘s also suggests in his latest video “MAD 3 “ or rather his latest plagiarist attempt (morphing closer & closer into MPE) is to not only to deny sovereign people to issue their very own personal obligations but allow government /corporations to issue their own promissory obligations who will be essentially obfuscating their own promissory obligations (instead of ours) to create a sum of interest as well as the sum of principal.
BEWARE, if we comply with government representatives or corporate entities that solely claim they only have the right to issue promissory obligations (money creation) as Paul Grignon suggests in his * alleged solution * you may as well have a purported full reserve bank doing the same thing, which will be handing your right & ability as sovereign individuals to issue a promissory obligation over to a corporate entity on a silver platter, thus losing our true representation of wealth to each other for good, opening up the door once again for complete & utter exploitation based on Paul’s mere assumption you would be too scared to issue a promissory obligation for pottery & haircuts which is not only absurd, but an idiotic assertion beyond any intellectual reasoning because this is not the case at all in MPE simply because these everyday costs are paid with earned profit that merely circulates further only to be retired on someone else’s promissory obligation.
What Paul is suggesting is not only the removal of our right to & ability to issue a promissory obligation to each other, but he is likewise suggesting a further obfuscation of promissory obligations in the hands of thieves & criminals which will more than likely allow corporations to give up a disproportionate & or give up no consideration of value of their own whatsoever, much like banks do today that wouldn’t be commensurable or equal to a would be, or more than probable * falsified debt *
Here is a an example from Paul’s webpage (see third flash down from the top) where he merely assumes 100% of interest can be spent into circulation presumably by these corporate entities (NOT YOU) where the * alleged lender * or corporate entity in his example will be spending $1,100 in interest into a circulation that’s only ever comprised of $550 in principal? It is clearly obvious Paul needs to repeat 2nd class mathematics?
Logic tells us here again (see third flash down from the top) the * alleged lender * is spending more than whats been created so how is it then possible to spend more than whats created? Well, the alleged interest of $1,100 in Paul’s example is NOT INTEREST AT ALL, but rather its a sum of principal regardless that is also created & spent into circulation by the *alleged lender*. For an *alleged lender * to spend (not loan) but spend $1,100 & then loan $550, logically a sum of $1,650 has to be created first. Now if $550 is loaned & retired we have $1,650 – $550 = $1,100 left in circulation which is * $1,100 without representation * Whether you call it interest or principal it matters not really, because this would not only be a case of a volumetric impropriety (circulatory inflation) but as a result we would have out of control inflation & deflation imposed by *gargantuan government* ultimately controlled by corporations , possibly giving sweet heart deals of unearned profits to each other much like today spending & taxing * unaccountable * or * disproportionate * sums of money like there is no tomorrow. The only difference is we the people will have totally lost our true representation of wealth to each other for good.
Now If Paul suggests we the sovereign people don’t lose our * true representation of wealth to each other * in his alleged solution using any one of his plagiarist contradictions (Eg: truly liberated system of exchange, where anyone would have the freedom to issue self credit) or rather have the ability to create the sum of interest as well as the sum principal by issuing a promissory obligation. The question begs to be asked why then do we create the interest if we are only ever paying or spending principal into circulation for its intended representation such as a house for example? Why then are we loaning or borrowing the money we create even if we do create a sum of Interest & a sum of Principal as Paul likewise suggests in contradiction to his former suggestion where government /corporations should be the main issuers of self issued credit or main issuers of promissory obligations, when its WE the people who are already the main issuers of promissory obligations today.
In all seriousness even if interest is ”allegedly” spent into circulation only to be retired on a falsified debt as Paul & other pretenders ignorantly suggest , why even impose a sum of interest on a falsified debt to begin with when you are only ever spending principal? Unless you are a thief of course who wants to falsify a debt to yourself pretending to loan money . Spending any sum of interest into circulation only so it can be retired is therefore stupid as stupid gets & fails all rational intellectual reasoning. If Interest is the inherent fault that irreversibly multiplies artificial debt & It does, why not eliminate interest altogether & rectify the falsified debt into what it ought to rightfully be, rather that trying desperately attempt to preserve the very hand that steals from all of us today?
I therefore challenge * Paul Grignon * even mainstream academia in economics or law to debate on TNS radio, contact me here , anything else is taken as clear evasion of fact.
(Published : Jan 08 , 2013)