A cross in a heart formed with candles. Photos taken in Camp Tejas, Giddings, Texas, USA. Wingchi Poon.

God Is Love

nivtricLeave a comment

Christians tell us that God is love. There is something about this love that the Church Fathers found so troubling that they didn’t want us to know. Jesus’ deeds might make more sense once you know what it is. Love is a central theme in Christianity. And so this religion is known as the Religion of Love. According to the Gospel, Jesus said we should love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30-31). Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians around 54 AD. It is one of the earliest written sources of Christianity. It contains a remarkable poem (1 Corinthians 13),

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.
When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.2

Paul wrote that love is more important than faith and good works. That is quite a statement. God is love (1 John 4:8,16). The Christian cover story became that God loved the world so much that He gave His one and only son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). The author of the Gospel of John shares his views on God’s love in the First Epistle of John (1 John 4:7-10),

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

God loving us and sending His one and only son into the world to die as a sacrifice for our sins seems peculiar unless you are a Christian. Christians claim that Adam sinned, so we are all cursed, but then came Jesus, who saved us by his crucifixion. Jews and Muslims don’t believe that God has a son, nor do they think that Adam’s transgression justifies this sacrifice. When God ordered Abraham to offer his son, and Abraham was about to comply, God called it off. So why did Jesus do it? The odds are that it has to do with love. Ephesians gives a possible clue (Ephesians 5:25),

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Christians believe Jesus married the Church. Only the Church didn’t exist when Jesus lived. The verse suggests that Jesus died out of love, as in a marriage. It asks husbands to love their wives just like Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. That might be as close to the truth as the church fathers dared to go. Jesus was married, and he gave himself up for his Bride. And men should do the same for their wives. It sheds light on Jesus’ views on marriage. Jesus said marriage is a bond forged by God (Matthew 19:3-9),

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?‘

‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’

‘Why then,’ they asked, ‘did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?’

Jesus replied, ‘Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.’

Here, Jesus departed from Moses’ law, referring to the beginning, thus Eden. Jesus’ disciples argued it would be hard for men to love their wives this way. Jesus replied that not all men can do this. Concerning marriage, Jesus promoted a high standard that was untenable for many men. It would be better to live in celibacy than not to live up to it. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a king who prepares a wedding banquet for his son (Matthew 22:2-14). The wedding symbolises the kingdom of God. It may seem odd to compare the kingdom of God to a wedding, unless it is one.

Surviving records of Jesus’ words and teachings suggest Jesus believed women to be equal to men. The equality of the sexes is at odds with the patriarchal society of Jesus’ time. Paul probably also saw women as equals, but his views concerning marriage are remarkable. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 3-4, 10-11),

Now for the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.’ But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.

To the married, I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To Paul, celibacy was preferable to marriage, but only for the strong, who can resist their urges. Marriage is to keep the weak, who can’t control their desires, on the right path, so that Satan will not tempt them (1 Corinthians 7:5). That is a rather peculiar interpretation of Jesus’ saying that only men who are capable of loving a woman should marry, and that if one cannot love a woman, it is better to remain unmarried (Matthew 19:3-11). However, after explaining that, Jesus went on to discuss eunuchs, noting that there are people who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). That inspired Paul’s views on celibacy. Paul believed that Jesus would return soon. Otherwise, he would have seen offspring as a way to secure Christianity’s future.

The Didache, an early Christian text dating back to the first century, implies the equality of the sexes. It helped to make Christianity monogamous, as opposed to Judaism at the time, and later Islam. As many of the early Christians were Jewish and had heard about Jesus and the miracles he did, but didn’t know about his marriage to God, and believed God was an invisible fellow in the sky, Paul had a theological problem at hand.

He resolved it by aligning Christianity with the Jewish scriptures. Paul wrote that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3) and that a man is the image and glory of God, as man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man (1 Corinthians 11:7-9). Paul must have known better, but it was the biblical account from Genesis. As a religious Jew, he considered these scriptures infallible, even if they contradicted the facts, which may seem strange, but that’s how many religious people reason. Most early Christians were Jews who didn’t know the specifics about the relationship between God and Jesus, so they wouldn’t have believed the truth anyway. Worse still, it would be blasphemous to them.

Paul makes up for it by adding that the head of Christ is God. He goes on to say that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, and that woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman, and that woman came from man, but also man is born of woman (1 Corinthians 11:10-12). In his view, men and women were equal. It is also a lot of juggling with words, as if Paul is beating around the bush, which suggests there is something he can’t say.

Over time, Christianity became increasingly patriarchal. Scholarly analysis of the letters of the early church fathers underlines this. Scholars think 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is a later addition.1 It claims that the man is the head of the family. The same applies to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. It orders women to be silent in the churches. A reason for suspecting that the latter passage is an addition is that several manuscripts have it at the end of the chapter instead of its usual location. Scholars view it as a sign that a scribe copied a note into the body of the text.2 A previous scribe likely added that note.

If you ask yourself how scribes could justify falsifying their scriptures, here lies an answer. It happened in small steps that appeared reasonable. You might not consider adding a note a falsification. As Paul wrote, the head of the woman is the man. You can interpret this as the man being the head of the family, which is how traditional Jews viewed it. Once the comment is added, it becomes part of the text’s context as a clarification. Once it is part of the context and has become an instruction to read the passage that way, it might not seem falsifying to include it in the text. In this way, a few generations can make an astounding difference. And so, the First Epistle to Timothy reads (1 Timothy 2:11-15),

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Paul never wrote this letter, despite the letter claiming otherwise. An unidentified Christian scribe likely penned it down more than fifty years after Paul’s death. Scholars uncover falsifications by comparing the wording used in this epistle to Paul’s genuine letters. The passage above suggests women spoke publicly and felt they had authority over men. Otherwise, the author would not have written it. These modifications suggest an equality of the sexes, a prominent position for women in the early Christian movement, and the gradual re-establishment of male supremacy.

The consequences can be troubling. Did Jesus sacrifice himself for God’s love, and did God not care about Jesus? If so, why would God care about us? You can imagine that the Church Fathers found it disturbing. If someone else finds himself in the same position Jesus once was, he might not be instantly enthusiastic about the proposition. But no one can go against the will of God. And you can fall in love with someone who has taken you hostage. It is a natural reaction known as Stockholm Syndrome. Having no choice makes things easier. He can’t not try to save humankind if there is a slight chance he succeeds. He knows he has to play his role in the script, like Chief Inspector Clouseau, bumbling towards success by sheer accident. And to be taken in this manner is particularly unexpected, but if the absurd hunts you down, and you see no escape, you can better embrace it.

And is it so terrible to die for love? Everyone dies, usually for less agreeable reasons like a fatal encounter with a deadly disease, some random accident, old age or a war fought for the ego of a leader, or even worse, his stupidity. In hindsight, Jesus’ sacrifice was exceptionally functional. It created Christianity, a religion that claims we are unworthy of God’s grace and need to accept a saviour and follow him. It is an idea that can save us because we can’t fix our problems ourselves. We are religious creatures who need a fairy tale to believe in. And as Paul explained in his poem, you can speak every language, know all the secrets, and give your money to those in need, but it is pointless if you don’t have love. If it is a delusion, you can enjoy it for as long as it lasts. And if you must go down in infamy and die, you can better do it laughing. So, always look on the bright side of life,

Life’s a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ’em laughin’ as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you
And

Always look on the bright side of life
Always look on the right side of life

Monty Python, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

Latest revision: 20 September 2025

Featured image: A cross in a heart formed with candles. Photos taken in Camp Tejas, Giddings, Texas, USA. Wingchi Poon. CC BY 3.0. Wikimedia Commons.

