"what is money, how did it originate"

[Penguin]

Thanks for the link, 789. Many nice collections of links re: money and its origins there. Didnt know of that forum...

As I said, in my country, they used squirrel skins as late as 100 years ago And the usual barter, use of grains, alcohol etc as payment. Or meat, hides, etc.

Of course, we also had Swedish issue money when they ruled here, and Russian rule allowed us our own money. Dont know what it was based on then.

[789]

the question was, somebody is posting the same in this thread and on goldismoney forum (who is percival, who is vigilant ?)

As for the original subject of this thread "what is money, how did it originate" and The Babylonian Woe; recommended reading is Paul Einzig's Primitive Money. Left to their own devices people always chose something readily available as medium of exchange. In Sumeria money was based on barley.

"According to Sir Charles L. Woolley, excavator of the city of Ur in Southern Mesopotamia, the unit of exchange in the days of the great city states of Mesopotamia of the third and fourth Millennium B.C., and which served, therefore, as common denominator of the value of goods and services, was the measure of barley."


According to Aristotle, money came into existence not by nature but by law, and government-issued paper money advocates aggree

Nicomachean Ethics (350 BC)
Now proportionate return is secured by cross-conjunction. Let A be a builder, B a shoemaker, C a house, D a shoe. The builder, then, must get from the shoemaker the latter's work, and must himself give him in return his own. If, then, first there is proportionate equality of goods, and then reciprocal action takes place, the result we mention will be effected. If not, the bargain is not equal, and does not hold; for there is nothing to prevent the work of the one being better than that of the other; they must therefore be equated. (And this is true of the other arts also; for they would have been destroyed if what the patient suffered had not been just what the agent did, and of the same amount and kind.) For it is not two doctors that associate for exchange, but a doctor and a farmer, or in general people who are different and unequal; but these must be equated. This is why all things that are exchanged must be somehow comparable. It is for this end that money has been introduced, and it becomes in a sense an intermediate; for it measures all things, and therefore the excess and the defect--how many shoes are equal to a house or to a given amount of food. The number of shoes exchanged for a house (or for a given amount of food) must therefore correspond to the ratio of builder to shoemaker. For if this be not so, there will be no exchange and no intercourse. And this proportion will not be effected unless the goods are somehow equal. All goods must therefore be measured by some one thing, as we said before. Now this unit is in truth demand, which holds all things together (for if men did not need one another's goods at all, or did not need them equally, there would be either no exchange or not the same exchange); but money has become by convention a sort of representative of demand; and this is why it has the name ‘money’ (nomisma)--because it exists not by nature but by law (nomos) and it is in our power to change it and make it useless. There will, then, be reciprocity when the terms have been equated so that as farmer is to shoemaker, the amount of the shoemaker's work is to that of the farmer's work for which it exchanges. But we must not bring them into a figure of proportion when they have already exchanged (otherwise one extreme will have both excesses), but when they still have their own goods. Thus they are equals and associates just because this equality can be effected in their case. Let A be a farmer, C food, B a shoemaker, D his product equated to C. If it had not been possible for reciprocity to be thus effected, there would have been no association of the parties. That demand holds things together as a single unit is shown by the fact that when men do not need one another, i.e. when neither needs the other or one does not need the other, they do not exchange, as we do when some one wants what one has oneself, e.g. when people permit the exportation of corn in exchange for wine. This equation therefore must be established. And for the future exchange-that if we do not need a thing now we shall have it if ever we do need it-money is as it were our surety; for it must be possible for us to get what we want by bringing the money. Now the same thing happens to money itself as to goods--it is not always worth the same; yet it tends to be steadier. This is why all goods must have a price set on them; for then there will always be exchange, and if so, association of man with man. Money, then, acting as a measure, makes goods commensurate and equates them; for neither would there have been association if there were not exchange, nor exchange if there were not equality, nor equality if there were not commensurability. Now in truth it is impossible that things differing so much should become commensurate, but with reference to demand they may become so sufficiently. There must, then, be a unit, and that fixed by agreement (for which reason it is called money); for it is this that makes all things commensurate, since all things are measured by money. Let A be a house, B ten minae, C a bed. A is half of B, if the house is worth five minae or equal to them; the bed, C, is a tenth of B; it is plain, then, how many beds are equal to a house, viz. five. That exchange took place thus before there was money is plain; for it makes no difference whether it is five beds that exchange for a house, or the money value of five beds.

