Isolation?

December 4, 2008

In more modern times, people have gotten away from wanting to be isolationists.  I went through that phase, but I am returning to it for a number of reasons.  First of all it was what the founders wanted and they had good reasons. Isolationism is really just a way of respecting other countries.  But it is easy to get people to accept the totalitarian goals of the one world order, once you get then to agree that isloationism is a bad thing.  It is one of those slippery slope things. 

 

Also we need to look at two aspects of interaction between countries.  One is to do with government, and the other is to do with trade.  Government has to do with rulers and politics.  Trade has to do with exchange of goods or resources.  But the guiding principle for both is to do the right thing.  It is the golden rule.

 

As a country we need to decide if we are going to take care of ourselves and if we really have even a right to police the rest of the world.  I do not think we do.  This all got turned upside down when warfare became so bad and the WMD came on the scene.  Now the whole planet can be affected by war between two counties.  So the issue needs to be looked at from two perspectives.  One is ideologically and the other is realistically.  I think you have to do the first, and get very clear about that, before moving onto the second, otherwise you start to violate your own ideology in the process.  That in fact is what we are doing today and it does not serve us well at all.

 

Setting aside the hidden agenda part of things for the moment, it does not make much sense to destroy the freedoms of our own citizens, so that we can fight for the freedoms of others. It is just hypocrisy.  In addition, it makes little sense to say that we believe all men have a right to be free, but then deny them choice over their own politics.  It is saying that “you will accept our concept of freedom, whether you want to or not, because if you don’t, we must kill you.  We are only trying to help you.”

 

It is a very flawed logic.  It is a “logic” used by liars, hypocrites and those who have hidden agendas. 

 

The world may be united in one of two ways.  One is by freedom of all men and by mutual agreement.  The other is by slavery where in all are conquered and controlled by a totalitarian elite.  In the end it comes down to the same principles upon which this country was founded.

 

It is rather simple when you think about it.

 

The role of government is to protect the freedom of its own people.  They do this by serving them to that end only.  That is it.

 

Military needs to be limited to defensive operations only.  This whole idea of preemptive war is shit.  It is an excuse for imperialism and agression.  Only under the fear generated by the war mongers would we have allowed it.  We need to be stronger than that.

 

Terrorism is sparked by this attitude.  As bad as it is, it is a response to the aggression and imperialistic one world order agenda of the corrupt banking war mongers.  You want to stop terrorism?  Stop fueling hatred.  The bankers and politicians do not want to stop terrorism.  The war on terror is what they want.

 

Now turning to the concept of free trade between nations.  There are two ways in which wealth and resources are exchanged between countries.  One is through trade.  It literally is just that.  Trading.  Giving something of value in return for something of value.  It must be free.  Not coerced.  The government should stay out of it, just as they should stay out of the private lives and commerce of its own citizens.

 

The second way for a country to get resources is through plunder and theft.  We have squandered our own resources including the creative innovative minds of our people because we have abandoned all the principles of freedom, ethics and morality.  There is nothing left for us now but to steal from the rest of the world.  This is not going to work.  We must again return to the founding principles or we will be lost.  We will be lost even if we succeed in conquering the rest of the world.

 

Advertisements

The U.S. is not a democracy.

November 17, 2008

In the aftermath of the Presidential election, there is a great amount of hope and celebration.  It is a country filled with relief at the end of the reign of King George Bush.  And there is hope that our new President will set a course which will undo the damage and set us on a new direction.

 

But I am a seeker of truth, not a seeker of comfort.  I am growing more and more concerned.  Even about our President-Elect.  He is so popular right now, that it is looked upon as blasphemy to be the least bit critical.

 

But I am, sorry to say that I am more than a little concerned.  Everyone is convinced that he was the best choice for president, at least a whopping majority.  I was supporting him throughout most of his campaign myself.  I know many of you were very happy about the outcome.  But everything I read and everything he says is not sitting well with me.  People naturally are saying “But he hasn’t even taken office yet.” 

 

So what can I say which will not be rejected out of hand by those who have so much hope about him?  Right now I am concerned for the survival of our republic.  And when I say republic, I do not mean Republican.  That party got its name many years ago when they did support the idea of republic; the name may have stuck, but not the original ideology. 

 

What follows is about the Constitution.  I have addressed some of these issues in the previous post “Let Freedom Ring”.  That post focused on the issue of individualism vs. collectivism.

 

This post is about forms of government and to be complete I restate some things previously posted.  There are things which are worth repeating.

 

I am talking about the simple fact that the Founding Fathers created this nation, as a republic, not a democracy.  And most Americans today don’t even know the difference. 

 

When I say that the U.S. was not founded as a democracy, the reaction is like a Pavlovian dog, who has been conditioned to react to that assertion.  So at the risk of rejection I will defend my position.  The Founding Fathers hated the idea of a democracy.  It is why they created the republic instead.  This seems outlandish to people who think that we are a democracy, and that we should be one.  I did not know the difference myself, for most of my life.  Do you?

 

The law of our land, the Constitution, defines us as a republic.  This was no accident.  The document took them over a decade to finalize.  It was not slapped together in three days like the economic bailout package, which is a bad idea.  The Constitution is a plan for a republic.  It does include the idea of using democratic voting as a decision making process, but it does so within the context of a republic, not a democracy.  This is where the confusion comes from for so many.

 

The truth is that we are about to lose our country.  This will be at the hands of the collectivists who are pushing us toward globalization.  And I will say it for the record.  Globalization is a master plan to enslave the world.  It is not supportive of freedom.  The outcome is to be a one world order, under a totalitarian collective ruling elite.

 

The central banks have conspired to create the financial crisis.  They are behind the whole thing.  Now that we are suffering and frightened, they will move to consolidate the world monetary system.  And Obama is going along with this.  It is a mistake.

 

Bush has already signed an agreement with Canada, and Mexico to form the North American Union.  If this happens, the Constitution will be invalidated.  It will in fact be the end of the United States in every way but in name only.  I don’t see Obama opposing this, either.  As a matter of fact, looking at those he is putting into his cabinet, I fear he will be pushing for it.

 

I also do not see him wanting to repeal the Patriot Act which was a direct attack on the Constitution, and in fact makes George Bush guilty of treason.  The oath of office for the President, as well as every other government official, is quite simple.  It is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  If they break that oath, it is treason and punishable by death.  I would say it is a pretty serious matter.

 

Most Americans have never even read the Constitution, and if they have, they made little effort to understand the words or the meaning.  It makes me sick.  Out of laziness and ignorance we are about to destroy our country, and very few seem to care.

 

The Founding Fathers were heroes.  They believed in freedom.  “Give me Liberty or give me death.”   Those who are plotting to destroy us will say that the principles no longer apply in today’s world.  They are wrong.  In a republic, freedom for every person is to be protected.   The only thing outdated about that is that is opposes the collective globalist mentality which is their agenda.

 

So, I ask, can you let go of the notion that we are a democracy, long enough to consider why we were founded as a republic?  We have been taught to idolize democracy so much, that we now think anything other than a democracy is wrong.  But the truth is that a republic, goes democracy one better.

 

First I will support my contention with a few facts.  Every child used to place his hand over his heart and recite the pledge of allegiance.  Sorry to have to quote it here but people say the words with knowing what they mean.  It starts “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPBLIC for which it stands….”

 

It does not say and to the democracy for which it stands.  There is a very big difference between a republic and a democracy.  Unless you know what that is, you are not going to understand.  Those terms are not interchangeable, and the word was chosen for accuracy.

 

Since we are talking here about different forms of government, I will do a short discourse here to help with the issue.

 

There are many forms of government, and one way to distinguish them is to look at who is free, and who is enslaved.  Or to state it a little differently, who is the ruler, and who do they rule over.  I won’t try and cover every form of government, but just the major ones, for the sake of brevity.

 

So let us start with the Monarchy.  In that form of government there is a king.  He is the ruler, and everyone else is his subjects.  He owns the kingdom.  The land belongs to him and to him alone. I mention the issue of ownership because it will come up again later as we explore freedom and rights.   

 

The subjects have no rights.  They only have privileges granted by the king.  We need to understand the difference between rights and privileges.  This will also come up later.

 

A right is something you have on your own.  A privilege is always granted to you by someone or something else.  As such a privilege can be revoked at any time.  A right cannot be revoked unless as a punishment for breaking the law.

 

A king can banish a subject from the kingdom.  He says you no longer can live on my land, get out.  A king can also take your life.  Off with his head.  A king can take away your liberty.  Send him to the tower.  All these actions are possible because as a subject you have no rights, not even the right of life or liberty. 

 

If you are free, you own your own body.  If someone else owns it, then you are by definition a slave.  Your right to life comes from the ownership of your body.  In a monarchy the king owns everything including the bodies of his subjects.  No one but the king is free.

 

So it is good to be the king.  But how is it that a king can claim these rights?  So now we will look at what is called the divine right of kings. 