1. Forgery and Counter forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. Bart D. Ehrman (2013).
2. The Oxford Bible Commentary. John Barton; John Muddiman, eds. (2001). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1130. ISBN 978-0-19-875500-5.

When Jesus Returns

nivtricLeave a comment

High expectations

Will Jesus return? What will he do if he does? Will Jesus make things right? Will there be a showdown between the forces of good and evil? Will evil people burn in hell forever? And what about Buddhists and atheists? They don’t believe in God. And Hindus? They have many gods. Or Jews, Christians and Muslims? Who are the good people, and who are the wicked anyway? The Italian mafia bosses were devout Catholics. The usurers of Goldman Sachs claimed that they were doing God’s work. The Muslims blowing themselves up to murder as many unbelievers as they could also did. US President George Bush claimed that God had ordered him to invade Iraq. So, what might happen if the Messiah were to come? A Messiah already came, sort of, at least. His name was Adolf Hitler.

Adolf Hitler was a most messianic figure, perhaps the most messianic figure ever, even surpassing Jesus. So, was he the opposite of Christ, the anti-Christ, or was he like Christ, as many of his followers expect him to be? Will there be a final reckoning in which billions of people die or face eternal torture in hell? The latter is worse than being gassed in a concentration camp, as there is no end to the suffering. For those who think it is an inappropriate remark, life in Gaza in 2025 was as horrible as in a concentration camp. And Jews did that. They may have had their reasons, but so did Adolf Hitler. So, have we learned our lessons? And what are these lessons in the first place?

Europeans have learned the hard way, in two devastating world wars, that nationalism and tribalism are the paths to destruction. It is still in their collective memory. That is why the European Union exists. Other continents don’t share the same experience, and memories don’t last forever. Nationalists aren’t wrong about the troubles mass migration and mixing people from different cultures cause, but nationalism has more serious flaws that will prove to be fatal in today’s world. European history has demonstrated that beyond doubt. And why should we doubt what we know for certain? Humans are a failed and destructive species. We cooperate through the myths we share. Without an inspiring fairy tale and a leader who unites us, we are doomed. And that is why we need a messiah.

Adolf the Messiah or the Anti-Christ

At first glance, Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler are opposites. Jesus personifies goodness, while Hitler is the epitome of evil. Christ stood at the cradle of Christianity, the Religion of Love. Jesus taught that love would overcome hatred. He said, ‘If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.’ And, ‘Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.’ Hitler represents Nazism, the ideology of hatred that brought us unprecedented cruelty and revealed the depth of human depravity. As the world is barrelling towards an apocalypse, it is the right time to take a distance and be honest. Only by following a strong leader with the right vision can we save ourselves now. In that sense, the Third Reich looks like a dress rehearsal.

Closer inspection reveals a few intriguing parallels between Hitler and Christ. Adolf Hitler’s followers considered him their saviour, and they worshipped him like one. Christians believe that Jesus will descend from heaven and that there will be a rapture when he returns (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Hitler was the first leader to fly around in an aeroplane. He came down from the sky to meet the cheering crowds. Rapture means ecstasy, enthusiasm and admiration. Few people in history caused as much rapture as Hitler. A Nazi slogan was, ‘One people, one empire, one leader.’ Christians and Muslims expect that to happen when Jesus returns. In that sense, Hitler foreshadows the Second Coming.

In many ways, Hitler was a messiah. He told the Germans they were the chosen people for their superior race. Jews believe they are the chosen people because of a supposed special relationship between God and the Jewish people. Like Moses, Hitler promised to end the unjust oppression, in this case, caused by the Treaty of Versailles. He claimed that his Third Reich would last a thousand years, whereas the Bible tells that the reign of Christ would last a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-6). And Hitler inspired the same blind following and loyalty to the death that many Christians expect the Second Coming of Christ would do. Somewhat unsurprisingly, a British intelligence report concluded that Hitler had a messiah complex.1

In traditional agricultural societies, land remained within the family. The Jews were no exception. The Bible says the bond between people and land is not to be broken, and land is not to be sold (Leviticus 25:23). The Nazi ideology of Blood and Soil focuses on ethnicity and homeland and stresses the importance of the land people live on and celebrates rural living. The Nazis made the ownership of selected lands hereditary. Those lands could not be mortgaged or sold. The Nazis sought to return to their Eden, without Jews and other undesirables. The Holocaust became the culmination of centuries of anti-Semitism fed by the belief that Jews are inferior people because they rejected the message of Christ.

The Nazis objected to degenerate art, which supposedly was perverse, thus, Communist or Jewish. Ironically, a Jew, Max Nordau, was the one who coined the term degenerate art for modern art, which he believed was the work of feeble minds corrupted by modern life who had lost their self-control. That was by far not the only thing that the Nazis borrowed from the Jews. It is the irony of history, or perhaps God’s sense of humour, that Nazism has much in common with Judaism. That kind of humour is godlike and inappropriate for us mortals. The implied message is that God can do as She pleases, that we are nothing, and no one should claim special privileges because of being chosen.

Nazism and Judaism both have fairy tales about superior people, the nation’s greatness, messianic leadership, and a promised land. Like the Nazis, the Jews have been keen on not allowing mixed marriages, not to keep their tribe racially pure, but to keep it free from foreign influences. In the past, Jews saw non-Jews as inferior, and many still do. Whether Jesus compared Gentiles to dogs, we can’t be sure of, but there is little doubt that these words reflected a widespread sentiment among the Jews. It is a natural human inclination to perceive our own group as superior and other groups as inferior, and Jews are as human as the rest of us. They have only been the best at cultivating their superiority complex by producing an elaborate collection of fairy tales about their supposed special relationship with the owner of the universe. Nazism is the Frankenstein’s monster that Judaism has spawned.

View on Auschwitz concentration camp
View of the Auschwitz concentration camp

Political views

Hitler could have been a painter had the Vienna Art School not declined his application, and we would have had a few additional acceptable wall decorations instead of World War II and the Holocaust. Hitler wouldn’t have sought revenge if Germany had not lost World War I. Had he not lived in an impoverished multicultural neighbourhood in Vienna, he might not have thought that mixing ethnic groups was a bad idea. And had there been no widespread anti-Semitism already, he wouldn’t have hated the Jews that much.

Adolf Hitler was skilled at delivering speeches, which were often angry rants that energised his followers. During the Great Depression, Hitler gained popularity and grabbed power in Germany. He started a war that killed fifty million people. Ten million people died in the Holocaust, including six million Jews. When American troops entered Germany in 1945, they were horrified by what they found in the concentration camps. Few people had imagined the Nazi regime could be that depraved.

