Green Island Letters

David Graeber - radical alternative economics genius - or deep state disinfo agent??: response and rebuttal

- a letter from Robin Upton and Unwelcome Guests regarding my critique of their various laudatory references to David Graeber and his exceedingly well-propagandized book Debt: The First 5000 Years, and my 'rebuttal' to that response.

Robin's letter:

Dear Dave,
Interesting to hear from you. Having read quite a lot of what you've written, I remain impressed by David Graeber and consider it highly unlikely that he is a "deep state disinfo agent".

As for why, I think his 5000 years is evidence of his sincerity, since its core proposition is threatening to TPTB and I don't think they would have sanctioned an expose of debt as NOT a law of nature, but a social agreement backed by (often clandestine) violence. This is a very important idea and for me at least, he put it out there well.

You write that "Since we started living together in communities and different people started making different things according to their different interests/talents in a diverse society to supply the needs and wants of their communities, we have always bartered, and always will". Are you ignoring one of his points, that a pair of gifts =/= bartering? I understand his book as a warning against the idea of "all v. all", competition over collaboration.

You write "Bartering - mutual exchange of things between people". Well by that definition, sure, people always bartered, but I prefer the "truck (=swindle) and barter" definition that says that bartering is a process of self-maximisation, which is different from my understanfing of mutual gifting. I am of a similar position to Graeber on this - I see the distinction as clear and important.

You are correct that there are important aspects about the modern money system which he doesn't emphasise - notably, its fiat nature, which puts control of the money system squarely in the hands of a tiny unelected minority. I don't see that as evidence of insincerity, since these aspects are well treated elsewhere, and the book is focused on debt. IIRC, he doesn't make any particularly sweeping and naive recommendations about how to get out of the current bind that is the money system -- if he had done so, then I would have given more importance to your points about his omissions.

So, to summarise, I understand that you are exorcised about the fiat nature of money, something that I have more or less continually commented upon for the last few years. However, I take the view that Graeber may have his own reasons for not emphasising it - perhaps because he wanted to give make larger points, which apply even in the case of gold-backed money. I don't see this as strong evidence that he is a "disinfo agent". I believe his claim that there is approximately zero historical evidence of barter inside (=/= between) communities, and see this as a powerful indication - considering the story about money evolving naturally from barter - of the determination of our would be economic overlords to perpetuate their fraud through disinformation. His claim that money is inevitably backed by violence seems to me an important one, and an idea that it seems unlikely that TPTB would like to put out there.

Good to hear from you,


- and my response:

Hello Robin again,
Thanks for taking the time to reply, so few do anymore, but I am quite disappointed after that - you appear to have read very little of what I wrote, as you manage to get at least one of the central points completely wrong and seem to rely on at least one rather puzzlingly completely false notion in your support of Graeber, and I don't think you really understand what my arguments concerning how 'great' Graeber is (not) fully. So just a quick response in which I'll address these points, and again try to explain how the interpretation of Graeber as a disinfo agent of the deep state does indeed make a great deal of sense. If you don't want to talk further, that's fine, I'm not one who 'hounds' people - but if my points inspire you to think a bit deeper about not only Graeber but the actual debt-credit-money system he is very obviously covering up, and you want to engage in a (however long you want) sort of dialogue in which you might well learn something useful, even epiphanic, I'm happy enough to keep corresponding.

Again, I fear this grew somewhat longer than I intended, and as I am sure you are very busy, and evidently not inclined to take my critique of Graeber seriously for whatever reasons, to make your perusal of my response easier so hopefully you at least see the main points and look at them, I have 'sectioned' the letter into certain topics in response to your response to my first letter, which I hope you will read, and give serious consideration to. As I said in the first letter, I have been looking into the modern money-debt stuff for a long time now, and am speaking from a very secure knowledge base when I say Graeber is very probably a 'deep state' plant of some sort. The people running the deep state are also in control of our money supply, and using it to create some very strong chains around everyone, and their control of the major information-communication channels is equally used to conceal what the money-credit-debt stuff is really all about - and Graeber is **not** some kind of threat to these people, as you somewhat puzzlingly say, but quite the contrary, he is, it seems clear, actually working for them, in covering up what they are really doing. Please, Robin, at least understand what I am saying before you dismiss it, which your response to my first letter clearly indicates you do not. This is one of, and I think quite arguably the central, support wall of the deep state, or matrix, or box, whatever term we use to define the world in which we live, and we are not going to get on the path to freedom until this debt stuff is understood and we take control of this most central aspect of modern society.