 

The reason we need to know about this is because it comes up again later.  Sometimes it is called God given rights, and in the preamble of the Constitution, there is reference to the Creator.

 

But before we assume that this has anything to do with religion or a religious dogma, we need to understand it on a more accurate and basic level.  It does not refer to any specific God.  More properly it is a statement that there is something which transcends man. A higher power of some sort.  Think of it as an ultimate truth.  It makes no difference whether you call it God, or the Creator, or divine.  It is truth, and even an atheist, may be able to accept that concept.

 

So the divine right of kings really means that the rights of the king come from something higher than man.

 

But our Founders thought that a system in which only one guy was free and everyone else were slaves, was not best way to set up a government.  It is why we fought the revolutionary war.  And when we declared our independence we set about to establish a more perfect government.

 

But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s stay with this “one ruler over all” idea for a moment.  Variations of this concept give the ruler rights without any higher truth.

 

If a guy takes the position by military force, he is called a dictator.  Same game, different name.

 

Now here is one that may surprise you.  It is one of the reasons the Founders hated the idea of a democracy.  It is possible that a single ruler can be elected by a majority vote.  By democratic vote, there was a ruler who was elected to office, and he received 98% of the popular vote.  Now that is a democratic landslide by any stretch of the imagination.

 

His name was Adolph Hitler.  So as you reflect on the notion that a pure democracy is great idea, you should understand that it is not always so.

 

We will come back to why a republic will not allow such a thing to happen, later on.

 

Now as we move away from the Monarchy and toward a system in which all men can be free, we expand the freedom of the king to a group of people.

 

This is called an Oligarchy.  This group may come into existence by various means, including a democratic process.  But it is the group which now rules over everyone else.  It may be a senate such as in ancient Greece.  Or it may be a parliament or a congress of some sort.  But in that there are those who rule, and there are those who are subject to that rule, not every one is free.

 

So while it is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough.

 

If we then expand the concept that the rule is by a majority, then we have a democracy.  So now this is starting to sound very good.  Majority rule.  So what is wrong with that?

 

The problem is that the rights of the majority are protected, but not the rights of the minority.  Since it was our goal that all men’s rights must be protected, and that every individual was to be free, we need to take one final step.  And that is to base the government on a principle of individual freedom for each and every one.

 

This is the defining principle of a republic.

 

So we turn now to the document which was the blueprint to do this.  It is the document which established our country.  It is the document which is the law of the land.

 

It is the Constitution. 

 

Is freedom something you value, or would you rather choose slavery?  Is life important to you or would you opt for death?

 

Do you think it is proper behavior of a President to take an oath of office which says quite simply that he swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and then not keep that oath?

 

When that oath is sworn, it is with the understanding that if you break that oath, you are guilty of treason, and that crime is punishable by death.

 

It says that no man is above the law, and to break the law makes one a criminal.  So George Bush, took that oath, and then placed himself above the law, time and time again.  He established the Patriot Act which completely violates the Constitution.  When asked about all this, he said that the Constitution was just a piece of paper.

 

Bush is a traitor to our country.  There is not doubt about it.  Great, so we voted him out of office right?  No we did not.  His presidency was at an end.  We just sat by and allowed a traitor to damage our country.  And what are we doing about that?  Nothing.

 

So let’s look at the Constitution and understand the words it uses.  I am going to go very slowly and in great detail.  This is very basic stuff.  Forgive me if I seem to be stating the obvious, but I read and see very good people, who have no understanding of this.  So stay with me.

 

“We hold these truths to be self evident,”

We are saying that this is truth, not a matter of opinion, or debate, and furthermore they are self evident, meaning that it is obvious that they are true.

 

“That all men are created equal”

 

I am going to stop here to address a commonly made mistake, which is to take this phrase out of context.  But first the language used when it says “men” really means all individuals, including women and children. Today it might have been written persons.

 

So are all persons created equal?  Absolutely not.  Some are taller than others.  Some are more athletic. Some are more attractive.  Some are more intelligent.

 

It is only in context that this statement has meaning.  In what ways are persons equal?  The answer comes next.

 

“equal, in that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.”

 

That is quite a mouthful, and is an example of the powerful and concise language used to set down the ideas.

 

So breaking it down, we addressed the issue earlier about divine rights, and in this instance they are saying that the rights come from an ultimate truth which transcends man.  At the time it was written, they were trying to say that all men, if they are to be free, have the same rights as a king. We had rejected the rule of a monarch.

 

Just a footnote here.  George Washington was asked at one point if he would be the king.  He said absolutely not.  Their goal was to free all men, not to enslave them.

 

“…certain inalienable rights” 

 

“Certain” meant that they wanted to be specific about the definition of these rights.  They did not mean unlimited rights.  They went on to define them.

 

When they said inalienable, they meant again that there would be no arguments over the validity of the rights.  These rights, which they would define, are solid, true, and inviolate.  Nothing messes with them. Period.  It is defined in the law and it is the law.

 

We are talking about rights here, not privileges.  These rights are not granted.  They exist within every individual.  If you are a person, we say you have these rights.  No questions asked.  We also say that nothing can remove them.  The only exception to this is if you break the law, then the punishment will be removal of these rights.  But if you obey the laws set down in the Constitution, you have these rights, and as we will see later on, it is the main function of government to protect these rights for you.

 

“…among these rights are…”

 

This means that here are the first three coming up.  More will be defined later.  As a matter of fact they will be added as amendments, and the first ten of this will come to be know as the Bill of Rights”

 

“…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

These are the big three of rights.  We will take them one at a time.

 

But before getting into that, it is necessary to lay a little groundwork.  The Founders had an idea which had never been tried before in the history of western civilization (at least as far as I have been able to find out) but in any case, it was this:

 

The only way that freedom can be guaranteed to every individual, is to make each one a king.

Now that is a new idea!  How the heck can you pull that off?

 

First we have to understand the concept of sovereignty.  Kings were called Sovereign Rulers.  And there were some rules which they followed regarding the sovereignty of other kings.  It was understood that one sovereign must respect the rights of another sovereign.  Something like, “I am the King of England, and you are the King of France.  I own my kingdom and you own yours.  I will not mess with you and you will not mess with me.”

 

That rule is only broken when war is declared.  It is the definition of war.  But in times of peace, we respect the rules of Sovereignty.

 

So the Founders, realizing that only sovereigns had rights, and therefore freedom; came up with the idea that each citizen in a republic was a sovereign.   They called them Sovereign Citizens.  And they basically had to follow the same rules as kings.

 

I will respect your rights and you must respect mine.  The difference is that a sovereign citizen does not rule over anyone but himself.  He has only one subject and that is himself.

 

He is not ruled over by anyone else, but in respecting the rights of another sovereign, he rules only over himself.  This is a basic principle of a republic.

 

And it is tied to the concept of individualism.  All these things are related to the individual, and not to any collective group. 

 

Freedom is the right of an individual.  If any other individual or group of individuals rules over him, he is no longer free.

 

So with this understanding we can now look at the issue of individualism vs. collectivism.  The only form of government which is individualistic is the republic.  In a sense, a monarchy is also based on an individual, but in that structure there is only one, and he is the king.

 

Anytime a group rules over any individual, this by definition is collectivism.  As a matter of fact anytime any entity rules over another, there is no freedom of those being ruled over.  (That is to say, that they have no rights, but only privileges granted by the rulers.)

 

So how is that supposed to work in a republic?  It is quite a simple answer.  Unlike any other form of government, the government in a republic does not rule over the people, it only serves the people.  The sovereign citizen is free, and the government’s job is to protect the rights and freedoms of all the people; each and every individual and it is to be done on an equal basis.  It is in those rights that we are created equal.

 

It is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  It is NOT a government over the people.

 

After naming the individual rights of men, the Constitution goes on to describe how the government is to be organized.  And in that organizational plan, it is always with the goal that the individual rights and therefore the freedoms are protected.  Always.

 

And the government by law may not interfere with the rights and freedoms of the individual.  No one or thing rules over the individual.  The individual is free, and as long as he respects the rights of his fellow sovereigns, he is following the law, by definition.

 

It is why the Founders did not want a democracy.  Because, in a democracy, it is the collective majority which rules over the individual.  Democratic tools can be used for decision making in a republic, and is set forth in the Constitution, but not to trample on individual rights and freedoms.  That is the difference between a republic and a democracy.

 

Individualism is the main concern of the republic.  The others are either collective, or despotic.  In either case the rights of the individuals are not protected.

 

Collectivism includes Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and Democracy.  Despotic governments include Kings and Dictators. 

 

Of all of these, democracy is the best.  But there is one better; it is the republic.

 

Let us get back to the “big three”; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Life

 

You have, as a fee individual, the right to life.  It cannot be taken from you unless you give up the right by breaking the law. It is a right is because you are free and own you own body.  As a slave or a subject, you do not own your body.   It is someone else’s property.  Rights are tied to ownership.  And individual rights, which are really the only true freedom, are tied to individual ownership.