Like many Germans, Hitler considered the Peace Treaty of Versailles unjust. The treaty stipulated that Germany accepted responsibility for causing World War I and had to pay massive reparations. The economist Keynes warned in 1919 about the harsh peace terms imposed upon Germany. They were the product of vindictive sentiments among the allies. It could lead to another major war, Keynes warned. His words proved prophetic. Hitler also proved himself to be a man of foresight in his views on usury.

Hitler’s enlightenment on that particular issue came after attending a lecture by Gottfried Feder, titled ‘The Abolition of Interest Servitude.’ It was the reason Hitler joined the National Socialist Party. It could also be that Feder’s moustache has impressed Hitler. Hitler’s views were similar to those expressed in the Bible and the Quran. Feder’s ideas became central to Hitler’s ideas on international finance. Today, unchecked trade and finance are about to end human civilisation as we know it.

Hitler feared that the Jews would take over Germany. Hitler’s fears have become a reality in the United States. About half the wealthy US elites are Jewish, while Jews are only 2% of the population. To get elected, American politicians must unconditionally support Israel. If not, they face the wrath of the Israel Lobby, which will terminate their career. Today, many Americans are impoverished while the wealthy, often Jewish elites, party. The elites bribe US politicians to do their bidding, which is a crime in Europe.

Inspired by scientific discoveries about natural selection, the Nazis became preoccupied with the fitness of the race. They euthanised those whom they believed were unfit, such as the mentally disabled. Had we still lived in nature, many of them wouldn’t have survived, because the communities they lived in would have abandoned them. Civilisation allows the inept to survive. If you can do a trick, you can get a paycheck. The Nazis believed that if the feeble survived and procreated, it would weaken the human race.

The Nazis believed that other races were inferior. Most were good enough as slaves, while others had to disappear. Apart from the Jews, the Nazis also exterminated the Roma. Today, 70% have criminal records, and the majority of them rely on welfare. They still suffer from mob violence and exclusion.2 But if 70% have criminal records, you can imagine why. Like the Roma, the Jews didn’t change their ways, so anti-Semitism is once again rearing its ugly head. Cultures, so norms, values and myths, hold groups together, so you can’t reason with groups as you can with individuals. And it is not only the Roma or the Jews. We all suffer from that same ailment.

‘Why do they hate us?’ It was a question few Americans dared to ask after 9/11. And then the Americans did precisely what many Muslims hated them for: bombing, occupying and looting Muslim countries. And the Muslims never ask themselves why so many people hate them. It is the question every cultural group should ask. And the prejudices others hold about your group are often telling. So, why do people hate Christians, Muslims, Jews, whites, blacks, liberals, and conservatives? How others view you often tells you more about yourself than how you see yourself.

The Nazi racial superiority ideology was a guise to address cultural issues plaguing German society. Mixing people from different cultures causes trouble, as we have seen in multicultural societies. None of the cultures existing today is suitable for the future, so we all have to change. Xenophobia and racism are only a part of the problem. Because the previous generation identified the problem as racism, we didn’t learn all the lessons from history, so we are bound to repeat the same mistakes. Fascism is once again on the rise. Many of the problems we face today relate to cultural values we mistakenly take pride in and sometimes falsely attribute to genetics.

Harsh questions

The most pressing cultural problem today is our diligence in transforming energy and resources into waste and pollution in a competition that will make us redundant. That has to end, and the solution can only be radical. Attributing the problem to genes leaves us with no choice but to definitely solve the problem by exterminating those so-called ‘hard-working’ people who turn our planet into a wasteland with their work and consumption. By taking more than is sustainable, they condemn other people to death.

The Nazis didn’t shy away from harsh questions. The world is finite. Another issue that they obsessed over was limited resources or living space. They thought that the German people needed more of it, so Germany should start wars to conquer territory. The issue of limited resources is even more pressing today, and the alternative to warfare is sharing. And the proponents of the suicidal ideology aren’t willing to do so. Those who take more than is sustainable or have many children condemn others to death.

There is overpopulation. You may want children, but the world doesn’t need them. On the contrary, the fewer humans, the better. And that brings us to the question of eugenetics. If you have a severe hereditary disease, should you have children? And if you are mentally incapable of raising children because you are a retard, a criminal, an alcoholic or a drug addict, should you be allowed to have children? To own a gun or to drive a car, you need a license and prove you are sane. So, why don’t we have to qualify to have children?

Drug abuse

Adolf Hitler was a hypochondriac suffering from mood swings, Parkinson’s disease, flatulence, skin problems and a gradual decline. His physician, a quack named Dr Theodor Morell, gave him unorthodox medications, such as cocaine, speed, glucose, testosterone, estradiol, and corticosteroids. In addition, Hitler received a preparation made from a gun cleaner, rat poison and atropine to treat his farting.

Hitler survived these treatments, but they contributed to his erratic conduct and illnesses. Hitler also ingested an extract of bulls’ semen and numerous vitamins and tonics. He took potions, pills and injections to improve his sexual performance to deal with the sexual appetite of his demanding mistress, Eva Braun. As they say, behind every strong man is a strong woman. And in the case of Hitler, that is correct.

Eva Braun

Eva Braun was the mistress and later wife of Adolf Hitler. Most historians consider Her an insignificant figure who didn’t participate in political decisions. But opinions differ, and the truth is more bizarre than the wildest imaginations. A letter demonstrates that Braun knew of the concentration camps and the gas chambers. Some Nazi officials close to Hitler have said that Braun was at the centre of Hitler’s life for most of his twelve years in power. She was committed to Hitler, won his affection, gave him moral support, and enjoyed a healthy sex life with him. Braun’s friends have said that She giggled over a photograph of Neville Chamberlain sitting on a sofa in Hitler’s Munich apartment and said, ‘If only he knew what goings-on that sofa has seen.’

Hitler’s letters indicate that he was fond of Her, and worried when She participated in sports or was late returning for tea. Hitler’s secretary, Traudl Junge, stated that during the war, Hitler telephoned Braun every day. After learning about a failed plot to kill Hitler in 1944, Braun wrote to him, ‘From our first meeting, I swore to follow you anywhere even unto death. I live only for your love.’ And that was how it ended. Over twenty plots to kill Hitler failed, making Hitler believe a supernatural force protected him. When the end of the Third Empire neared, Braun became merrier. In the end, She married Hitler and committed suicide together with him. It was the romantic ending She desired.

Eva Braun was God and the mastermind behind Hitler’s rise and demise. Coincidences could serve as a clue. Braun was Eva’s last name, and it is the German word for brown. Adolf Hitler was born in Braunau am Inn, and brown is the colour associated with the Nazi ideology. Nazis were nicknamed brown shirts. And Eva is German for Eve. Eva had a passion for nude sunbathing to brown Her skin. She loved being photographed naked. She had no shame like Eve in the Garden of Eden.

For Braun, the story didn’t end with the Third Reich’s demise. She turned into Marilyn Monroe by taking over Norma Jeane Mortenson’s body. I contemplated that possibility when watching a Netflix documentary about Monroe’s life. Immediately after my thought, the word goddess appeared on the screen in massive lettering. That hint was as plain as it could get. Monroe had an affair with US President John F. Kennedy. He later dumped Monroe. Soon afterwards, Kennedy met the Grim Reaper in an epic scene dubbed the Kennedy assassination. People still speculate about who assassinated Kennedy and why.