We have now defined the unjust and the just. These having been marked off from each other, it is plain that just action is intermediate between acting unjustly and being unjustly treated; for the one is to have too much and the other to have too little. Justice is a kind of mean, but not in the same way as the other virtues, but because it relates to an intermediate amount, while injustice relates to the extremes. And justice is that in virtue of which the just man is said to be a doer, by choice, of that which is just, and one who will distribute either between himself and another or between two others not so as to give more of what is desirable to himself and less to his neighbour (and conversely with what is harmful), but so as to give what is equal in accordance with proportion; and similarly in distributing between two other persons. Injustice on the other hand is similarly related to the unjust, which is excess and defect, contrary to proportion, of the useful or hurtful. For which reason injustice is excess and defect, viz. because it is productive of excess and defect--in one's own case excess of what is in its own nature useful and defect of what is hurtful, while in the case of others it is as a whole like what it is in one's own case, but proportion may be violated in either direction. In the unjust act to have too little is to be unjustly treated; to have too much is to act unjustly.

___________
Re: socialism -- off topic
social-ism, society-ism is the idea that society should take care of responsibilities which are the duties of the individual. It is the responsibility of the individual to feed, clothe, house himself; to feed, clothe, house, educate his children; etc., etc., etc.

It is the duty of society to support the widow, the orphan, the fatherless. (but not some welfare slut and welfare stud who produce babies but expect others to pay for it)

[vigilant]

I'm not percival. I have seen that name in this forum before though. I have also noticed that sometimes people transfer my stuff to other forums, so maybe he was swapping my stuff over there.

[IanEye]

Actually, I would like to start a "what is money, how did it originate" thread but I don't know how many people we have here that are interested enough to participate in it. Maybe more than I realize in the current financial climate. Its a fascinating topic, and an eye opener, as money is not, and never has been what it appears to be.......

THE BABYLONIAN WOE < old link, no longer working

In conversation with vanlose kid i noticed that the original link i posted to David Astle's The Babylonian Woe
is no longer working. i had originally found it on an interesting site run by a woman who called herself Yamaguchy (at least i think it was a woman).

here is a new link to html files of what was on her site: The Babylonian Woe

it has been quite a while since i have perused this book, and am not even sure if it resonates with me fully anymore. feel free to tell me what you think of Mr. Astle's thoughts on the origins of money.

.

*
.

[eyeno]

This is a fascinating thread. I have been unable to download the information that ianeye refers to but I am still trying. Is there any other source for the information you refer to ianeye?

[brainpanhandler]

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/ ... an_woe.pdf

I'm about through chapter 4. The biblical tone is a bit cloying after a while. If this winds it's way eventually to the international jewish banking conspiracy I'll be pissed. In any case the author seems to argue among other things that the world was a better place when benevolent God-kings issued the people's currency. Seems like a christian fundamentalist of some sort. Maybe after the rapture god will set up his bank on earth. Now there'd be a bank you could trust, backed by the full faith and credit of the lord God almighty himself.

[IanEye]

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/the_babylonian_woe.pdf

I'm about through chapter 4. The biblical tone is a bit cloying after a while. If this winds it's way eventually to the international jewish banking conspiracy I'll be pissed.

well bph, i think you might end up getting pissed. one of the names in the footnotes that jumps out at me in 2011 is this one:

Willard Cleon Skousen

back in 2003 when i first read this book i had no frame of reference for any of this money history. i still don't have a lot. one of the things i am curious about is if any of the talk about use of tally sticks and Sumerian coin economies is at all accurate, or if it is just racist fantasies. i honestly don't know, and was hoping more learned people on here could chime in with thier views on if the Astle book has any value.

the publishers at Trine Day, in addition to publishing Jeff's work, have also republished works by Antony Sutton, a favorite of many right wingers, so i assume it has some value. it is often difficult for me to know, but the fact that Astle references Skousen so often does give me pause.

[brainpanhandler]

well bph, i think you might end up getting pissed. one of the names in the footnotes that jumps out at me in 2011 is this one:

Willard Cleon Skousen

To clarify, I won't be pissed at you.

back in 2003 when i first read this book i had no frame of reference for any of this money history. i still don't have a lot.

I know, right. I think at various times in my life I've asked myself what is money? It's amazing how long it took me to even ask that question. I don't think I've ever found a completely satisfactory answer, at least not satisfactory in the sense of feeling like I understood the historical transition from innocent medium of exchange to fractional reserve banking.