Just briefly then, to correct/challenge your major misunderstandings or mischaracterizations -

Divided into 5 sections:

1. TPTB sanctioned Graeber?? Really?? In what universe??
First what I see as a major mis-seeing of the context of Graeber's Debt book - you say 'its core proposition is threatening to TPTB and I don't think they would have sanctioned...' - this is a bit of a puzzling statement to me, as obviously 'TPTB' *did* sanction the publishing of the book - not only sanctioned it, but seriously promoted it, through mostly *this is really amazing and great!!!* reviews in all the mainstream western English media when it first appeared, esp places doing the deep state 'pretend liberal/progressive' propaganda/disinfo such as the CBC in Canada and Guardian and BBC in England, NYT in the US, etc etc, all making sure Graeber got (and still gets) lots of 'face time' on mainstream talk shows all over the English world to push whatever he's pushing, etc, and the (also 'pretend progressive') 'alt' media also gave it pretty much universal great adulation. People challenging 'TPTB' do NOT get this kind of exposure or promotion when they publish things that actually challenge core tenets of the deep state - think David Ray Griffin, for instance, or Webster Tarpley - completely ignored by the corporate state media, unless they are perceived as a bit dangerous and someone is brought in to 'debumk' their 'silly conspiracy theories'. Nobody was 'debunking' Graeber or calling him some kind of 'conspiracy theory nutcase', quite the reverse, he was being very strongly 'sold' by the media pretty much en masse (and if I've learned one thing in trying to sort my world out the last 30-odd years, it's that when everyone 'in public authority' lines up in the corporate media telling me I must believe or do something, I better take a seriously hard look at whatever they're selling).

As I emphasize in the essay, Graeber's various ideas - even taken all together at best a somewhat intellectually very weak collection when put on an impartial lab table with a light on them and honestly examined but strongly pushed by the best propagandists in history as the emperor's 'wonderful new clothes' were strongly pushed by all the surrounding courtiers and few had the will to resist - represent more of a 'limited hangout' thing, perhaps combined with a diversionary "look over here children over here!! Don't look (somewhere else!!)" illusionist's gambit than any truly useful examination of 'debt' as it applies in our modern 21st century capitalist hegemony - indeed, as I say, the book seems designed for the very purpose of stopping people from examining our current situation in any useful way.

What Graeber is covering up - what the real rulers of the 'deep state' very much need for their well-trained but a bit restless proles NOT to know or be thinking about - is the fact that most modern 'debt', esp the western government debt which is being used to justify the great 'austerity' programs defunding and degrading our once-almost-great democracies, is a complete and massive fraud and scam, that the banking cartel is allowed to create 'credit' out of thin air exactly the same way a scorekeeper at a sports contest creates points, 'credit' which then first morphs into interest-bearing debt (the modern philosopher's stone!), which then morphs into 'money', which then translates as Power in various ways, but generally more and more for 'them' and less and less for 'us'.

What it is very essential for 'the proles' to NOT understand is that a truly democratic government of engaged, informed citizens could create exactly the same 'money' (actually credit, all explained in more detail in the essay) - but without debt or interest, and use it to create a strong, sustainable truly 'open' democracy rather than to support a ruthless, secretive, violence-based oligarchy as it does currently. (you might note, on a careful reading, how Graeber, whenever he refers to modern debt (the last 300-400 years), almost always manages to give the impression it is already existing 'money' that is loaned, which is what the 'deep state rulers' want or need people to believe - it is very important that people today do NOT understand that all modern 'debt' is actually just 'credit' created out of thin air by the commercial banking cartel.)

And did you notice that he **never** makes any kind of distinction between honest debt and odious debt? It seems to me this is a central point that would have to be considered in any kind of talk about debt, and how to deal with our situation - if I get in a fix of some kind and borrow a hundred dollars from you, 'real' money you take out of your wallet, that I promise to pay back - that's pretty legitimate debt, and you would have every right to expect me to pay it back with no whining later on (yes, you could 'gift' me, but most people expect to be paid back when they loan 'real' money to others). However, the great mass of modern bank debt is completely and demonstrably odious and fraudulent debt - they don't 'lend' 'real' already existing money, they just create 'credit' out of thin air exactly like scorekeepers create points for a sports game, and then 'loan' it to you at interest - including government 'debt' and the compounding 'interest' that forms the bulk of most government debt, credit that any truly sovereign government would create itself, debt and interest free, for both legitimate citizen use or government use. Odd he would never make this very important distinction, but try to sell the same lie the banks and (haha) 'academic/media economists' and government 'finance' people sell, that all 'debt' is basically legitimate because it is the loaning of 'real' money ...