The Kennedy assassination has kept conspiracy theorists busy, but who fired the bullet is of secondary importance concerning the question of who killed Kennedy. Messing with Monroe proved to be a fatal mistake. A set of coincidences surrounds the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. They are part of an intricate scheme involving the premature deaths of Presidents, including James A. Garfield. Furthermore, the Kennedy family suffered a series of accidents and early deaths called the Kennedy Curse. The book ‘The Virtual Universe’ goes into more detail.

The prophecy of the Holocaust

Rumour has it that Nostradamus predicted the coming of Adolf Hitler, but the argument is not particularly convincing. The word Hister in Nostradamus’ ravings refers to the Danube. These names are alike, and Hitler’s birthplace was on a tributary of the Danube, a peculiar coincidence. More ominous are the prophetic references to six million Jews in danger of being exterminated or a coming Holocaust of Jews appearing in Jewish magazines before World War II. That is not as remarkable as it might seem. The figure emerged because six million Jews lived in the Russian Empire before World War I. Jews in Russia suffered from a hostile government and pogroms. Pogroms are riots incited to expel or kill Jews.

The Russian Empire collapsed, and the Soviet Union came in its place. Still, the six million figure continued to circulate in Jewish publications, which is odd. It subsequently became the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust.5 These prophetic statements are eerie, like the reference to the end date of World War I on the licence plate of Franz Ferdinand’s car. The most notable ones are listed below:

  • In 1911, at the tenth Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, Max Nordau, co-founder of the World Zionist Organisation, together with Theodore Herzl, prophesied the annihilation of six million Jews.
  • Shortly after World War I in 1919, Zionists feared that a Holocaust of six million Jews was imminent in Europe.
  • According to the New York Times, in 1936, Zionists were lobbying for a Jewish state in Palestine to save the Jews from a European Holocaust. It was three years before World War II and five years before the extermination camps came into existence.
  • In 1939, The Jewish Criterion predicted the coming world war would annihilate six million Jews in East and Central Europe.
  • In 1940, the Jewish leader Nahum Goldmann predicted that if the Nazis achieved victory, six million Jews would be doomed to destruction.

That ugly face in the mirror

The 1981 film ‘The Wave’ was about a schoolteacher, Ben Ross, who showed his class a film about the Holocaust. One of his pupils asked him how the Germans could have rallied behind Adolf Hitler and committed these atrocities. Ross couldn’t answer the question and decided to start an experiment. He began by offering advice on proper posture and a few classroom rules to improve efficiency. The pupils took it up with enthusiasm. The next day, he introduced The Wave, a youth movement with a secret salute and membership card.

Robert, an unpopular student, received the task of monitoring the other students, a position that filled him with pride. Robert began reporting unorthodox behaviour to Ross and the other Wave members. Two hundred more students joined. Wave members bullied other students. The school newspaper published a negative review about The Wave, prompting Wave members to plan an attack on the editor.

The following day, Ross told the Wave was a nationwide youth movement in schools, and its leader would give a televised speech. The eager Wave students assembled in the auditorium with television monitors. To their horror, the monitors displayed a film of Adolf Hitler at a Nazi rally. Ross told them that this was their leader. The experiment showed that most of us are fit to become Nazis or would not resist a fascist takeover. In other words, similar atrocities can occur again, and they did. That is because strong leaders and fairy tales appeal to our deep desire for belonging and order.

We remember the Nazis for their cruelty, but they were also corrupt. Hermann Göring looted art and other precious items, a recurring pattern in authoritarian regimes. Far-right leaders are often gangsters who lie more than democratic politicians, engage in bribery, embezzlement and coups to overthrow the government. Democratic countries are turning into gangster kingdoms where criminal leaders and their cronies enrich themselves, exceeding the corruption of the previous liberal establishment. If you have studied human politics, the return of gangster governments should be unsurprising. When order collapses, gangsterism will take its place. And order in the West is collapsing.

Whatever it takes

If it is about survival, you do whatever it takes. To Hitler, the war was about the survival of the German people. He took a rather particular view on the matter and started World War II, and the irony of history is that no one ever destroyed Germany more than Hitler. The Jews posed no immediate threat to Germany. Still, Hitler was not wrong in fearing that the Jews might take over Germany. In the United States, where the Jews had the opportunity to do so, something of that kind has occurred. Usury and political corruption are the main pillars of Jewish power in the US. To the Jews, it is about the survival of their nation, so they see US foreign policy as a crucial national interest. And the Palestinians may not be an immediate threat to Israel, but that may change.

The Holocaust may have been exceptional in its scale and cruelty, but it fits in a long list of atrocities humans have committed. Human civilisation as we know it is about to end. We do good things, but the overall outcome of all that we do is a complete disaster. Had Adam and Eve listened to God and not sought knowledge of the gods, we would still have run around naked and would have done alright, killing each other with sticks and stones, not knowing the difference between good and evil. Humans are a failed species. We need a saviour who gives us an inspiring myth so that we can unite as one humanity and prevent the impending apocalypse. We can only hope that God wants the best for us. No matter how many weapons you have, nothing can protect you against God. Today, it is about the survival of humankind. We must do whatever it takes and hope that God is willing.

Latest revision: 12 December 2025

Featured image: Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler

1. WWII Adolf Hitler’s profile suggests a messiah complex. BBC (2012). [link]
2. Harvard International Review. Minority Report: Roma and Eastern Europe (2019).
4. Nazi loyalist and Adolf Hitler’s devoted aide: the true story of Eva Braun. The Guardian (2010). [link]
5. The Six Million Jews. [link]

Beautiful countryside in southern California

Capital for the future

nivtricLeave a comment

Making the economy sustainable may require an unprecedented amount of capital in the form of knowledge and outfits like solar panels, sustainable farms and energy-efficient transportation systems. It is hard to imagine that it can be done. And imagining it is still a lot easier than really doing it. It is going to require some economic magic to divert investment capital from destructive activities to the future of humanity. We may need more useful capital and less consumption.

Perhaps the invisible hand can be of some help. It is easier to finance a great endeavour from investments than from taxation because nobody wants to pay taxes but everybody is happy to invest. It is the secret of the success of the European empires that conquered the world after the Middle Ages. England, France, Spain and the Netherlands were much poorer and smaller than China, India or the Ottoman Empire, but they didn’t finance their conquests with taxation, but with the use of investment capital.1

Europe won out because European conquerors took loans from banks and investors to buy ships, cannons, and to pay soldiers. Profits from the new trade routes and colonies enabled them to repay the loans and build trust so they could receive more credit next time.1 The same logic may need to be applied to making the economy sustainable. The challenge is so enormous that it may never be possible to finance it by taxes. Nowadays interest rates are so low because there is plenty of investment capital.

It’s the economy stupid!