Astle definitely seems to be creating the outlines of an ancient conspiracy, the keepers of the secrets of fiat money. I'd also like to know if there is any historical value to this work. Like for instance did the great temples really function as the banks of their day. I mean I'm familiar with the biblical accounts of the money changers in the temple, but I did not realize the priesthoods of so many cultures were so intertwined with the banking of their day.

Where he can't find some sort of textual evidence he seems predisposed to just deduce what the missing bits are based on what he does know, or thinks he knows, which is needless to say, kind of sloppy scholarship.

So far my impression is that there is likely some worthwhile history here, but it's liberally interspersed with the author's conjecture, which is of course perfectly fine, I just don't think it's a serious work.

Besides which it's just kind of sloppily written. Was this translated into English?

[IanEye]

In "The Naked Communist," Skousen had argued that the communists wanted power for their own reasons. In "The Naked Capitalist," Skousen argued that those reasons were really the reasons of the dynastic rich, who used front groups to do their dirty work and hide their tracks. The purpose of liberal internationalist groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, argued Skousen, was to push "U.S. foreign policy toward the establishment of a world-wide collectivist society." Skousen claimed the Anglo-American banking establishment had a long history of such activity going back to the Bolshevik Revolution. He substantiated this claim by citing the work of a former Czarist army officer named Arsene de Goulevitch. Among Goulevitch's own sources is Boris Brasol, a pro-Nazi Russian émigré who provided Henry Ford with the first English translation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

"The Naked Capitalist" does not seem like a text that would be part of the required reading list on any reputable college campus, but some BYU professors taught it out of allegiance to Skousen. Terrified, the editors of Dialogue: The Journal of Mormon Thought invited "Tragedy and Hope" author Carroll Quigley to comment on Skousen's interpretation of his work. They also asked a highly respected BYU history professor named Louis C. Midgley to review Skousen's latest pamphlet. Their judgment was not kind. In the Autumn/Winter 1971 issue of Dialogue, the two men accused Skousen of "inventing fantastic ideas and making inferences that go far beyond the bounds of honest commentary." Skousen not only saw things that weren't in Quigley's book, they declared, he also missed what actually was there -- namely, a critique of ultra-far-right conspiracists like Willard Cleon Skousen.

"Skousen's personal position," wrote a dismayed Quigley, "seems to me perilously close to the 'exclusive uniformity' which I see in Nazism and in the Radical Right in this country. In fact, his position has echoes of the original Nazi 25-point plan."

Skousen was unbowed. In 1971, he founded the Freeman Institute, a research organization devoted to the study of the super-conspiracy directed by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds.

link

[IanEye]

So far my impression is that there is likely some worthwhile history here, but it's liberally interspersed with the author's conjecture, which is of course perfectly fine, I just don't think it's a serious work.

Besides which it's just kind of sloppily written. Was this translated into English?

that is a good question. if you look at the contents page, you can see another version listed called "Babiloni Átok" that is in a language i don't know, so maybe it was translated from that?

[IanEye]

Yamaguchy's site is no more, but i found this site which lists all of the books that were on the Yamaguchy site:

http://www.heritech.com/ymagchy/index.html

as one can see, it is a real hodge-podge lodge.

i think most readers at RI regard Linda Hunt's "Secret Agenda, Project Paperclip" as a legitimate tome, but Yamaguchy gave equal credence to the work of Eustace Mullins, who is not well regarded here at all.


This may be of some interest:

WHO IS YAMAGUCHY? "YAMAGUCHY INCORPORATED," WE ARE TOLD, IS MERELY THE NAME THE CREATOR FLIPPANTLY GAVE AS HIS "COMPANY" WHEN HE CREATED HIS WEB SITE. THE CREATOR HIMSELF GOES BY THE NAME OF "ISHMAEL," AND HE IS A FOREIGN-BORN CANADIAN CITIZEN FROM WE KNOW NOT WHERE.
IT SEEMS FOR SOME YEARS ISHMAEL HAUNTED A MAJOR LIBRARY IN TORONTO, CANADA, DIGGING OUT AND SCANNING BOOKS ON SUBJECTS THAT HAPPEN TO INTEREST HIM (AND US). THEN, AFTER BEING EVICTED FROM HIS HOMESTEAD IN TORONTO'S TENT CITY, HE PACKED UP HIS GEAR AND PEDDLED HIS BICYCLE SOME 2,900 MILES TO VANCOUVER ISLAND, WHERE HE LIVED AND WORKED FOR A WHILE SOMEWHERE THE TOTANGA FOREST. ALL WE (THINK) WE KNOW NOW IS THAT HE IS STILL SOMEWHERE IN THE GREAT CANADIAN SOUTHWEST.
IN ADDITION TO APPARENTLY BEING A BIT OF AN ECCENTRIC, ISHMAEL IS ALSO SOMEWHAT OF A CYNIC, CHIDING PEOPLE LIKE YOURS TRULY FOR CONSIDERING THESE WORKS "HARD TO FIND." HE TELLS US, "THEY ARE EASY TO FIND! THEY ARE THERE – IN THE LIBRARY!"
HE HAS DONE AN HEROIC JOB IN ASSEMBLING THIS WONDERFUL LIBRARY OF HARD TO FIND BOOKS AND OTHER MATERIALS -- AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO US AS LONG AS HE DID. NOW HE HAS BEGUN PUBLISHING SOME OF THESE TITLES COMMERCIALLY. WE WISH HIM ALL THE BEST IN HIS NEW VENTURE.

On the original site there were photos of the Tent City spoken of, and Yamaguchy sort of came across as a Unabomber/Thoreau type character. His shack looked pretty cool, I'll see if i saved any pictures of it.


So, if anyone has any thoughts on which books are cool and which books are nonsense, feel free to share them.

[Elvis]

The NPR program "This American Life" recently did a show called "The Invention of Money" - "Five reporters stumbled on what seems like a basic question: What is money? The unsettling answer they found: Money is fiction."

I think you can listen free online:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/423/the-invention-of-money

The segment I found especially interesting was about "rai stones" (emphasis mine):

Rai stones are large, circular stone disks carved out of limestone in the island of Yap, Micronesia. They have been used in trade by the locals and are described by some observers as a form of currency.

Rai stones are circular disks carved out of limestone with a large hole in the middle. The size of the stones varies widely; the largest are 3 meters (10 ft) in diameter, 0.5 meters (1.5 ft) thick and weigh 4 metric tons (8,800 lb).

The extrinsic (perceived) value of a specific stone is based not only on its size and craftsmanship but also on the history of the stone. If many people — or no one at all — died when the specific stone was transported, or a famous sailor brought it in, the value of the rai stone increases.

Rai stones were used in social transactions such as marriage, inheritance, political deals, sign of an alliance, ransom of the battle dead or just in exchange for food. Many of them are placed in front of meetinghouses or specific pathways. Though the ownership of a particular stone changes, the stone itself is rarely moved. The names of previous owners are passed down to the new one.

HISTORY

Yapese quarried the limestone rocks from the islands of Palau and took them to Yap with canoes and rafts. Local legend holds that the Yapese discovered the rock of Palau about 500–600 years ago when an expedition led by a man called Anagumang landed on Palau. Limestone was nonexistent in Yap and therefore very valuable to the Yapese.

First Anagumang ordered his men to cut stone into the shape of fish but eventually a circular shape was chosen, probably because it was easier to transport. A pole was put through the hole in the center of the stone so that laborers could carry the stone. The largest of the disks probably needed hundreds of men to transport.

Residents of Palau, in turn, required Yapese to pay in beads, coconut meat and copra or in the form of services for the privilege of quarrying.

In 1871 an Irish-American David Dean O'Keefe was shipwrecked near Yap and was helped by the natives. Later he assisted the Yapese in acquiring rai and in return received copra and trepang, which were valuable exports in the Far East.[1] He provided the Yapese with iron tools. As a result, a form of inflation set in and rai stones acquired with his help were less valuable than more ancient ones.

In one instance, a rai being transported by canoe was accidentally dropped and sunk to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as genuine currency - perhaps the ultimate expression of fiat money.

The trade for rai stones eventually stopped at the beginning of the 20th century due to trade disputes between Spanish and German interests in the area. Quarries were abandoned. When Imperial Japanese forces took over Yap during World War II, they used some of the stones for construction or as anchors.

Although Western-style money has replaced the stones as everyday currency, the rai stones are still exchanged in traditional ways between the Yapese. They are a national symbol and are depicted on local license plates.