 

I emphasize this issue of ownership, because it comes into play later regarding property rights, and wealth, and commerce.  We will get to that in due course.

 

It is individual ownership which creates individual rights.  In various collective concepts, there is no individual ownership, and therefore no individual rights.

 

Communism says that all things are owned collectively.  Socialism says that all things are the property of the society.  Fascism says that all things are owned by the State.  Monarchy says that only the king owns anything.

 

In any collective system, individual ownership is not allowed, and therefore, there can be no individual freedom.

 

As the present day collectivists are planning on some sort of collective plan for wealth and property we need to protect the rights of individuals to own property.  It is why the new world order will enslave all men if the goals of globalization are achieved.

 

Liberty

 

You have the right to move around and to do things.  No one has the right to prevent you from doing this as long as you respect the rights and property of others.

 

The concept of Liberty is so important to our nation, and yet we have been far too casual in defending it for a long time.  Does the Statue of Liberty holds meaning for you as a symbol?

 

There was a time when we believed in liberty as the right of all men.  This was such an attractive idea at one time in our history that France made us a gift of the Statue.  As we now have little regard for our own freedoms, and we abuse the freedoms of people all over the world, do you think we would receive such a gift today?  We must return to the principles which made us great in the past.  We must return to the Constitution, and to the republic which it created.

 

The pursuit of happiness

 

Note that it says you have the right to pursue happiness.  This is not saying that you have a right of happiness.  There is no guarantee.  But what is guaranteed is your right to pursue it.

 

This includes the right to pursue ownership.  And as a free person you do this through trade.  I have something which I will trade with you, on a basis of mutual agreement.  I may be offering services, or goods which I have created or acquired through trade.

 

This is what free trade is all about.  And free trade does not mean that it is limited by government oversight or regulation.  It is the job of government to protect my rights and those of others and that is all it may do.  The Constitution does not define what laws can be made. But instead defines what laws may not be made.  The Congress shall make no law which….etc, etc.  And the etc. is almost always something having to do with limiting individual freedom or individual rights.  No laws which limit rights.

 

I bring this up because there are many who think that government regulation is necessary in order to protect people from greed and monopoly.  But this is not the case.

 

Greed, money and free market capitalism

 

Mostly what we hear is from collectivists on this issue.  They say free market capitalism ultimately leads to greed.  Greed is bad.  And people usually buy into these false statements. 

 

The first thing to understand is that the attack is really against personal freedom, but perhaps not in the way you might think.  First we have to look at the concept of ownership.  Collectivists do not want any individual ownership of anything.  But all real freedom is based on individual ownership.

 

You have a right to all of the basic freedoms, based on the fact that you own your own body.  Your right to life and liberty are based on that concept.  If someone else owns your body, then you are by definition a slave. There is not any good counter argument to this, unless it is a King who claims that you are his subject, or a socialist who says you are not an individual , but part of the collective society.

 

The point being that something other than your individual sovereignty rules over you.  Once this happens, you are not free.

 

Also this extends to ownership of wealth and property.  The same principle applies.  In your right to pursue happiness, you have a right to the freedoms that ownership gives.  I wrote about this before, but it is worth repeating.  Rights come from ownership, and privileges are granted by another entity, which he can do because of his ownership.

 

Like the neighbors who own adjacent plots of land.  The owner is free to do what he likes on his land, but is not free to do the same on his neighbor’s land.  It is because he does not own his neighbor’s land.  He can, as owner, grant privileges to his neighbor or choose not to.  It can work both ways.  But the freedom is vested is rights, not in the privileges.  And the rights are tied to ownership.

 

So how does one in the pursuit of happiness, go about pursuing ownership?  It is done by trading.  It is done by marketing.  And for it to work properly, a trade or market transaction must be free.  It is your property, services, or goods which you are freely trading with another.  Free trade between free individuals will protect the rights of the participants.  But it must be free and it must be based on individual ownership.  It is when either the freedom or the individualism aspects are removed that we get greed and monopoly, and all those things which the critics say are because of free trade.  Exactly the opposite is true.  It is when government interferes with the process, or where collectives have power over individuals that we get all the bad stuff.

 

Money is not the root of all evil.  Honest money is merely a facilitator of trade and commerce.  The problems we have now with money are because it is fiat money, not honest money.  Honest money is backed by something tangible.   We don’t do that any more.  Fiat money is the root of all evil.

 

I was going to define the word evil, but I don’t think that is necessary in this context.

 

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, right?  We have been taught that.  But we must be certain that we are talking about greed.  There are two ways to look at it, but the basis is that ownership is a component of freedom.  So if you define greed as a desire for ownership, then geed becomes a desire for freedom.  With that definition, it cannot be bad.

 

If you define greed as transactions which trash the rights and freedoms of individuals, then it is definitely anti freedom and thereby would be properly defined as bad.

 

But the collectivists what to have it both ways, and interchange the definitions as suits their desire to prove that individualism based republic from of government is somehow evil.

 

So to keep it simple, greed which supports freedom is good, greed which destroys freedom is not good.  Remember if someone argues that greed is bad, you can always use the word ownership instead to avoid the pavlovian response.  But I would rather just be clear that greed is neither intrinsically bad nor good.  It all depends on if it supports freedom or suppresses it.  One could say the exact same thing about love.

 

Are you greedy to claim ownership of your body?  The collectivists would have you believe that your are, and that you are selfish and bad, when what they are really saying is that you must give up your freedom for the sake of their collective agenda.

 

In a republic, there would be no fiat money, and there would be no monopolies.  Both those things come into being in defiance of individualism. 

 

So perhaps you may think it is a matter of degree.  I would disagree even with that. Greed only becomes a bad thing when it violates the concepts of individualism.  Just to repeat an earlier argument, individual freedom is not unlimited in the application of individualism.

 

Unlimited greed is evil for that reason.  So what is good about greed?  Ask yourself why do you work to make a living?  Would you call that greed?  You are trying to acquire wealth and property in your free pursuit of happiness, are you not?   Are you greedy to do this?

  

You work for two reasons, one is to pursue happiness as is your right, and the other is to pay a debt to the banks as a wage slave.  The banks are taking your property from you, not to provide you with something in return, but to make a profit at the expense of your freedom.  You are exercising greed as freedom, but they are exercising greed to rob you of freedom.  If you want a definition of good greed vs. bad greed, there it is.

 

I stated earlier that rights are tied to ownership of property.  I hope you got that concept.  It is an important one.  Starting with ownership of your own body, are you greedy to want to own your own body?  Or are you just free?  So perhaps it would be better to not use the word greed to describe this.  Perhaps we might want to say, the desire to be free instead.  Perhaps we should substitute a less provocative word or phase such as motivated, pursuing happiness, caring for your family and friends, caring about being free to help others, etc.

 

Using such phrases make us feel a lot better about the process, but the danger is that collectivists will make arguments against freedom and rights by calling these things by the “G” word.  I say that thinking people just need to dump the brainwashing and correctly define the meaning of the term.

 

Why should you buy into the concept that wanting a better life for yourself in exercising your divine right to pursue happiness and freedom is an evil thing?  Why should you feel guilty about that?  It is just the brainwashing done by the collectivists who want to rob you of your freedom.  It is time for thinking people to reject it.

 

It took me some effort to make this transition myself.  Initially I reacted with negative feelings when ever someone would say that greed is not bad.  “How can they say that when everyone knows greed is bad?”  I had been brainwashed and it was an effort to deprogram myself after a lifetime of preconditioning.

 

In closing I wish to say that it is true that there are workable forms of government.  A monarchy works.  Communism and socialism works.  Even Fascism worked.  But just because it works does not mean it is the better way.  There are those who would argue that the United States is not working very well right now.  This is sadly true.  But if it is not working, it is because we have all but abandoned the republic.

 

Some would have us believe that we should abandon the republic completely because it is not working.  But we have not been a true republic for almost a century.  Rather than abandon it, I say we should return to it.  It was our country, and it worked very well for over 130 years as a republic.  It is what was intended.  It is what we once were.  It is what we must become again.

 

Restore the republic.  

 

 

Let Freedom Ring

November 1, 2008

Hello everyone,

 

I had planned to refrain from any new posts until after the election, but this subject came up and I decided not to wait.

 

I will put it into a political context for the sake of the election, but it is a topic which has much broader implications.  It is such a core issue, that I intend to return to it in the future.

 

This is based on a comment I made in regards to a debate about individualism vs collectivism.  Some of you may not be familiar with the terms, so I will lay a little foundation, and hope you will follow up by learning more about the issue.  In future articles I will explain and explore in fuller detail.

 

I have to insert a note here about language.  In the following I am using the term “men” meaning men and women and all individuals.  It is the language used in the founding documents and is not meant to exclude women or any persons.

 

I would suggest to those who are struggling with the concept of “individualism vs collectivism” that may wish to consider examining the issue more fully.