It is often argued that the economy is unsustainable because of short-term thinking. The economy must grow in order to have positive returns on investments. And it is believed that returns on investments need to be positive otherwise the economy would collapse. The economic time horizons of individuals are reflected in their time preferences. The time horizon of the economy as a whole is reflected in the interest rate.

The lower the interest rate, the longer the time horizon of the economy could be. The following example from the Strohalm Foundation can illustrate this:

Suppose that a cheap house will last 33 years and costs € 200,000 to build. The yearly cost of the house will be € 6,060 (€ 200,000 divided by 33). A more expensive house costs € 400,000 but will last a hundred years. It will cost only € 4,000 per year. For € 2,060 per year less, you can build a house that lasts three times as long.

After applying for a mortgage the math changes. If the interest rate is 10%, the expensive house will not only cost € 4,000 per year in write-offs, but during the first year there will be an additional interest charge of € 40,000 (10% of € 400,000).

The long-lasting house now costs € 44,000 in the first year. The cheaper house now appears less expensive again. There is a yearly write off of € 6,060 but during the first year there is only € 20,000 in interest charges. Total costs for the first year are only € 26,060. Interest charges make the less durable house cheaper.2

Without interest there is a tendency to select long-term solutions. Interest charges make long-term solutions less economical. Interest promotes a short-term bias in the economy. It may explain why natural resources like rainforests are squandered for short term profits. If interest rates are high, it may be more profitable to cut down a rainforest and to put the proceeds at interest rather than to manage the forest in a sustainable way.

Only, things are not as simple as the example suggests. For example, the building materials of the cheap house might be recycled to build a new house. And technology changes. For example, if cars had been built to last 100 years, most old cars would still be around. This could be a problem as old cars are more polluting and use more fuel. Nevertheless, the example shows that long-term investments can be more attractive when interest rates are lower.

This also applies to investments in renewable energy. For instance, a solar panel that costs € 100, lasts 15 years, and generates € 150 worth in electricity in the course of these 15 years, is feasible at an interest rate of 5% but not at an interest rate of 10%. Many investments in making the economy sustainable may have low returns and are only feasible when interest rates are low. Low and negative interest rates can also deal with low economic growth. That may be needed for living within the limits of the planet.

Living within the limits of the planet

When interest rates are negative, the time horizon of the economy could go to eternity so that it makes sense to invest in making the economy sustainable. A few examples from history can illustrate this. In the Middle Ages some areas in Europe had currencies with a holding fee like Natural Money. As there hardly was economic growth, interest rates were negative. It was the era of Europe’s great cathedrals. These cathedrals were built for eternity. As better investment opportunities were absent, wealthy towns people spent their excess money on cathedrals.3 For similar reasons, the people of Wörgl planted trees as the proceeds of the wood were expected to occur in the distant future.3

A bit of calculus shows why. At an interest rate of 5%, putting € 1 in a bank account turns into € 1,05 after a year, so you would rather have € 1 now than in one year’s time, even when you need the money in one year’s time. That’s because you can put the money on a bank account at interest. At an interest rate of 5%, € 100 in one year’s time is worth € 95.25 now. The distant future has even less value. The same € 100 in one hundred year’s time is worth only € 0.59. And € 100 after 1000 years has no value at all in the present.

At an interest rate of -5%, you would prefer to have the money when you need it, otherwise you would end up with less. At an interest rate of -5%, € 100 in one year’s time would be worth € 105. The same € 100 in one hundred year’s time would be worth € 13,501 now. And € 100 after 1000 years would be worth more than everything there is in the present. Income in the distant future is also very uncertain, so it is unlikely that investors will shift their time horizon to 1,000 years, but this logic may help us to come into terms with the limits our planet poses on human activities.

Living within the limits of the planet may require unprecedented investments in the future. These investments may require low or even negative interest rates as their returns may be low. Only low and negative interest rates can make these investments economical. Everyone who has money to save can help by shifting money from consumption to saving and investing. The more people act like capitalists, the lower interest rates may go, and the more sustainable the economy may become.

Capitalists think that money spent on a frivolous item is money wasted, because when you invest your money, you will have more money that you can invest again. Capitalists hardly care about interest rates. They will save and invest anyway because of their capitalist spirit. Rich people may be encouraged to save even more if luxuries that use a lot of natural resources and energy aren’t available any more. One can think of luxury yachts, private jets, but also of travel by airplane for holidays. When energy becomes a constraint, local products may replace long-distance trade.

Featured image: Beautiful countryside in southern California. James McCauley (2005). Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

1. A Brief History Of Humankind. Yuval Noah Harari (2014). Harvil Secker.
2. Poor Because of Money. Henk van Arkel and Camilo Ramada (2001). Strohalm.

Graffiti near the Renfe station of Vitoria-Gasteiz

The monster called financial system

nivtric4 Comments

Is the financial sector overtaking the real economy?

Less than 1% of foreign exchange transactions are made for trading goods and services. More than 80% are made for exchange rate speculation. Every three days an entire year’s worth of the European Union’s GDP of € 13 trillion is traded in the foreign exchange markets.1 So is the financial sector overtaking the real economy?

Financial industry share of total nonfarm business profits. Evan Soltas (2013)
Financial industry share of total non-farm business profits. Evan Soltas (2013). Economics and Thought.

In the United States financial sector profits grew from 10% of total non-farm business profits in 1947 to 50% in 2010.2 This figure excludes bonuses. It is explosive stuff and the original research has been removed from the Internet. The findings could give us the impression that the financial sector is a big fat parasite that feeds on us. And who would have guessed that?

What a scary monster the financial system has become. This terrible creature could easily wipe out human civilisation as we know it. That nearly happened in 2008. And it can still happen. We are hostage of this monster. It is too big to fail. But what created it? It wasn’t Frankenstein for sure. The answer is already out there for thousands of years. It is interest on money and loans. In the past this was called usury and often forbidden.

The core problem is that incomes fluctuate while interest payments are fixed. This causes instability in the financial system. And if the investment is more risky, lenders demand a higher interest rate, which contributes to the risk. Limiting interest would reduce leverage and make financial system more stable and less prone to crisis.

It’s the usury, stupid!

Fraud in the financial sector contributed to the financial crisis of 2008. To what extent the fraud or the size of the financial sector are to blame is less clear. Financial crises are not a recent phenomenon. They have caused economic crises in the past. For instance, the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent bank failures caused the Great Depression of the 1930s. Back then the financial sector was not as large as it is today and there was no large-scale mortgage fraud. Hence, there must be another cause.

Charging fixed interest rates on debts causes problems as incomes fluctuate. So if some person’s income or some corporation’s profit suddenly drops, interest payments may not be met. When the economy slows down that happens to a lot of people and corporations simultaneously, which makes the financial system prone to crisis. And interest is a reward for risk. Creditors may be willing to lend money to people and corporations that are already deeply in debt, but only if they receive a higher interest rate. So if interest was forbidden, that might not happen, and there could be fewer financial crises.

Banning interest has been tried in the past and it failed time after time. That is because without interest lending and borrowing wouldn’t be possible and the economy would come to a standstill. Until now there was a shortage of money and capital so interest rates needed to be positive, but that may be about to change. The increased availability of money and capital pushed interest rates lower. Money and capital may soon be so abundant that interest rates can go negative. That could be the end of usury.