A 7-foot-diameter (2.1 m) rai stone is exhibited in the garden of the lobby of the Bank of Canada, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones

----

"Tragedy and Hope" author Carroll Quigley to comment on Skousen's interpretation of his work

Between Quigley and Skousen, why not just stick with Quigley. I really do think "Tragedy and Hope" is a unique and terrific straight-on history book. The famous quote trumpeted by JBS'er Gary Allen in "None Dare Call It Conspriracy" is probably already familiar to most reading this:

This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements.... This myth, like all fables, does in fact have a modicum of truth. There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the Radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

How juicy is that, coming from the professor of Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi (both took his classes at Georgetown)? Having read most of "Tragedy and Hope," and taking into account other books on related topics (e.g. a curious 1926 tract, "The English Speaking Peoples - Will They Fail in Their Mission to the World?"), I feel little reason to doubt Quigley. Adding the previously quoted Quigley tidbite, "The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands..." tells us something about where the meaning of money went.

Quigley later said (assuming the remark was not just made up by someone) that after "Tragedy and Hope" he had trouble getting published--punishment for his exposé.

[Elvis]

I should add, it's been over 20 years since I read "Tragedy and Hope" and I want to reread it in the context of what I've learned since. Maybe I'll see something I didn't see then.

[brainpanhandler]

So far my impression is that there is likely some worthwhile history here, but it's liberally interspersed with the author's conjecture, which is of course perfectly fine, I just don't think it's a serious work.

Besides which it's just kind of sloppily written. Was this translated into English?

that is a good question. if you look at the contents page, you can see another version listed called "Babiloni Átok" that is in a language i don't know, so maybe it was translated from that?

I have not found a whole lot on the web about Captain David Astle, but apparently not. According to this highly questionable source Astle was an English speaker -

September 4, 2008


David Astle, who died this year in Canada, was a seaman from the age of sixteen. He retired a captain of the British navy after WW2. Once retired he came to realize that all the things he thought he fought to preserve in WW2 were "melting away" anyway. This knowledge perplexed him until 1961 when he met people who informed him of the truth of how the world is actually run

http://www.henrymakow.com/_david_astle_who_died.html

Who were those people he met that informed him of the truth?

Captain David Astle,
Colborne, Ontario
September 15th 1993,

...

The fact is I am 77 years of age and Alas ! not getting any younger ! However, as you see, I keep going. My main effort “The Babylonian Woe” was not finished until I was practically 60 years of age, and then on top of that, it had to be sold and promoted generally.

,,,

Yours very sincerely
David Astle

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... king39.htm

Astle apparently published Babylonian Woe in 1975. And apparently it took him 14 years to research and write.

I've read just about the entire thing now, having skimmed a few chapters. One of the things I find noteworthy is that Astle makes no mention of Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple of Herod. You'd think think that would have some bearing on his subject. Neither does he make any reference to biblical proscriptions against usury. Even though he is generally writing about earlier epochs you'd think given his obvious christian bias he might have made some mention of these things.

While I was considering these ommissions I was lead to a wikipedia article entitled, Loans and interest in Judaism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_and_ ... in_Judaism

It's an interesting, if perplexing read.

In Christianity

The early Christian Church, for reasons connected to the New Testament, declared that any usury was against divine law, preventing pious, and outwardly pious, Christians from using capital for mercantile purposes[1]; in 1179, Pope Alexander III excommunicated usurers, which in that period was seen as an extremely harsh punishment[1]. However, Canon Law was not regarded by medieval society as having any authority over Jews, and thus Christian monarchs looked to the Jews to supply capital to them[1]; in many European countries, medieval civil law also allowed the monarchs to automatically inherit any remaining income and property that had been acquired by usury, upon the death of the Jewish usurer involved[1]. Medieval European monarchs thus supported the Jews, and suppressed any attempts to convert them to Christianity, since it would deprive the monarch of potential income[1]; in England and France, the monarchs demanded compensation from the church for every Jew that was converted, and, until 1281, the English monarch had the legal right to claim half the property of any Jew that converted to Christianity[1].