 

The works of the philosopher Ayn Rand may be helpful.  She emigrated to the U.S. from Russia.  She left a communistic collective country, to embrace the U.S. which was founded on the concepts of individualism.  And if you study all the things which originally defined our country, you will find that individualism is at the core of what we once were.

 

Collectivism and Individualism are not separate doctrines.  They are exact opposites of the same concept.  They cannot coexist.  They are like matter and antimatter, which cancel each other out when mixed in equal amounts.

 

If freedom is important to you, you will find that it can only exist in an individualistic approach; only persons can be free.  As its opposite, collectivism can only lead to the opposite of freedom, which is slavery.  There are those who believe that somehow we might be able to exist as “relatively” free slaves, but that is a contradiction.

 

Individualism seeks to set men free, collectivism seeks to enslave men.

 

So what the heck happened to us?  We started out as a nation based in individualism.  To verify this, one only needs to fully read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and fully understand the words used.

 

It is not enough just to recite these words without understanding.  We must understand their meaning fully before we can argue anything about them.

 

The sad truth is that we have turned away from these concepts and no longer embrace the very things which once defined our greatness.  We were founded on these great ideas, and we have slowly over time moved in the opposite direction.

 

It is not surprising that we have fallen into this trap.  Most if not all now living have come into this world at a time when the battle was already well in progress. 

 

I mentioned above the left extreme of communism, defined in it essence by Karl Marx.  Now I will mentioned another collective concept from the extreme right, which is Fascism.  This collective concept was embraced by Adolph Hitler and the National Socialists (Nazis).  It embraced the collective nation as being more important than any individual freedom, and we all know how well that worked out.

 

But what you may not be aware of is that the German philosophers who started Germany on the road to Fascism, then came to the United States and started spreading the same doctrines most especially in our educational systems.  This re-education of us all was a factor in why we reversed our thinking regarding our founding principles.

 

It is time we wake up from this nightmare which has spilled over into the entire world.  It is time to make a choice between the conflicting opposites of individualism and collectivism.

 

In this election, all the candidates are speaking about change.  Each candidate is arguing that his version of change is better than his opponent’s version.  One thing we know for certain is that some kind of change is what we want.

 

I don’t think anyone is really happy about the direction in which we have been going.

 

I don’t think anyone is happy about what is happening to us and to the world.  Whatever we are doing seems to be wrong, and thus we want some sort of change.

 

I am suggesting that the change we are really seeking is based on the conflicting ideologies of individualism vs. collectivism.  This is a core choice to be made and will define the nature of all other change.  If we do not make the better choice, then any other change will be merely a variation of the wrong choice and will not really change things for the better.

 

If you look at all the various choices of “isms” you will see something which is quite obvious. 

 

Communism  – a collective ideology

Fascism – a collective ideology

Socialism – a collective ideology

And the list includes almost every doctrine you can name.

And then there is the one exception.

The original founding principles of this country which, unlike all the rest, are based on individualism.

 

So can individualism work?

 

It did for much of our country’s early history.  But we have abandoned it in favor of collectivism.  This is where we went wrong.  It is time to change for the better.

 

One often hears the argument in defense of our modern collective philosophies that times have changed.  The world is a different place.  These arguments are made against the founding principles, by those who are convinced that collectivism is the only way.

 

I can only reply that they are right.  Times have changed for the worse.  The world is a different place today.  It used to be a better place.

 

The thing that has changed is that we no longer value the rights of the individual.  These rights as stated include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Individualism is founded on the premise that there is nothing more important than these rights.  When I say nothing, I mean exactly that.  No government, group, state, country, religion, monarchy, dictatorship, majority, community, society, and any other collective entity or institution is more important than individual rights.  It is in these rights that all freedom exists.

 

And individualism holds that all men have these same rights, not just Americans, but all men everywhere.  And in fact, they stated that it is in this way that we, all men, are created equal.

 

Collectivists would have you believe that all men are equal.  What they mean by that is that all men under a collective system are equal slaves.  This is not what the founders meant.

 

They were very specific.  We know that all men are not equal.  Some are more beautiful than others, some are more intelligent than others, some are taller than others, etc.  But the founders said quite clearly that we are all equal in the individual rights we have.  They held that this was truth, and that it was not debatable.  It was absolute, and inalienable.  We are equal in that each of us has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

There are more of these equal rights than the above mentioned three.  All of them are individual rights, not collective rights.  Many of are listed in the Bill of Rights.  It is in this way, the individual freedom, that we are equal.

 

Now if we turn to the issue of government, and how it was intended to function in our nation, we can see that it has evolved into something which we do not want, if we value individual freedom.  The original concept of government was to protect and defend the individual rights of our own citizens.

 

If you read the Constitution, you will see that this is what was intended.  The Constitution is an amazing document, which clearly outlined how government was to work.  It has one flaw in that it assumes that people understand the principles upon which it was based, and does not fully explain why the principles were included. 

But as far as it goes, it is very clear.  It was also written based on the principles of holding individual freedom above all else.  And it is written in a form which does not say what the government can do.  It says what the government cannot do.  And all these limiting factors have one thing in common, in that the government cannot do anything to interfere with individual freedom.

 

The form is this, and it is repeated throughout the entire document:  The government shall make no law which does “such and such.”  And in every case it boils down to the following:

 

The government shall make no laws which remove individual freedom.  That is exactly what it says.  Read it for yourself.

 

Our government today, no longer follows the Constitution.  This has become very obvious.  Our current soon to be ex-president Bush provides a striking example.  After taking an oath to uphold the constitution, he went on to remove individual freedoms, for the collective concept of the greater good.  But there is no greater good than individual freedom.

 

When asked about this, he said that the Constitution was “just a piece of paper.”  Do you agree with him?  I do not.

 

The Constitution limits the power of government so that it cannot deny anyone his individual rights.  It says that the government is to be of the people, by the people and for the people.  The people are the individuals with individual rights.

 

The government was to serve the people, not to rule over them.  We now have a government over the people.  This was what the founders wanted to avoid, and it unfortunately is what we have allowed to happen.

 

As I promised, I will return to this core issue in future posts.  It is a huge subject to examine and understand.  But I will close this with an introduction to have this subject applies to armies, war, military aggression and those related things.

 

Starting again with the individualistic view that all men have equal rights which are not up to debate, but in fact are inalienable, and given that the government is charged with the task of protecting these rights, then how does the military fit into all this and how is foreign policy affected?

 

The founders said that the government should provide for the common defense.  Note that is says defense, not offence.

 

In that the government is our government, it has a duty to protect the life, liberty and other individual rights of our citizens, from outside forces which would deny us these rights common to all men.

 

There is what seems to be a conflict here, but I will try and show why it is not.  The conflict is that if we embrace the idea that every man has a right to life, then how can we justify killing any individual?  This is especially an issue in war.

 

But the principle is that every man has a right to life, and that if another individual or group tries to violate that right, then in defense, life must be protected, even if it mean killing that aggressor who would deny that right to another.  But understand that life may be taken in defense, not in an attack of aggression.  We held to this principle in war, for a long time, but recently we have abandoned it.

 

Having adopted a collective policy, we now have become the very thing which we were once against.  We have become an offensive aggressive empire, with a totalitarian goal of a one world order.

 

This is the concept of globalization, and it is contrary to our principles. It is because that we have changed to this as a foreign policy, that we have lost the respect we once had.  When we were true to our policies, we were viewed by the rest of the world as a symbol of freedom for all men.  France, who had a grand regard for the concept of freedom and liberty, gave us a gift which we proudly look at as symbol of our country.  The Statue of Liberty.

 

Do you think we would be deserving of such a gift today?  I don’t think so.

 

We have abandoned the principles in favor of collectivism.  There was a time when our ideals could spread across the world, as men seeking freedom would voluntarily adopt our ideals because we were a shinning example of individual freedom.

 

If we do not return to our strength, and adopt the principles which once made us truly great in the eyes of the world, we will go the way of all previous empires.  Every empire in history believed that they could enslave the rest of the world by force.  And every empire has failed.

 

The collective based idea of world conquest is the enemy of freedom, no matter how much we use the word “freedom” as a meaningless slogan.  Freedom is a concept we need to once again embrace.

 

Help, I’ve just been robbed again!

October 19, 2008

I was going to wait until after the election before doing any additional posts, but I just had to post this one.

 

Now let is look at what just happened and is continuing as you read this.  We have been stampeded into a panic once again.  This historically is nothing new.  This is a technique employed by the banking cartel and has been done so, repeatedly from the time of its creation in 1913, and done prior to that by the people who formed the cartel.   In 1910 they made a plan to grab the power.  They forced its creation by the very bankers who would form the private banking cartel now mislabeled as the Federal Reserve Bank.

 

If you haven’t done your homework on this, you can read in my previous articles about some sources you might want to check out.

 

So let’s look at what just happened, how it was motivated, and who benefits.