The scary monsters in the financial system

Apart from exchange rate speculation there are frightening creatures like quantitative easing, shadow banks and derivatives. These things will be explained later in this post. Some experts believe that the financial sector is out of control. That may not be the case. Usury created this monster so Natural Money, which is negative interest rates and a maximum interest rate of zero, could make many of these seemingly hard-to-solve issues disappear, and perhaps shrink financial sector profits too.

Leverage, shadow banking and derivatives make the financial sector so profitable for its operators because of interest and risk. Interest is a reward for risk but interest also increases risk because interest charges are fixed while incomes aren’t. But more risk means more profit for the usurers because all that risk needs to be ‘managed’. That provides opportunities to profit for those who make the deals. Usury is the main cause of financial crises and generates most financial sector profits.

Quantitative easing

Quantitative easing means that central banks print money to buy debt with this newly created money. Trillions of dollars and euros have been printed so central banks now own trillions in debt. In this way the financial crisis of 2008 was stemmed. Investors and banks wanted to get rid of debts and preferred cash because there was a risk that some of these debts would not be repaid in full. This caused the crisis.

But what if there was a tax of 10% per year on cash and central bank deposits? Losing a few percent on bad debts suddenly doesn’t seem such a bad deal any more. Investors may have kept these debts and the crisis would not have occurred. The losses on bad mortgages turned out to be a lot less than 10% per year. That was also because the crisis was halted with central bank actions like quantitative easing.

If there had been a tax on cash and central bank deposits there would always have been liquidity. The crisis may never have happened in the first place and quantitative easing may not have been needed. And if this tax is going to be implemented in the future, investors may gladly gobble up the debt on the balance sheets of central banks, so that quantitative easing can be undone, and most likely at a profit for the taxpayer.

Shadow banks

In order to protect depositors, banks are subject to regulations. Regulations are bad for profits because they limit the risks banks can take. Bankers who were looking for bigger bonuses came up with a scheme that is now called shadow banks. Shadow banks don’t offer deposit accounts to ordinary people so regulations don’t apply. And so shadow banks can take more risk and generate more profits.

A shadow bank borrows money from investors and invests it in products like mortgage-backed securities. A mortgage-backed security is a derivative that looks like a bunch of mortgages. The owner of the security doesn’t own the mortgages themselves, but is entitled to the interest from the mortgages but also the losses when home owners fall behind on their payments. Not owning the mortgages themselves makes trading a lot easier because mortgages involve a lot of paperwork.

Shadow banks can be dangerous because bank regulations don’t apply. Ordinary banks are required to have a certain amount of capital to cushion losses so that depositors can be paid out in full when some loans aren’t repaid. The balance sheet of an ordinary bank might look like the one below:

debit
credit
mortgages and loans
€ 70,000,000
deposits
€ 60,000,000
loans to other banks
€ 10,000,000
deposits from other banks
€ 20,000,000
cash, central bank deposits
€ 10,000,000
the bank’s net worth
€ 10,000,000
total
€ 90,000,000
total
€ 90,000,000

But shadow banks don’t need to comply to these regulations because they don’t have depositors. And so the balance sheet of a shadow bank might look like this:

debit
credit
mortgage-backed securities
€ 500,000,000
short-term lending in money markets
€ 490,000,000
insurance and credit lines
the shadow bank’s net worth € 10,000,000
total
€ 500,000,000
 total € 500,000,000

What is so great about shadow banking, at least for bankers? If banks borrow at 2% and lend at 4%, the ordinary bank can make € 1,400,000. The bank’s net worth is € 10,000,000 so the return on investment is 14%. But the shadow bank can make € 10,000,000 and the return on investment is 100%. And you can imagine how great this is for bonuses. Only, if something goes wrong, there is little capital to cushion losses. That’s not a problem for the bankers because by then they have already cashed their bonuses. But it could become our problem as shadow banks can blow up the financial system.

If the loans drop 10% in value because some home owners fall back on their mortgage payments, the capital of the ordinary bank can cushion the loss of € 8,000,000, while the shadow bank goes down in flames leaving an unpaid debt of € 40,000,000. And now we get to the point where financial system blew up. It is the insurance and credit lines part on the balance sheet of the shadow bank. There is no value attached because credit lines so insurances don’t show up on balance sheets or only for a very low amount.

Ordinary banks guaranteed credit to shadow banks just in the case investors like money market funds didn’t want to invest in shadow banks any more. The great thing of credit lines for bankers is that they get a fee for these credit lines while they don’t appear on the balance sheet so that banks don’t have to cut back their lending. When homeowners fell behind on their payments, investors didn’t want to invest in shadow banks any more, and these credit lines had to be used. This means that ordinary banks had to step in and suddenly their capital wasn’t sufficient to cover the losses. Also going down in flames, were the insurers of mortgage-backed securities.

The United States had a government policy of stimulating home ownership. Under the guise of this policy mortgages were given to people who couldn’t afford them. Behind the scenes usury was to blame. If there was doubt whether the borrower could afford the mortgage, a banker could charge a higher interest rate to compensate for the risk. This made the mortgage even less affordable to the borrower. The solution for that problem was giving ‘teaser rates’, meaning that the interest rate was low during the first year so that the home owner could afford the mortgage payments at first. Meanwhile the mortgage was packaged in a mortgage-backed security so the banker was already off the hook when the home owner fell behind on his or her payments.

And there is more. Shadow banks offer higher interest rates to their investors. Shadow banks don’t have a lot of capital so investing in them is a more risky than putting money in a bank account of a regular bank. Investors in shadow banks need a compensation for that risk. That’s no problem because the enterprise is very profitable. It is therefore possible for shadow banks to pay higher interest rates. This might not be possible if interest was forbidden, unless shadow banks had a lot more capital to cover their losses, but that would solve the problem of them being too risky. It is usury that allows for risky schemes like shadow banks to exist.

The multi-trillion-dollar derivatives monster

In 2016 the notational value of all outstanding derivatives is estimated to be $650 trillion. This is the so-called multi-trillion derivatives monster. This figure is more than eight times the total income of everyone in the world.3 Some people are spooked by the sheer size of that number. And indeed, derivatives can be dangerous. In 2003 the famous investor Warren Buffet called derivatives ‘financial weapons of mass destruction’.

Five years later derivatives played a major role in the financial crisis. An improper use of derivatives nearly brought down the world financial system. But derivatives can be useful. Most banks use derivatives to hedge their risks. Banks that managed their risks well using derivatives fared relatively well during the financial crisis compared to banks that didn’t.4 Therefore, derivatives are probably here to stay.

But what about the multi trillion monster? The number is a notational value, not a real value. Derivatives are insurance contracts, often against default of a corporation, a change in interest rates, or home owners falling behind on mortgage payments. You may have a fire insurance on your house to the amount of € 200,000. This is the notational value of the contract. You may pay the insurer € 200 per year. That is the real value of the contract, until something happens, that is.

If your house burns down, the contract suddenly is worth € 200,000. Insurers often re-insure their risks, which is a prudent practice. But re-insurance makes the notational value of the outstanding derivatives increase. So if your insurer re-insures half of your fire insurance to reduce its risk exposure, another contract with notational value of € 100,000 is added to the pile of existing insurance contracts.