This debt fraud is, it seems quite evident once you actually understand the brazen depth of the scam and its completely central role in the modern power structure, one of the core matrix or 'deep state' walls the public absolutely MUST be kept generally ignorant of, as they must be kept ignorant of the truth behind 911 or the coup of the 1960s which began with the Kennedy assassination. There is a lot of concern and anger about 'debt' these days since it is so negatively impacting most of us one way or another, and a lot of writing available clearly exposing this fraud and offering democracy-strengthening alternatives rather than the current democracy-crushing debt-slavery system, and Graeber's book, and the publicity given to him and it, were/are very clearly designed to cover this essential fact of the psuedo-debt 'crisis' up and stop the enraged peasants from waking up and getting out that old but effective head-chopping machine.

And his book and he, and his legerdemainic 'look over here children look over here at my great Debt Story, I've told you all you need to know!, nothing to see anywhere else!!!' disinfo are promoted exactly the same way by exactly the same people the 911 'official conspiracy theory' was promoted and is continually reaffirmed, or the 'Oswald the lone assassin' fantasy is presented as 'accepted truth'. (for a far, far more useful and revealing history of modern 'debt' and its odious roots, check out Bill Still's The Money Masters, for example - Bill Still is truly 'sanctioned' by TPTB, he has never been, and never will be, lauded by TPTB, will never be interviewed like a great new economic guru on the CBC or BBC or in the Guardian (although in our 'deep state' discussions he should be deeply honored for his work), he talks *truth* they do NOT want people understanding - Graeber's book, widely praised and publicised by the rulers, basically completely ignores everything Still talks about. Still is important (and a number of others doing the same kind of analysis), in terms of understanding the deep state, Graeber's job was to give people who were starting to ask some hard questions about modern 'debt' somewhere to go besides Still or the many others doing similar work, somewhere to point the obedient masses to when one of their friends watches a Bill Still film and starts asking questions the rulers do NOT want asked ....)

Red flags all over the place with Graeber's book, for those truly trying to get an understanding of 'the deep state'.

2. We never bartered - ? please explain ...

Second - Re bartering, you write "..Are you ignoring one of his points, that a pair of gifts =/= bartering? I understand his book as a warning against the idea of "all v. all", competition over collaboration.."

I wasn't particularly 'ignoring' it, I didn't get much into it for the same reason I don't spend much time 'proving' to mischievous or intentionally abstruse children the earth is not flat or the 'points' they raise to make their 'arguments'. The notion that 'there never was any bartering!!' is, as I explained at some length in the first letter, just too obviously contrary to all lived experience when put on a table with some lights shining on it and subjected to even a bit of serious critical thinking. As, again, I noted, a lot of Graeber's 'thesis' is based on this kind of shallow adolescent sophistry not overly different from 'the emperor's wonderful new clothes!!' stuff to the truly 'mind-engaged' listener or reader, and, really, I'm surprised so many people like yourself, who really should know better, are sucked into this stuff.

If you disagree with my 'lived experience' and common sense assertion and simple observation of daily life almost anywhere in the world and reasonably wide historical readings that my going to the store and giving the owner a dollar for a carton of juice is just a modern form of bartering with a well-developed 'common bartering exchange tool' (aka 'money'), and we've been bartering more or less forever, certainly the last few hundred years in 'western' countries in any society where some freedom existed, I'd be very interested in hearing your explanation of what you think we're doing with this kind of exchange rather than quoting highly questionable assertions of Graeber. To say we never really bartered, it was really just nice folks giving other nice folks stuff, is as contrary to all observed reality as saying people never really worshipped god, or something, they were just pretending...