 

The banking industry was guilty of creating a debt bubble in the housing market.  It was irresponsible of them to do so, but they did it for profits with out regard to the consequences.

 

When their self created bubble finally burst, as it had to do, three people stepped up to stand before us to announce the pending disaster.  First let’s look at who they are.

 

George Bush is one, whose grandfather was one of the banking elite.  We know that Bush has little trouble in lying as he has demonstrated quite often.

 

The second is Paulson, now head of the U.S. Treasury department, which is now in partnership with the Banking Cartel and is formerly a member of the banking elite, and will most likely return to such a position after his time with the treasury.

 

The third is Bernanke, who is in fact the front man for the Federal Reserve cartel.

 

These three men announce that the economy is in trouble.  What is the nature of the problem?  Credit has seized up in the banking establishment, but what does this really mean?  It means that they can’t make loans, which is to say that they can’t create additional debt.  The creation of debt is the profitable business of the banks, because they collect the interest on the debt.  And it is the mechanism which they use to create money.

 

Poor poor banks, how can their executives keep their multimillion dollar golden parachutes unless they can continue to create debt?  It is heartbreaking.  How can they loan money so that they can collect interest and make profits?  Debt is the only way they can make money out of thin air?  But debt can only be created, if someone wants to make a loan, and the crisis was that no one wanted to buy the bad debt from the banks.

 

Have you noticed that the discussion of the golden parachutes has dropped out of site?  They will not be eliminated.  They most likely will not even be reduced or limited to any great extent.

 

So these three guys tell us that they are in trouble.  A panic is started, and the money boat is rocking all over the place.  Someone has to buy this debt, or we will all go down!  So guess who has to buy the debt?  You.  You must save the bankers and the flawed system.

 

You, must bail out the banks.  Now how are you going to do that?  By going into debt.  Hooray say the bankers.  We just created a whole bunch of new debt, and now we can get back to creating more debt.

 

So we let the bailout pass.  We have just assumed $700 billion worth of debt.  The banks will operate again using the money they have just put us into debt to create.  But here is where the scam becomes obvious.  Creating money out of debt debases the currency.  This is called inflation.  You will not only owe the debt, but the interest on the debt, and on top of that prices on everything will go up.  That is the way the fractional reserve money system works.  It always has worked exactly this way.

 

Oh my gosh, say we, how can we afford to live?  Don’t worry about that say the banks, we will be glad to loan you more money.  You can just keep living while you go into further debt.  Why do you think we took all that money from you?  So we can loan it to you and keep the dept mounting, and the interest piling up and the inflation going up.  Don’t worry that this will take us right back to the same problem all over again.

 

If you doubt this is what is happening, look at the most recent events.  The first step in the bailout is to give your money (which you now owe) to the 9 largest banks, whether they are in trouble or not.  So who are the first pigs to get to the trough?  Well they include all the banks that make up the cartel of the Federal Reserve.  That’s right.  We are going to borrow the money from the Federal Reserve and then give it back to them.  The only thing that has changed is that you now owe it to them.

 

And what do you get in return?  Inflation and the ability to go into more debt.  What a sweet deal this was.

 

Now I see Bush is calling for a summit meeting of the world’s central banks.  They are all connected by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS).  But what they want to do is make certain that the central banks survive, while the rest of the people in the world bail them out as well.  They do not just want to limit this to the U.S.

 

If the banks can just hang together on this scheme, they will consolidate and be able to rule over us all.  There is a vast difference between, globalization, which is to create a totalitarian system, and world unity which would be a good thing.  Don’t confuse these concepts with one another.  They are not the same thing.

I will pull the trigger!

September 29, 2008

In the aftermath of the central bank induced panic, it is likely that we will have fallen for it yet again.  This is such an old tactic used by the banking elite that it makes me want to laugh, if only it didn’t have such tragic consequences.

 

Although as of this writing the bailout has not passed the House.  You can still call your congressman and urge him not to do this.  But I don’t think you are yet ready to rise to the occasion. 

 

What you will do is the same thing that has been done in the past.  You will panic and give the bankers more power and control, moving you further into debt and one step closer to being slaves.  The banker J.P. Morgan manufactured the panic of 1907.  The private banking elite tricked us into establishing the FED and again in 1920 they consolidated their private power by creating another panic.  And finally in 1929 they recalled the margin loans and crashed the Stock market.  They intentionally brought about the Great Depression and have admitted to it.  They have finally admitted to doing all these things and jokingly promise not to do it again.  And they love war, any war, because it is a profit center to them.

 

It has just happened again.

 

Pease get clear about what just happened.  This last panic was caused by the head of the FED, Ben Bernanke.  Just 10 days ago he came to us with his grave concern.  Bernanke is the head of the PRIVATE bank named the Federal Reserve.  And in only 10 days we panicked enough to give him what he wanted.

 

It is a variation of J.P. Morgan’s (another elite banker) successful attempt to cause the panic of 1907.

 

You are looking for comfort.  It is entirely more comfortable to believe the lies than face the truth.  This action will inevitably lead to the only possible outcome.  You will gain the illusion of hanging on while moving steadily toward losing everything.

 

The reaction to a threat is very easy to understand.  Metaphorically it is as follows.  A robber pulls a gun on you and tells you that he is going to shoot you if you don’t give him your money.  You don’t want that, so you hand over whatever he wants to avoid the robber pulling the trigger.

 

Well congratulations.  You have just been robbed.  The gun was the threat of economic collapse.  The gunman was the private central bankers.  And the money was the bailout (now referred to as a “rescue” and more recently a “buy in’.  It still stinks, whatever the label they attach.)

 

In the above mentioned metaphor, I would react the same way.  I would turn over the money to stay alive.  But let me tell you something you don’t know.  One day you will realize that the gun being pointed at you is empty.  It is only the threat which is significant.  If you knew that the gun was empty, your reaction would be quite different.

 

You will realize that you have power.  You have a gun too, and yours is not empty.  All you have to do is to have the courage to pull the trigger.  Here is how you can pull the trigger.  You stop believing the lies.

 

You realize that the present central banking system is not necessary.  You have the courage to support the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act which created your assailant.  You move the control of money back to the U.S. Treasury and let it be administered by the government, as was the intent of our original structure.

 

You can also support the idea of Federalizing the FED.  This may be confusing, but you have to realize that the thing we now call the Federal Reserve System in not Federal.  They are no more Federal than Federal Express.  It is a label used to confuse you.  It is a misrepresentation to you that it is something other than a privately owned Bank.  Make them really “Federal” if that seems better than transferring control of the money system back to the treasury.  But get rid of the private banking elite.  You do not need them.  After looting all the gold, they took us off the gold standard.  They set up a money system which gave them the power to make money out of nothing and thereby debt out of nothing. 

 

The crushing debt which is straining the monetary system, not only of the States, but of the entire world is based on worthless paper.  It is an illusion, a construct of a corrupt evil elite bent on enslaving you.  The paper was originated by these bankers.  This has a worse chance of success than a house of cards in a hurricane.  These very few men are now sitting somewhere quietly laughing at you for being so easily manipulated, and gloating about how clever they are.

 

This central bank took control of our monetary system, usurping the power of the government.  They did it by manipulation and deception in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.  They have not changed their tactics to this day.  Stop believing the lies.

 

Understand once and for all what motivates these private bankers.  They care only about their own power.  They care only about having control over you and the governments.  They care only about themselves.  And they do not care about you.

 

It is time for us to pull the trigger on them.

 

What debate?

September 27, 2008

Okay.  So we’ve seen the first Presidential debate.  It was disturbing to me on fundamental levels.  So let’s look at the real picture and get to the truth of it.

 

Let’s strip away the fear tactics employed by both.  Let’s also strip away the posturing and pandering.  It is not productive to focus on those things.  Both were guilty of the offenses.  Let’s also ignore the bigotry of race, age and gender.  Although McCain’s age and health are a bit of an issue in that the consideration of Palin as president should not be totally discounted given that she is a religious zealot and a book burner at heart.  But golly gee, isn’t she just cute as a button?

 

We come off the most irresponsible presidency in history.  I still maintain that Bush has ancestral ties to the elite bankers, is a war monger, profiteer, and liar and may have ruined us beyond repair.  This must be obvious to all with a brain by now.  This is at an end.  There is no punishment too great for Bush, Chaney and the rest of the Neocons.  And for now I will suppress my desire to bring them to account.

 

We are in a political race to see who will replace him and that is what this is about.  It is gratifying that many have rejected his new fear tactics (economic terrorism) and refused to be stampeded into a massive fiscal lunacy with no accountability.  Bush has always considered himself to be above the law, but we are not buying it this time.  Unfortunately both candidates are looking to implement some sort of bailout (now called rescue) of the flawed system which is doomed to a well deserved although painful collapse.