So what went wrong? If suddenly half the houses in a nation catch fire because there is a war, insurers go bankrupt. The cause of the financial crisis was many home owners falling behind on their payments at the same time so that insurers of derivative contracts like mortgage-backed securities went bankrupt. The American International Group (AIG) was the largest insurer of these contracts and it was bailed out with $ 188 billion. The US government made a profit of $ 22 billion on this bailout, but only because the financial system wasn’t allowed to collapse.

In a financial crisis a lot of things go wrong at the same time. The financial system can’t deal with a major crisis. If it happens, it may cause the greatest economic depression ever seen, and in retrospect it may herald the collapse of civilisation.

The usury issue

Money circulation in the economy is like blood circulating in the body. It makes no sense for a kidney or a lung to keep some blood just in case the blood stops circulation. The precautionary act makes the dreaded event happen. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. A financial crisis is like all parts of the body scrambling for blood at the same time. When the blood circulation stops, a person dies. An if the money circulation stops, the economy dies. Hoarding is to blame for that.

Perhaps big banks are too big to fail. Breaking them up may not help because the banking system is closely integrated. Banks lend money to each other. If a few banks fail then others get into trouble too. And in a crisis all the trouble happens at the same time. So perhaps it is better to address the cause of failure itself, which is interest on money and debts. And it may be possible because interest rates are poised to go negative.

A tax on cash makes negative interest rates possible. It can also keep investors from hoarding money. If money keeps on circulating, there may never be a crisis. The crisis happened because investors scrambled for cash when they feared they might lose money on bad debts. But if they expect to lose more on cash, they might keep their debts. And there may have been fewer bad debts in the first place if there had been no interest on debts as interest is a reward for risk.

Featured image: Graffiti near the Renfe station of Vitoria-Gasteiz. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

1. The rise of money trading has made our economy all mud and no brick. Alex Andreou (2013). The Guardian. [link]
2. The Rise of Finance. Evan Soltas (2013). Economics and Thought. [no link because the information has been removed]
3. Here’s What Makes the Derivatives “Monster” So Dangerous (for You). Michael E. Lewitt (2016). Money Morning. [link]
4. Financial innovation and bank behavior: Evidence from credit markets. Lars Norden, Consuelo Silva Buston and Wolf Wagner (2014). Tilburg University. [link]

Arab farmer taking straw to his farm. Public domain.

Clutching at a straw

nivtric2 Comments

I read The Limits of Growth in my late teens. Perhaps, I was twenty already. I was young and hoped to live for another sixty years or so. And suddenly, a computer told me that I would live to see the end. The evidence and the logic were convincing. For a long time, I had hardly thought about the impending doom. As a child, I sometimes feared the future when hearing the disturbing song Vluchten Kan Niet Meer or Fleeing Is No Longer Possible on the radio. It unnerved me profoundly as it painted a dismal time ahead where nature would be gone. But that faded once I went to secondary school. After finishing my studies, I became an environmentalist and joined a local Friends of the Earth group in Groningen in 1993.

Friends of the Earth is an international environmental organisation known in the Netherlands as Mileudefensie. They had local groups of activists, most notably in student towns like Groningen. The organisation researches environmental issues and tries to convince people they should change their lifestyles. Friends of the Earth also lobbies with politicians and pressures corporations. Our group was a hodgepodge of students, people with a job, unemployed, activists and ordinary people led by a woman in her thirties, who acted as an Akela at the boy scouts. A 22-year-old student was her boyfriend.

We were not militant like Greenpeace, but sometimes we protested. One day we blocked the entrance of Groningen Airport to protest against the government subsidies for the airport. The police came and told us to leave, which we did. I then concluded that activism would not help. We will not give up our comfortable lifestyles and vote out politicians if they are serious about solutions. And businesses will go bankrupt if they do more to save the environment than others. Their products would be more expensive, and we wouldn’t buy them. And so there were underlying economic and political issues to address. We organised ourselves around themes, for instance, vegetarianism, air pollution, and economic issues. And these caught my interest.

We were short of money, but that changed when I became the treasurer. I took measures to make expenses match income, but I also had some luck. Every year, we obtained a small grant of 2,500 guilders from both the Groningen province and the Groningen municipality. But when I became treasurer, the provincial administration had just denied the allowance we had received the previous years. And so I wrote an appeal to the Appeals Commission. I then went to the Provincial House to discuss the issue with the official responsible for the grant. He explained that it was because we had been late filing our request, and the money jar was already empty. And so, I asked him whether there was any point to the appeal. He said no. It was a done deal. Then I received an invitation for a hearing at the Appeals Commission. I decided not to waste my time by going there, so a commissioner called me that evening, asking me why I hadn’t shown up. And I told him. That probably touched a nerve, as I gave him the impression that no one took the Appeals Commission seriously. And so, our appeal was granted, and we received the subsidy. As I had made a budget that did not anticipate this money and had implemented budgetary discipline, we ended up with income exceeding expenses.

Once over a cliff, a cartoon character can only clutch at a straw. And only in animation pictures the straw holds. The Dutch saying clutching to a straw means grasping to your last hope. On economic issues, our local group worked together with Strohalm, or more precisely, Rinke. He lived in Groningen and was actively engaged in Strohalm and their ideology. As I remember, he was on social benefits, and working for Strohalm and Friends of the Earth was his job. He was serious about it and worked hard. The meaning of the Dutch word strohalm is straw. According to Strohalm, the economy must grow because of interest, and that’s destroying our planet. It is ‘grow-or-die’ because interest rates need to be positive. Interest charges also cause escalating debts, poverty and financial instability. And in the end, the scheme will collapse because the interest adds to the principal until infinity. Any solution begins with ending that, they believed. And as you may have inferred already, I was into sound accounting, so this made me think. Strohalm aimed to ban interest and charge a fee on money, as Silvio Gesell had proposed. You didn’t have to pay the fee on money lent. In this way, it could be attractive to lend money without interest.

In those days, Strohalm started a LETS (Local Exchange Trading System) in Groningen. We exchanged goods and services using fictitious currency. We had a camp to train our persuading skills as environmentalists. Rinke was one of the organisers. He praised me several times and called me an example for others. That was not because of my social skills but because I knew what other people thought and how they would react. My parents and some friends frowned upon me joining the environmentalist movement.

I soon realised that there were serious issues. If you can receive interest elsewhere then why would you lend out money without interest? And if you can borrow money at an interest rate of zero, you would borrow as much as you can and put it in a bank account at interest. Therefore, interest-free money with a holding tax would not work. Only, that wasn’t particularly satisfactory. If you accept doom then you might as well commit suicide. If interest is the root of many social and environmental problems, and can destroy human civilisation, you should make it work. And perhaps it could work. During the Great Depression, it had been tried in a small Austrian village and it was a stunning success.

I am concerned about the planet. For years, I used public transport. And I still do it for work. But at some point, I realised it was pointless. More and more people started driving SUVs. They didn’t care about the planet. So if I saved petrol by taking a train, there was only more for those people. It didn’t matter what I did. A car makes your life comfortable, and I didn’t aspire to higher moral standards than others. So, I bought a car in 2003.