I really just fail to see how anyone can believe this idea, that people never really bartered, trying to say they were really just 'gifting' everything, or if not that then they could only have been engaged in various forms of fierce 'all vs all' competition. Certainly 'gifting' occurs in places, and fierce competition happens in many places - but they are the extremes of behaviour not the norm, and most of us, it seems a much more obvious statement of 'on the ground' reality, just want to get on with our lives using the very advanced and convenient common bartering tool we call 'money' to get the stuff we need and want in our daily lives, and acquire some portion of the 'common bartering tool' through various forms of work. Yes, most of us, in a modern capitalist society, are forced into various kinds of work we'd rather not be doing and control of the powerful common bartering tool has been seized by some bad people who use it for their own advantage, but that does not in any way deny the reality of the bartering we still do with that common bartering tool, or how powerful that tool is, it speaks to a (serious) problem with the way we have allowed our society to be taken over by a group of human predators who have organised our society this way because that is how they can become wealthy and powerful. Not unlike some cancer taking over some parts of our body and using the amazing biology of our body to reproduce the cancer and weaken the other cells - we don't start talking about how to get rid of our nasty cancerous body, just the cancer that has taken our amazing body over.

And then the very idea that if we're not 'gifting' like nice children, that 'bartering' will inevitably progress to some form of 'all vs all' competition is, it seems to me, quite insulting to most people, who are not modern human predators only looking for 'an advantage' over their fellow citizens or to rip them off as much as possible and ready to start pounding heads of weaker people to get their way, as an 'all-vs-all' theory would seem to suggest. My entire 'lived reality', and all reading I've done involving history and other cultures (including living 22 years in Thailand with much traveling around here and many visits to nearby countries, much travel in Canada and some in the US and Europe before coming here), tells me that most people are actually, or at least want/try to be, decent human beings, who want to live peacefully and honestly in a community, do their fair share of work to support themselves and contribute to the health and maintenance and prosperity of that community, and have a decent and safe and peaceful life in that community with other like-minded citizens. The idea you either have 'gifting' or dog-eat-dog competition, with no balanced middle ground where there is some gifting, sure, and some people who are more competitive about their businesses, but most exchange of goods and services is via some friendly, non-predatory, honest bartering by one means or another as just a natural part of life, is just another completely nonsensical assertion, a very false Manichean view of the world and human society, with which he is trying to promote his 'case' through rhetorical assertion trying to pretend other situations don't exist, rather than dealing in the kind of facts any honest examiner applies to a situation, ignoring great amounts of factual 'lived experience' evidence in a blanket statement, and, again, it's disappointing you, as a very obviously awake person in terms of the deep state lies we live under, would not be challenging such nonsense yourself, rather than supporting it.

(do you recall an old saying, a 'baker's dozen'? It USED to mean, back in democratic Canada in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and even into the 80s (and I am sure in most other countries populated by decent people), if you got 'a dozen' of something from some merchant selling things that way, he'd often throw in an extra one, making 13 - not because he felt threatened or compelled, but because he just felt friendly towards you, because he wanted you to feel a bit special, and to show he was supporting the community which was more important than his business profits, etc - there was no compulsion of any sort, he did it because he wanted to be seen as a good member of the community, and was happy for your business - that's the kind of friendly, life-and-community-affirming 'barter' most of us prefer, I think, based on modern 'lived reality' - yes, you can find some who try to cheat, but they are the exceptions, not the rule - civilized people want to be fair and friendly, and I would suggest this is the 'norm' we should be striving for. Such a different time! Now a 'capitalist's baker's dozen', of course, would be more likely 10 of something, smaller and of lesser quality, and probably more expensive than the last time you bought it. (and no, that extra thing was not 'gifting', it was friendly bartering!) So much to digress about)

Bartering - including modern bartering with money as a 'commonly accepted bartering tool' - is just what I said in the essay - a way to peacefully, and in a friendly, supportive way that keeps our society prosperous and viable and progressing, exchange the things we do for things others do - a lot of bartering, in earlier times or today in large markets, would maybe not be 'friendly', just neutral, but it would rarely be defined as 'anti-social all-vs-all competitive' of some kind - if one party is threatening another in some way, or using some form of coercion, you're getting closer to robbery of some kind than barter, which occurs at times, certainly, but again, people like Graeber should not be allowed to redefine terms to try to sell an obviously very questionable-at-best thesis.