 

So we want change.  It is the message that both candidates are hammering on.  Obama uses it as a campaign slogan, and McCain claims to be the real instrument of change.  Unfortunately both are proposing changes and neither is stepping up to the bat for any meaningful change.

 

So let’s look at the philosophies and proposals of the runners.  It is basic ideology and offers no real change whatsoever.  McCain presents himself as a true Conservative and Obama presents the standard Liberal counter arguments. 

 

Simplistically we are back to the same old choices.  It does not bode well.

 

McCain is correct that the previous executive has been spending like there is no tomorrow, and thanks to that he may be right.  There is no tomorrow.

 

McCain proposes the end of this irresponsible spending, but from a conservative perspective, he still believes that the rich need to get richer and the trickle down concept of Reagonomics is still a good idea.

 

Obama says that he wants to change the formula to the standard liberal position that a big powerful government is needed to support the little guy and that will be the magic key to financial prosperity.

 

They are both dead wrong. 

 

Their traditional arguments are also quite flawed and self contradictory.  McCain wants to cut spending, but cannot let go of the idea that we are the world’s police force.  That contradicts the idea that we want smaller government.  It is empire building on a global scale.  The simple lie of McCain is that we are fighting for freedom.  Ultimately we are fighting for two reasons.  One is to get control of the oil reserves, and the second reason is because loaning money by the privately owned central banks to governments to pay for war creates the debt on which bankers collect interest.  It is the biggest source for profits to the central banks.  And connected as the various member central banks are to the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) they can move money around in a hidden manner which is known only to them.  Wars are about profits to the central bank war mongers which they collect by making money out of thin air, and loan to governments at interest. 

 

If you define terrorism as using terror as a tactic, then our own government is the biggest terrorist on the planet and we are their victims.  How much will they continue to keep pounding away on us with the same message in order to manipulate us into sending soldiers into battle in the name of freedom, when at the heart of the matter, it is about profits?

 

If you really care about our brave soldiers, then stop sending them into war for profit.

     

Obama wants to manage spending but certainly not reduce it, lest he would let go of the liberal concept that government is the answer to everything.  They only way to fix the financial problems we are facing is to dump the debt based monetary system which is the true root cause of the problems.  He like McCain is promoting the same wars for the same reasons.

 

It seems to me that either approach tries to fix the problem by continuing with one version or another of business as usual, be it a liberal definition or a conservative version.  But what we really need is to fix the basic economic flaws based on the Central banks’ self serving debt based scam, which cannot do anything but fail in the long run.

 

George Bush may is guilty of placing himself above the law, but that is nothing compared to what the central banks under the BIS are doing.   They answer to no one and control the bogus monetary system which cannot continue.

 

I am an American currently living in Fiji.  Fiji is a small island country out in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean.  But living here for the last four years has giving me a perspective which I would not have, had I spent the time immersed in the propaganda machine at work in the U.S.

 

The infrastructure here is not all that strong compared to the U.S.   I have had to watch the debate in segments on YouTube.  But I want to share with you a perspective from outside.  The United States has lost the respect of much of the rest of the world.

 

As this financial crisis in the U.S. has unfolded, I am met with people who think that the U.S. is getting what it deserves.  They believe that the U.S. is an evil in the world and have little sympathy for our financial woes.

 

It hasn’t always been this way.  But something has changed in the world.  They do not think that the U.S. should continue its pursuit of becoming an empire.  That is how we are viewed.  They actually want us to fail in this regard.  And Fiji is not an enemy of ours.  This is how our friends are feeling about us.

 

They are not happy about the military base we are building here.  The local views of the world condition make the U.S. seem like fools to them.  I spend a lot of time trying to explain to them that the U.S. people are not like our government.  But it is a tough sell.  They can’t understand how we can be so out of touch with reality.  They actually laugh at us.

 

When it comes to the Presidential race in the U.S., they simply don’t care.  They find it of little importance.  We are no longer perceived as the hope of democracy and freedom.  And can you blame them for this?  We have been on a downward slide for decades.  We have consistently demonstrated our hypocrisy.

 

When I was young I was quite ignorant about this.  As a child, I remember asking an adult to explain the national debt to me.  I was told that it was of no consequence and that I shouldn’t worry about it.

 

As I grew older, I also remember wondering why our enemies hated us so much.   What had we ever done to them?  Well now I know.  We are hated because we have adopted imperialism as our central philosophy without regard for human life.

 

As I listen to both candidates, I can see that neither of them is saying anything to counter this view held by our fellow humans in the world.

 

Although I certainly find fault with the administration of the last eight years, the roots of this goes back much further.  We were once a great and noble nation, but we are not any more.  This has been a slow process.  We are like the frog in the boiling water.  The frog will try and jump out of the pot if thrown into boiling water, but if the frog is put into cool water and it is heated slowly enough, he falls asleep and eventually boils to death without a struggle or even an awareness of what is happening to him.

 

We need to wise up and look at ourselves historically.  This is something which can’t be fixed by any quick fixes.  Our survival depends on our ability to use our brains and to know the truth.

 

To get a feel of what is the REAL causes of our troubles today let us look at some history and statements by great statesmen of the past:

 

 

 

“There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself.”

                                                 — Sir William Pitt, House of Lords 1770

 

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”

— Benjamin Disraeli, English statesman 1884

 

“The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt, US President 1933

 

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies…  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency…The banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

–Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

 

“If you want to remain slaves of the bankers and pay the costs of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and control the nation’s credit.”

–Sir Josiah Stamp 1880 – 1941

 

Woodrow Wilson who was president when the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law later wrote in regret:

 

“(Our) great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.  Our system of credit is privately concentrated.  The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom.

 

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world – no government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

 

Congressman Louis McFadden also expressed the truth after the passage of the bill. As follows:

 

“A world banking system was being set up here…a super state controlled by international bankers…acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.  The FED has usurped the government.”

 

Following the crash of 1929 and with the creation of the Great Depression, Congressman Charles Lindberg wrote:

 

“Under the federal reserve act, panics are scientifically created.  The present panic (1929) is the first scientifically created one, worked out as we figure a mathematical equation.”

 

After the stock market crash of 1929 and the creation of the great depression congressman Lewis McFadden who had long opposed the FRS began bringing impeachment proceedings against them saying of the crash and the great depression:

 

“It was a carefully contrived occurrence.  International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair, so that they might emerge the rulers of us all.”

 

After two previous assassination attempts, McFadden was poisoned at a banquet before he could push for the impeachment.

 

Why does this sound familiar?

 

Assassination to stop the Central Bank called the Federal Reserve.  Who would do a thing like that?  But on the other hand, who wanted to stop a profitable war in Viet Nam?  Who wanted to put us back on the gold standard which would effectively stop the Federal Reserve in its absolute control of our money system?

 

John F. Kennedy, President of the U.S. was assassinated in Dallas.

 

So we watch the candidates’ debate.  The cause of our woes is not even hinted at.  The “Rescue” plan is just another manifestation of the central bankers’ absolute control and manipulation.  Remember that the Federal Reserve System was created and still owned by private bankers.  This is a repeat of history.  It is nothing new.  It is just a human tragedy repeated exactly the same way as was done before by the same people.

 

The result has been the loss of what was once a great nation.  It didn’t start with Bush.  He was just the final maniac at the helm.  We have got to put a stop to this once and for all, what ever it takes, and the only way is the collapse of the system.

 

Do not go along with the bail out.  Letting it collapse is the only way we will ever be free.

 

We need to save the biosphere.  We are running out of time.  As the winter chills the world, you may be concerned about heating oil.  Some have jokingly said that the global warming may be a good thing.  It will warm things up.  But the scientific fact is that the ice caps are melting, island countries are being lost to rising waters.  When the balance of fresh water to salt water is disrupted, we will see a continuation of the deterioration of our weather system.  And a new ice age will be upon us.  The scientists who are saying this have no reason to lie about it.  I wish the same were true of the bankers and politicians.

 

 

Rant Time

September 26, 2008

Hello readers.  This blog site was something I started to express a few opinions and make a few observations.  I did so initially to share some things with people who might want to learn something.  If you read down to my first articles you will see what has come before.

But things are happening so fast and it is hard to just keep current so I have decided to rant a bit.

 

I wasn’t going to get political, but I can’t seem to avoid it.  So I had better set the stage a bit.

 

I am no expert.  I am not an economist, which I freely admit.  Actually considering what they have been shoveling lately I might be in a better position to comment.

 

I am not a youngster and I have the perspective of a full life to draw from.  You might not agree with my views but all I can say is that I have tried to be educated and knowledgeable about all that is happening around me.  I have managed to survive in this life working as an artist.  But in the last few years I have had quite a few epiphanies and lots of things make more sense to me than ever before.

 

So I share this with you for what it is worth.  If you find anything of value here in then I am happy to have put a few things out there.  I have no axes to grind.

 

Regarding my personal politics, I was a Democrat when I was younger and went through a Republican phase as well.  There is an old saying that if you are not a Democrat when you are young you have no heart, and if you are not a Republican when you are older, you have no brain.