The Jewish usurers had no competition in medieval Christian lands, and could charge very high interest; the legal limitations imposed were particularly generous in many countries:

in Sicily, under Frederick II in 1231, up to 10% per annum[1]
in Aragon, under the Cortes of Tarragona, up to 20% per annum[1]
in Navarre, under Philip III in 1330, up to 20% per annum[1]
in Castile, under Alfonso X, up to 25% per annum[1]
in Portugal, under Alfonso IV in 1350, up to 33.33% per annum[1]
in France, under Philip Augustus, up to 43.3% per annum[1]
in England, under King John, up to 86.6% per annum[1]
The loans were generally secured, and nearly anything could be used as security, the main exception being sacred objects belonging to the Christian Church[1]; the use of such sacred objects for security was punished in law, as early as 814, when the punishment was made to be the confiscation of property[1]. The huge size of the interest rates that were permitted, together with the effect of compound interest, meant that if the loan wasn't quickly repaid it would soon become unmanageable, and the security would be lost to the usurer[1]; for example, an abbot in 1173 borrowed 40 marks from Benedict the Jew, and seven years later, the amount to be repaid had grown to £880[1].

The papacy protested against the usury of the Jews, with Eugenius declaring that all interest charges were null and void if the debtor went on a crusade, and Innocent XIII calling upon all Christian princes to demand that the interest was returned[1]; Louis IX of France and Edward I of England answered the call, in 1254 and 1275 respectively, and tried to influence the Jews within their kingdom away from usury, but without effect[1]. Then, in the middle of the 13th century, groups of Italian Christians, particularly the Cahorsins and Lombards, invented legal fictions to get around the ban on Christian usury[1]; for example, one method of effecting a loan with interest was to offer money without interest, but also require that the loan is insured against possible loss or injury, and/or delays in repayment (see contractum trinius)[1]. The Christians effecting these legal fictions became known as the pope's usurers, and reduced the importance of the Jews to European monarchs[1]; later, in the Middle Ages, a distinction was drawn between things which were consumable (such as food and fuel) and those which were not, with usury being pemitted on loans involving the latter[1].

By the later Middle Ages, Christian Merchants who lent money with interest were without opposition, and the Jews lost their privileged position as money-lenders[1]; from the 15th century, Jews were mainly found as dealers in second-hand clothing[1], since European society was religiously prejudiced against them, permitting them few other forms of income. Despite this, the Jews' reputation for usury remained well into the 20th century[1], and the stereotype often had serious consequences for them.

What I found most interesting was Astle's description of those few times in history he feels a people were able to free themselves from the yoke of the "international bullion brokers" and the usurious fiat money scam. His account of Sparta's attempt to create a self sufficient society without need of foreign goods and therefore without need of any currency other than what they created for themselves is interesting and also revealing.

In the chapter titled, SPARTA, THE PELANORS, WEALTH, AND WOMEN, he writes:

-----------------------

(Of Spartan money as reinstituted under the patronage of Lycurgus, Ernest Babelon, famous French Numismatist of the 19th Century, wrote:

In the conservative capital of Laconia it appears that these ingots of iron were the sole money in use and all citizens were forbidden under penalty of death to possess any other money...)

The fact is however, Sparta, while following the Laws of Lycurgus had dominated Greece in more or less degree. As soon as she lost sight of the meaning and purpose of such laws, she became just another petty state; an agency for the subterranean control by international banking through manipulation of the silver and gold bullion basis of her currency; each man, concerned with his own need and greed, aimlessly following the pretty bubble which was the illusion of the banker's "wealth"... The old order, and that which had given them strength and national morale, was soon destroyed through the promotion of foreigners and the lower castes, and the helots, who merely took the name but not the meaning; also by the stirring up of women towards rejection of their subordinate place in life, and therefore instituting insidious attack on the natural order of the home, out of which is bred the natural order of life itself...

With the resumption of the rule of international money power in later Spartan history, one of the most outstanding instances of that sickness rotting the fibres of their racial morale, was the tale of those Homoioi who seemed to have fallen in the social scale and were no longer able to take their places in those great messes, the syssitiones, the breeding places of that esprit de corps that was Sparta.

Needless to say this sort of talk is repellent and yet that does not mean there is not some value in the historical research he has performed. Wheat/chaff? More work than I am up to.

[IanEye]

Needless to say this sort of talk is repellent and yet that does not mean there is not some value in the historical research he has performed. Wheat/chaff? More work than I am up to.

well, thanks for making the effort bph. i can see why you'd be less than enthused by a lot of what Mr. Astle writes about. It sort of reminds me of how Eustace Mullins will say a couple of interesting things about banking in the 19th century and then go off on a crazy rant about why he hates Susan Sontag.

thanks again.