I go to my local 'farmer's market' several days a week, and although some things have fixed prices, others are more open - and I'll often say 'Oh, that's 19 baht, here's a twenty-baht note, keep the change!' or someone will say 'Oh the price is 22 baht - give me 20!' - that's not 'all-vs-all' ruthless competition, it's friendly exchange, and that is the norm for average people - yes the capitalists are penny-pinching bastards looking to steal all they can from whoever they can, but most people do NOT want that kind of society. (and yes, we have many exceptions to that idea around us today - but such people have been raised in the capitalist dog-eat-dog world, and are just reflecting that highly dysfunctional ethos as they try in their own way to get the best lives they can in a very aggressive and unpleasant setting where we are taught by the capitalist rulers to distrust everyone as they distrust everyone because they are trying to con everyone so they expect everyone is trying to con them - but if we managed to replace this violent dystopia they have created over the last 50 years with a much more civilized social democracy, which most people want, most such people, I feel sure, would welcome being part of a community where they were valued as individuals, rather than looked upon as capitalist wage-slaves, which nobody really likes to be)

And there's much bigger things going on here, 'deeper truths' - in a big world with an endless array of products and services beyond the basic survival needs, who has the incentive to invent new things, or make them, if they're just going to be expected to give them away? We have the great variety of things we have because inventive people have an incentive to create, to sell things and make a good profit in the market - not the modern capitalist diseased market, but a natural community market, where people meet to exchange things, and welcome useful new products, as they have done throughout most of history.

And further - I don't have any security at all, really, in a society where there is only gifting - I can't stand proudly on my own feet, secure that my contributions to the community are valued as measured by what they are willing to barter of theirs in exchange for my offerings (and let me forestall your accusation that I'm a capitalist then!!! - I very much am NOT a capitalist, but a social democracy type, with a good pinch of the better parts of libertarian and anarchist in the mix - max freedom for all, but looking after all as well in a cooperative-based society, with 'small local business' the backbone of 'the market', not huge capitalist corporations). Really, I don't want people 'giving' me things, that's what children expect when living with their parents - but for an adult, an independent member of a community, where's the pride, or sense of independence, or security, or contributing to my community, in that? And what about when I want to travel - can I be sure people will be there to 'gift' me the things I need or want? How much 'gift souvenirs' is it appropriate for me to accumulate when traveling, or how much stuff do we give a stranger passing through our own community who wants 'free' looking after without giving anything in return? Is my community going to 'gift' me a big bag of money if I want to travel to countries where they don't 'gift' everything? There's just no way 'gifting' is going to be a viable economic system for a large area where everyone does not know everyone any time in the foreseeable future - there has to be a widely recognized, commonly accepted bartering tool - aka 'money' - with which we can buy what we want when we travel outside our small local community where we all know one another and 'gifting' can be part of the economic picture.

I want a good 'social safety net' around me and my family and everyone for those unable to work, but within that safety net, I want to earn my way in my (free, non-capitalist) society, doing some work I choose for myself and find fulfilling in some way, and that the community finds valuable, so I can stand with head held high as a contributing member of my society with the right of every contributing member to have an *earned* say in how their community is run (yes, there are many who for one reason or another cannot contribute, and we look after them decently as members of our 'extended' community and they can hold their heads high as equal and deserving human beings, but most of us want to work, to contribute to the maintenance of our great modern civilisation, to feel that through our work we have a 'right' to belong here).

And in the great modern market of our great modern society, there are literally an endless number of things available, and I don't want to be wandering around the community wondering who's made what that I fancy and can 'gift myself' today - not a lot of security there, for one thing, when you are dependent on others - most of whom you aren't even going to know in a larger community - feeling charitable enough to provide you with food and keep the power on and be available at the medical clinic and keep the clinic shelves full of the necessary life-saving stuff etc etc etc. The practical problems that can be easily imagined with a non-barter 'gift' society are endless - what's the actual incentive to make something just to give away? Especially if you look around, and the things you want aren't available because nobody can be bothered making them? and etc etc - I could write at length, but I shouldn't have to get into detail explaining the obvious.

We had {non-capitalist} markets where people provided things other people wanted long before capitalism and exchanged them through 'common bartering tool-mediated barter' - undoubtedly an almost infinite number of variations on the common theme of 'market', but still undeniably markets of one kind or another where people gather to see their neighbors and get the things they need for their daily sustenance through one or another type of bartering - a market does not have to be a nasty, dishonest competitive place, that's only the result when nasty scheming people who want to cheat others become dominant and impose their values on everyone, who have to 'go along to get along' - we have to stop these people and fight for a more sane and honest society, but you don't get rid of a parasite in your body by destroying your body. Throughout history, societies and communities have been based around markets where people meet to share news and just talk about what is going on in their communities and larger society, and obtain the things they need for daily living - it is utterly, utterly denying all 'lived reality' to posit such markets never existed, or only existed either as 'take what you like be happy!!!' gifting markets, or 'all vs all' predatory places full of cheats and other kinds of lowlifes.