 

The simple truth is that both parties have valid philosophies and are in conflict.  There have been in the past a number of great leaders on either side.  But I refuse to blindly follow a doctrine of one side for the sake of being a member of the club.  I think that government is far too invasive to our freedoms and I like a conservative viewpoint of smaller government.  The Bush administration has been anything but conservative.  I think that liberalism is sometimes dangerous but they seem to be compassionate and have some good ideas.

 

This is a close Presidential race and I am not surprised.  I am currently supporting Obama as a lesser of two evils.  It is too bad we don’t have better leadership anywhere on the horizon.

 

I was considering McCain for a time but the Palin choice was a blunder which pretty much knocked me toward Obama.  The truth is that I don’t trust politicians today at all.

 

I currently reside in Fiji and this helps with a perspective of distance.

 

What follows is some recent correspondence and it certainly personal in nature but I thought it was worth posting.   Here goes with no punches pulled.

_______________

 

  

Things are getting very interesting.  It was fun (horrifically) to watch Bush, Paulson and Bernanke stand up and say that they all had been lying, and asking the “little” people to bail them out.  They are not getting the support they want.  Partly because they are full of shit and everyone knows it.  They are using scare tactics (again) to try and panic people into doing the stupidest thing.

 

Especially when they have proposed that whatever they do cannot be questioned legally.  I didn’t have a chance to watch Bush’s speech, but I can bet that he just was lying once again.

 

What can you expect from a pig, but a grunt. In this case it is more of a squeal.  And the three little piggies are just lying.  I don’t care what color their lipstick is!

 

Now McCain is in trouble.  He has the choice of backing Bush, which is political suicide, or not backing him and running the chance of being blamed for the fears that are being used against us.  The economy is in real trouble and the piggies are scrambling to save their asses.  As painful as it may be, the best thing that could happen would be the total collapse of the U.S. flawed economy and the world economy.  After that we can rebuild it into something which works.  I feel so sorry for all the rich people who will lose everything, NOT.  Let them eat the debt which they created and promoted, and let them choke on it.  Don’t let them cram it down our throats.

 

McCain is now ducking the debate.  He doesn’t want to face Obama.  Not now.  He wants to wait until everyone is sucked into an agreement to this bailout plan.  It is nice to be near the bottom of this wealth distribution.  I won’t have too far to fall.  But the piggies at the top are frightened to death.  The fall will be a huge drop for them.  They are scrambling because they want to hide from the consequences of their action.  They are desperately trying to find a way out.  They are looking for an escape clause.  There are none.

 

It is about time that we acknowledge the truth.  No one wants to say we are in a depression, opting for saying it is a recession.  But people are out of their homes, living in tents, without jobs, and prices are going up.  If that isn’t a depression, what is?  Times are going to be tough.

 

We are all going to pay a price for allowing a lying war monger and profiteer to spend like a drunken sailor for the last 8 years.  There is no way out for any of us.  But we can hope that the whole thing will collapse and end the elite’s control of the world’s wealth.  It may be the only way to rid us of the cancer.

 

We can then start bartering and build up honest banks on the local level.  The BIS and the FED and all the central banks have been created out of lies and deceit.  It is about time that they reap what they have sown.  Maybe we can all wise up and face reality.   

 

I guess I just felt like a rant.

 


Response from DJ

 

Rant, indeed! That belongs on your blog.

I have some republican friends who are smart people but following the party line SO blindly. They are delighted by Sarah Palin (a real person, they beam) and are mystified that Obama could be anything but a Muslim with a middle name of Hussein. Holy smokes. Blind!!

You seem to believe now is the hour for it all to come crashing down as messily and tragically as the World Trade Center imploding in a cloud of dust. I guess it’s inevitable. I would like to think a good master plan would get us back on track (if we ever were) but I can just hear people yelling that we’ve fallen into the hands of evil (instead of out of them). I don’t know much about that “skull & crossbones” that Bush & others are/were in at Yale, but maybe that’s a bit of the secret elite line of communication.

Well, during the Depression my mom’s dad turned their entire yard into a garden. I guess it was a lot of work. But they didn’t starve. Should I go buy a wood stove while I’ve still “got some money” do you think? I get paid for being a writer (when I can get work). Wonder how long that’ll last. When I start thinking of this in personal terms, it boggles the mind. A daughter at an expenisve college & a son hoping to be soon. A husband on a pension with insurance that pays for the many medications he uses to regulate blood pressure & gout (I’m not on anything, thank goodness but a lot of people would be dead years ago without some of this modern medicine) and my mom in a nursing home, counting on Dad’s investments to be taken care of – a 24/7 job (I know cause I brought her to my house for 3 weeks last Christmas). And countless families like ours, and MORE families with so much less.

Now every time I see a photo of Paulson, Bernanke & Bush I see 3 little pigs going to market. Great visual, indeed.

Hang in & keep ranting…
DJ


Thanks

 

I may post it.  I get kind of worked up about these things and ranting is one of the things that let me blow off a little steam.  I have known about the skull and bones society for quite some time.  It has even had a movie made about it.  I am not much for secret societies, but my dad was a free mason which goes back to Egyptian days I think.  But the skull and bones are supposed to be pretty bad.

 

I think they will push something through.  At least the dems are insisting on oversight and control, instead of the blank check that the piggies wanted.  I also read somewhere that when the idea of not paying off the CEOs was brought up, that Bush and company were quaking in their boots.   This bailout is not to help us, it is to help them.  I wish I could get some read on the proposed limits they are talking about for the CEO parting bonuses.  I read some who were saying they should get nothing at taxpayer’s expense, but I doubt it will be that way.  Maybe they will only get a million dollars each instead of the 16 million they were expecting.  It is pretty sorry all around.  While people are actually living in tents, these guys are crying because they won’t get as many millions of dollars as they were expecting.  What is wrong with this system?

 

The bail out will buy everyone a little time, but not all that much I think.  It will save the rich and screw everyone else initially, but I think the whole thing will crash and burn.  I think it is an inevitability, no matter what we do.  The bailout will happen and it will be a compromise, but it is not going to change the outcome.  Things are just way too out of balance.

 

Don’t forget that everything which exists will still exist after the crash.  We will make it work.  There just won’t be any of this debt based “wealth” which has been the game for a hundred years.  We will have to learn new games and new ways of dealing with things.  Obama is being very cool headed about it.  At least he has a working brain as opposed to the madness of the others.  I don’t think it will make much difference.  Not in the long run.  If this delaying tactic works, I don’t think the next president will finish his first term before it starts to fall apart.

 

McCain is really a sad figure in all this.  I don’t think that everything he has said is bullshit, but the problem is that he is saying whatever he has to, not what he believes.  He is afraid to death to face Obama in a debate while this is going down.  He would rather wait until the crisis has been “averted” so he won’t have to talk about it.  But the crisis is not going away.  He just wants to delay it enough so he can get into the white house.  I don’t think he will make it, but it is a close race.  I think he will next want to delay the election itself.

 

I am no economist.  I just look at the broad truth and see what I see.  It is hard not to stress out about it, but live the best life you can.  That is all any of us can do on a personal level.  Try and learn and speak the truth.  But it wouldn’t hurt to adjust our thinking to a survivalist direction.  These are interesting times for sure.

 


From DJ

Yeah, how about it when the biggest criticism of Obama is that “he comes off as too sophisticated and professorial.” ??  That’s what we need instead of those who say what they need to keep fooling us peons!

Of course you’re right about crashing and burning during the next administration. So if he does get in, he will be blamed right & left for it. Unless EVERYONE pays attention to what’s happening now (and remembers in a year – though it seems like it will be pretty unforgettable). And if Obama makes it, I’m sure his staff will cry loud & long that it was the republicans who caused it.

The CEO payoffs are truly unreal. There’s one guy that, according to Time last week, got himself $400,000,000 out of this. Just the taxes on that would theoretically help, but it’s my bet that he doesn’t pay any more taxes than you do!  My husband’s dad was undereducated & poor, though hardworking and not at all stupid (his best idea was stressing education and integrity to his sons – and they both went to college & graduate school/law school). Anyway, Buffy’s dad said he would be happy to have to pay a million dollars in taxes…because it would mean that he was making a lot of money.

I did read recently that the 16th amendment never got ratified correctly, but to me that’s kind of a moot point. It’s there. And of course we pay taxes – almost everyone in the world does, if they have any money at all. But I can tell you when the whole Clinton impeachment farce was going on I was screaming at the radio saying STOP WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS!!

I’m still trying to wrap my head around your news (it was news to me) that our taxes don’t go to public services. Geez. I guess those budgets are just phantoms made up to throw us off base. I heard some European leaders talking last week about how the US is a country run on debt and they aren’t like that. (right). But it is kind of conspicuous isn’t it? When the papers explain this current situation as needing to get the country back to normal, which is based on “corporations and consumers getting the loans they need…” it’s pretty nuts.