In 1998, I became a freelance IT specialist. I worked for a small bureau named Betamax, led by Martien, a retired manager. I made lots of money, so I had some capital to invest. My first investments were small and unprofitable, as I believed that profits matter. At the time, loss-making internet startups did very well in the stock market, while profitable corporations did poorly. But I had trouble understanding it. And so I thought I had to stay informed about the financial markets. In 2000, I joined the investment message board Iex.nl. At the time, I still said occasionally, ‘With SuperBart,’ when taking up the phone. That was fun and it sometimes caused hilarious moments, for instance, once I expected a call from Ingrid, but it turned out to be Martien. And so, I chose this name as my avatar.

Later I changed my avatar into niphtrique after someone noted that SuperBart sounded arrogant. And since then, I never took up the phone anymore saying, ‘With SuperBart.’ I didn’t need that to feel better anymore. A strange thing about avatars is that you somehow become this person, SuperBart, on the Internet because people do not know you. And so, I introduced a few other avatars to be someone else and have some fun. Most avatars didn’t last long, except dikkevettebeer, or plumpy fat bear, who believed the stock market would crash to zero and the gold price would rise to infinity.

A colourful investment fund manager, Michael Kraland, ran the message board. He also wrote commentaries about his investments. At the time, he rode the hype of the internet and telecom bubbles. His strategy was risky and not sound advice to inexperienced investors. And because he was a bit of a boaster, he received nasty negative comments on the message board, including unproven accusations of wrongdoing. And perhaps also because he was a Jew, which might not be accidental, as he worked in finance. And even though, as far as I know, he never did anything illegal, I nevertheless found him a dubious character.

After some time, a day trader named Cees joined the message board and began sharing conspiracy theories with us. He found them on US message boards and websites. If the markets were about to collapse, a secret group called Plunge Protection Team would come to the rescue. A stock market crash could undermine confidence in the financial system run by Wall Street, so they didn’t allow that to happen. Many readers first ridiculed Cees. But after the internet bubble had popped, and even more so after 9/11, markets often miraculously recovered when they were about to crash. And so, his credibility gradually rose. And the gold price regularly cratered because of sudden selling at peculiar times when most markets were closed. Cees believed central banks were behind this to promote confidence in their currencies. He wrote that if the gold price were to rise, the public would lose trust in our money. When there is little trade, you can sell a bit of gold to make the price drop. The trick was to break a trend. Trend traders, called technical traders, would then join the bandwagon by selling more gold, bringing down the price even further.

That was new to me, and perhaps it wasn’t all true, but there was ample reason to be suspicious. I had already bought some gold for other reasons. I didn’t trust financial markets and those operating them. Those people make a living from your money, so these stories intrigued me. They might be pulling out all the tricks to keep the Ponzi scheme of interest-bearing debt going. After all, debts continued to grow, as did interest payments, so there could soon be a day of reckoning. And I had read The Limits of Growth, so I feared collapse was inevitable. And if the sky has come down on you once, you worry it might happen a second time. Hence, I was constantly on edge concerning my investments, which was not helpful for profits. And I was not good at picking stocks. And so, I bought gold as a long-term investment. I also hoped that gold ownership could help me weather a financial collapse.

I bought my first gold in 1999 before I joined Iex.nl when I learned on the news that the gold price had reached historic lows. And so, I went to my bank to open a gold account. They sent an investment advisor to talk me out of it. He said, ‘No one does that anymore. I know a man who has a silver account with us for two decades. And silver has gone nowhere all that time. Gold mines are making losses because the price of gold is only going down. You should invest in the stock market instead.’ I smelled apathy concerning the precious metals and concluded it could be the beginning of a long-term trend of rising gold and silver prices that might run for decades, which indeed has happened. And so, I pressed on and opened a gold account. Perhaps, they had a good laugh that day at my bank office.

In 2001, after the Internet bubble had popped, I pitched the idea of interest-free money on the message board of Iex.nl. My lack of knowledge of the financial system didn’t deter me. Everyone can participate in a debate on a message board, and you can exchange thoughts with people you would never meet otherwise. Others rebutted me time after time, but I didn’t give up. Lengthy discussions followed, and they took several years. As these discussions proceeded, my knowledge of the financial system increased. And with the benefit of hindsight, debates on the Internet can be more fruitful than academic debates, which often occur in closed circles, because you get more perspectives.

In theory, interest-free money is a sound idea because fixed-interest payments destabilise the financial system. But practical issues stood in the way. The supporters of interest-free currencies didn’t address them. And economists never took interest-free money seriously because if you can receive interest elsewhere, you will not accept interest-free money. Via gold websites, I became familiar with the Austrian School of Economics and their adherents. They question money creation by banks and the need for central banks and point at the inflation caused by money creation. Some hoped to limit money creation or to return to a gold standard. Usually, they were libertarians who saw the government as the root of all evil. And unlike St. Paul, they saw sound money and free markets as the root of all blessings. They were a most peculiar and fanatic bunch, and even though they were on the opposite side of the political spectrum, a comparison with communists is most apt.

Both ideologies are like religions. Like the communists have their prophets, such as Marx, Lenin and Engels, libertarians have them, like Mises, Hayek, and Rand. And both religions have holy books. Communists have Marx’ Das Kapital or the Communist Manifesto, and libertarians have Rand’s Atlas Unshrugged or Ludwig von Mises’s book The Theory of Money and Credit. If their ideology fails, communists blame the capitalists, while libertarians blame the government. They appear to see money as a goal, not a tool. If you held alternative views like me, they might accuse you f being Keynesian, which seemed worse than being Satan himself. To me, these people seemed misers obsessed with money. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that their hero, after which they named their website, is Ludwig von Mises. So Mises for misers, if you didn’t get it already. And even though Wall Street is much eviler than they are, they represent the worship of Mammon in its purest form. They believed they were always right, so they tried hard to convince me I was wrong with my ideas about interest. And so, I learned as much from the Austrians as I learned from Strohalm. And if you come to think of it, perhaps it is also not a coincidence that the miracle of Wörgl happened in Austria.

Two opposing fringe ideas, interest-free money with a holding tax and the Austrian School view of hard money, challenged each other in my mind. It is how Hegelian Dialectic is supposed to work. It was not so that I was constantly brooding on this issue, but I also couldn’t let it go. In 2008 this resulted in a synthesis, Natural Money. In a gold standard, you need positive interest rates to get the economy going. As a result, you end up with unsustainable debt levels that you can never repay in gold, so you must leave the gold standard. But when you do that, the sky is the limit, and debts can escalate to infinity. But limiting the interest rate to zero can curb money creation too, and stop irresponsible lending. If the money supply is stable and the economy grows, prices drop, including the gold price. And so, a well-managed currency with a holding fee could be stronger than gold. As the economy can do better without interest, interest-free money can give better returns. That was the beginning. In the following decade, I produced a more comprehensive theory with the help of modern monetary economics.

Latest revision: 30 January 2023

Featured image: Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote. Warner Bros. [copyright info]