Well, enough of that, but I would be very happy to engage in a dialogue with you and any others about this, if you'd like - it is actually a very, very important part of creating a better new world, to get away from the capitalist 'command economies' of, by and for the predator-godkings, and return to a much saner, quieter, and fairer and less violent 'social democratic market' economy of, by and for 'we the people'.

4. I am *not* 'exorcised' over 'fiat money', at least if 'exorcise' means what I think you mean by it .. it's a powerful tool we could use for good things

Final 'complete misunderstanding of what I say' of yours I just need to correct - you say "..I understand that you are exorcised about the fiat nature of money.. " - aside from the questionable use of 'exorcise', with which you appear to mean 'strongly dislike', I don't say that at all, I actually say more or less the complete reverse - the 'fiat' nature of money, or more correctly 'credit', as again I take some time to explain the widespread misperceptions about 'money' in general, is actually a very powerful tool, and could be used under informed, enlightened, intelligent *democratic* management to help us create a great prosperous and egalitarian and sustainable democracy - or it could, as a very powerful tool, be used by others for the creation of the oppressive, oligarchical society we have today. We don't need to get rid of the powerful tool - we need to take control of it ourselves and use it for good. Electricity can be used for some very, very bad things, but nobody seriously suggests getting rid of electricity.

Couple of short comments:
5. the notion that 'money is always backed by violence' is another of Graeber's very, very questionable assertions, as faulty as the idea 'we never bartered'
- you say " ..his claim that money is inevitably backed by violence seems to me an important one.." - again, you really, really need to take all of Graeber's 'claims' with a big dose of skepticism, like any claims from TPTB-backed people. I think any 'feet on the ground' examination of the facts of our lives reveals the falseness of that assertion, his, again, cherry-picked 'examples' notwithstanding with no attempt at giving 'the other side' of the idea. Most of us in most modern countries are, I think, very supportive of the idea of money in its main usage, exactly what I say it is, a commonly accepted barter replacement tool, so I can do whatever work I do, then take my 'credits' to a store and buy what I want without the convolutions that would be required if I had to rely on some form of 'first-order' bartering wherein I made a pair of shoes and had to somehow go to the market and get milk, eggs and meat pies, and some kind of 'credit' since my shoes are worth a lot more than that bit of stuff.

I do NOT grumble to myself at the store that I'd rather hit the guy over the head and take what I wanted but have to use this money or the violent enforcers of the king will do bad things to me, and I suspect most people do not think that either - most people want to live simple, honest, peaceful and happy lives, and 'money' is one of the modern tools that makes that possible in our advanced society. Our rulers do indeed use money and their control of the 'credit-accounting system' for bad things, and cause problems otherwise with our use of it - but the solution, again, is not to get rid of the great and powerful 'common bartering tool-aka-money', the solution is to get the cancer out of the 'ruling councils' of our communities and turn this powerful tool to *good* ends rather than evil. When badly behaved Johnny drives his bike like an idiot and runs down Suzie, we don't talk about banning bikes, we talk about teaching Johnny some safe driving habits, or taking his bike away. Money is an incredibly powerful and useful tool that is a central necessity for a modern complex society with an almost endless array of goods and services and kinds of work to be exchanged in our great common market, and we don't need to banish it because some bad people have taken control of it and use it for their own ends, we need to do a better job of keeping bad people who want to use it for bad things under control.

Just as an exercise for yourself, I would challenge you to get a few adults sitting around a table, including of course at least one honest 'devil's advocate' speaking from my POV, and honestly explore the idea of living in a (free, non-capitalist) society without money to use as a common bartering tool.

6. finally, Graeber has no solutions, but the solution is obvious to someone not controlled by TPTB

And let me close with a final point, after I've had a quick review of the book again - note his final pages, when he talks about how to fix our current situation - he says he really has no suggestions, but maybe some form of universal 'debt jubilee' cancelling all debts. A bad idea, first because it does not, again, try to distinguish between 'honest' debt (how many people would be happy to wake up and find the 'real' $100 they had loaned to their friend was no longer expected to be repaid, or the local honest small merchant who had extended credit to a lot of needy folks, multiplied by some very large number??!!) and the huge mass of odious debt, that very much needs to be exposed and cancelled. And also, 'cancelling debts' would be no long-term solution if you did not change the underlying control of the money-credit system, and the solution to our current 'debt' problem is obvious to anyone who actually understands that all current 'money' is just credit created out of thin air like points in a sports game, as completely obvious as 'stop the bleeding!!' is when you see someone with a big wound - we expose the banking cartel's power to create money out of thin air and issue that credit as interest-bearing debt, and then simply, and democratically, cancel that power.

A (democratic) government should be the only authority with the power to issue credit, under the control of course of an informed and engaged public, and when it does create new credit in the nation's accounts, such credit would **only** be created for socially useful purposes, whether your mortgage or to build or maintain national infrastructure. And although your mortgage is going to need to be paid back, money-credit created in the national accounts will not - this is our country and when we build infrastructure why would we create debt for ourselves? A nonsensical idea. And of course we would not charge interest on money-credit created out of thin air for a citizen's mortgage or any other loan. Kicking the banking cartel out of the governments would not solve everything, of course, as they have great power and would surely fight back fiercely, but it would immediately make a lot of things a lot better, and put us on the path to a truly better world, if we could then figure out how to take advantage of getting the parasite out of our system permanently, and not get lazy and let it take over again (as happened in the 1970s, as I go into more detail in my book). As the guy said, when you're in a hole, first thing to do is to stop digging.

But Graeber does not talk about this very obvious first step of getting out of the current worldwide debt mess - why? It would seem very obvious that his entire book is designed to cover this very thing up with a huge load of bafflegab BS, sold to a public too dumbed down to challenge the courtiers proclaiming the Emperor's Wonderful New Clothes!! Why else would he not even talk about this great power of a commercial business to control modern debt, and control it not for public interests, but in the interests of maxing the power and wealth of the small group of people who do control the credit-creation power?

Even if you still won't listen to me, would you have the confidence of your belief in Graeber to put my Graeber deconstruction on your Forum discussion and see what others think? I can't be the only one out here with some serious reservations about this guy .. if you're truly interested in exposing the 'deep state', as you seem to be, then this issue of who controls the credit-accounting system and how they use it to maintain and increase their power, should be one of your central themes (I know you have some shows on this from the libertarian perspective, but as I talked about in the first letter, and much more in the book, most current 'libertarian' analysis about the money-debt situation is deeply flawed (you could probably do a bit of useful 'deep state disinfo' analysis there if you wanted to) - you need to be thinking about the things I write about a great deal more critically ...)

Well, I could go on at length, but I'm not at all sure you are interested in any sort of conversation challenging Graeber, but as I said, I didn't want to let your 'based on false premises' response to my first letter stand unchallenged. So I'll leave it here, with an assurance that if you do want to read a bit more carefully and talk about things seriously, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

But my point does remain - my obviously somewhat more comprehensive understanding and analysis of the modern 'debt' situation than yours indicates very clearly that Graeber is indeed very probably a disinfo agent of the deep state, and I hope you find your way to that truth some day, as you have to others.

Thanks again for taking the time to at least reply


{somewhat serendipitously, I came across a vid of one of Canada's earliest monetary reformers, a guy called Will Abram, an interview I had never seen before, after I sent you the original letter, and in that interview he actually said - '.."..... money is just .. an intellectual form of bartering. .. in a community, if you need something and I've got it, we can share it, but on a national scale, we need to have tokens that can register a value, and we can barter with the use of these tokens we call money ..." .. vid here if you want a look - ) (I added this to the essay)

(and in this related one near the end - 'Money is an intellectual tool for expanding the bartering system.. we must take back that tool and put it in the hands of the people ..' - I find this very saddening and troubling, actually, Abram was obviously one of our great Canadians, but in the modern Canada, he would be completely barred from our 'national' broadcaster, the CBC, which is now just a part of the corporate state propaganda system, and they do NOT allow people on their shows who dare oppose or try to expose the corporate agenda (they've featured Graeber many times, for what that tells you about how dangerous they see him as ...))

Dave Patterson
Ontario, PEI, Thailand
Green Island
GI poster

More of Dave's letters and other stuff
Dave Central - The View from Green Island