Well, I have a tent. But it gets pretty cold up here in the winter! Of course, Global Warming will help that, no doubt.

At least people are finally talking green and some examples are being made in the press and online of those who live green. That’s something a lot more in our control than the economy and something positive to think about, rather than the incredible negativity surrounding this collapse. It’s good to see the dems making noise. There are supposed to be countless grass roots protests all around the country today. 

Love
DJ


Hi DJ,

 

I have more to say on the subject, but will refrain from a long letter right now.  We are paying a big price for complacency about government.  We, of course, have been brainwashed and manipulated to do so.  The media is a propaganda machine and has been manipulated by the villains to keep us confused and ignorant.  The lies are everywhere.

 

Once in a while some truth comes out in some form or another, but it gets buried by the mountain of BS or ignored by a dumbed and numbed down populace.  One example was Oliver Stone’s JFK which was a film maker’s attempt to argue the truth, and yet we are more comfortable believing the Warren commission report which was bought and paid for with our tax dollars by the perps.

 

Speaking of “tax dollars”, we are not talking about the money which the government collects at gun point illegally every April 15th.  We are talking about the money which is borrowed from the banks to put each of us into debt.  The average amount of that debt being proposed by this bailout BS is something like $2400 per person.  But that figure is deceptive. Think of the average family debt cost, which is more in the neighborhood of $10 grand.  And realize that this is on top of the rest of it which goes to fight illegal wars for the profiteers.  And also keep in mind that the rich will not be paying anything.

 

 

Yes, aside from the fact that the IRS cannot account for about a third of the money they actually collects, all of it goes to pay nothing but part of the interest on the existing debt.  This is all fact, not opinion.  I don’t like to participate in a scam.  We should all stop paying taxes.

 

The hardest thing to accept is that this is a systemic problem and all of the day to day happenings are within the system itself, so none of this bail out stuff will fix anything. 

 

By the way, it is now called a “rescue plan” instead of a “bailout.”  Apparently the spin masters think we will be fooled by a name change.  It is the same shit wearing a different label.

 

 And it gets complicated and shrouded in complications.  I try to rise above the complications and look at it from a perspective outside of the system.  That is why I can offer my perspective on the reality of it all.  I read once that civilizations collapse when their problems become too complicated for them to solve.  It happened in Rome.  It happened to the Mayans.  It is happening to us.  I think that is obviously what is happening now.  And we are just watching a slow motion train wreck of the inevitable consequences of our folly as a civilization.  This will be a very bad one.  The world is overpopulated.  The biosphere is in jeopardy.  The resources are being used up, and we spend time worrying about how to shift paper around and make a flawed monetary system work so that the CEOs can keep their millions.  Madness is an understatement.

 

I wish that I could just ignore it and try and live a life of ignorant bliss.  But as the boys at lifeaftertheoilcrash.com say, “Deal with reality or reality will deal with you.”  The system will want to brand me a doomsayer or a fanatic.  It is another of their evil games to do that.  I am glad you don’t see me that way.  The Europeans might like to think that the U.S. is running a system based on debt, but it is all part of a global system under the BIS.  They are just as much a party to it as everyone else.

 

They guys who started us on this path are all dead.  They grabbed what they could and lived out their lives without facing the consequences of their actions.  Now after a hundred years of this, the rich guys are hoping to do the same.  Don’t get me wrong.  I would love to be rich.  I would love to be rewarded for creating things of value and making the world a better place.  But the rich I am talking about are the lying cheating bastards to have given nothing and taken everything.  And as their folly continues they are still doing it.

 

I am 62.  I sometimes feel that I might die very soon.  I feel worse about my daughter and all our children, and their children.  The geezers who have grabbed everything will die leaving the rest of the world in a mess.  The current geezers are caught in the initial consequences of their actions and are scrambling like the selfish bugs they are.

 

Some final observations.  I have been encouraged to see people starting to smell the Bullshit.  Perhaps revulsion will lead to revolution.

 

We have evolved into this mess.  Evolution will not work.  We will see a revolution in the near future.  It is the smart thing to do, soon it will be the only thing to do.  I think things can be rebuilt in a much shorter time period than the time and futile effort of trying to repair a broken system from within itself.  It won’t work.  Sooner or later you will see the truth of it.

 

I will end this installment with something passed on to me:

 

Perhaps some of you have received the original Nigerian business offer. This one isn’t original, but it is right on target.

 

—————————————————————-

 

 

Subject: Not Spam — Important Business Offer!!!

 

Dear American:

 

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude. I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars U.S. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

 

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

 

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

Minister of Treasury Paulson

Cash for Gold

September 19, 2008

I have to react to the BS coming from the presidential candidates.  Sorry to rain on your parade, but neither candidate has the answer to our economic woes. 

The same forces at work which gave us the Great Depression and every stock market crash and bank run in history are still going strong and we all pay for it. 

As you have read in my previous articles, the problems are with the debt based monetary system controlled by the bankers of the world.  No plan will work if we do not return to an honest money system.  Period.

There have been people with the brains enough to see this simple truth but unfortunately none of them are running for office.  The world monetary system is a scam and until we overhaul the system, things will continue to be bad for us all.

We need to stop making money .ie debt, out of thin air.  It is how the tranfer of wealth to the bankers has been accomplished and as long as this system is used, we are doomed.

Let me make it simple.  The money you have is worthless, as is the debt which is causing the economic upheaval worldwide.  We were all robbed long ago by the central banks and bankers of the world.  This happened when we were taken off the gold standard.  The central bankers who did this even today would dissagree with my assessment.  In their minds, they are there to “help” us poor stupid people.

As long as this continues, the world wide money game is nothing more than that, a game which no one but the bankers can win.  Both candidates are talking about change, but none are talking about changing the system which is at the root of the problem.

If you want change, the change we need to make are to take the power of the central banks away from them.  Anything else is band-aids for cancer. 

Nothing short of a return to the gold standard will fix the problem.  JFK was the last great leader to suggest this course of action.  Keep that in mind as you ponder the real reasons behind his assassination.

When the FED took over the U.S. money system, they took us off the gold standard, and the entire world wide monetary system has done the same.  Ask yourself, if gold is not all that important, then why is its value rising while the value of all currency is dropping?

Why do the central banks insist that they and only they have control of the gold?  There was a time when paper money was backed by gold and had value.  Since we were removed from the gold standard, the buying power of your dollar has lost 98%.

The money you use has value at the whim of the central banks.  That is the tool they have taken control of to control you.  They have made you their slaves by putting you in debt, with money they have created from nothing.  Tomorrow they can say that your money is worthless, and it won’t make any difference what you have in the bank, or set aside for your retirement or your children’s education.  They really don’t care because they have already hoarded all the gold and when they finally get around to causing the monetary system to fully collapse, they will have all the marbles.

I have to laugh at the gullability of people who watch those commercials offering cash for your “dusty old worthless gold jewelery”.  If the gold is so worthless and the money is so valuable, why would they do it?

Come on, how stupid can you be?  They are just mining you for every last bit of gold they can.

Stop the Fedral Reserve System and the BIS.  They tricked us into it.  It is time we took it back.  That’s change we can believe in.

If you want to learn about how the FED came about and gained power, I recommend Creature From Jekyll Island – G. Edward Griffin http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html 

If you wan’t to Know about the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), refer to my previous article “Ban-aids for Cancer”.

Revising or replacing the monertary system may seem like an undoable task.  There is no doubt that it will not be easy.  But it is inevitable unless we wish to accept without question our roles as slaves to a powerful elite.

Let me show you how calus these people are.  Here I reprint the closing passage of a speech made by Ben Bernanke who now heads the FED.  This is the end of a speech addressing historical work about the Great Depression.

If one Googles “Milt Friedman 90th” one gets a speech delivered
by now chairman of the FED [then Gov.] Ben Bernanke, in which he
admits that the FED was responsible for the Great Contraction ‘29-’31

Conclusion

The brilliance of Friedman and Schwartz’s work on the Great Depression is not simply the texture of the discussion or the coherence of the point of view. Their work was among the first to use history to address seriously the issues of cause and effect in a complex economic system, the problem of identification. Perhaps no single one of their “natural experiments” alone is convincing; but together, and enhanced by the subsequent research of dozens of scholars, they make a powerful case indeed.For practical central bankers, among which I now count myself, Friedman and Schwartz’s analysis leaves many lessons. What I take from their work is the idea that monetary forces, particularly if unleashed in a destabilizing direction, can be extremely powerful. The best thing that central bankers can do for the world is to avoid such crises by providing the economy with, in Milton Friedman’s words, a “stable monetary background”–for example as reflected in low and stable inflation.

 
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. 
 

 

You’re right, we did it.
We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.

I find it very telling in that the now chairman of the Fed would refer to the historical tragedy for the American economy with such a statement.  Was the Fed’s action of causing the Great Depression just a joke to him?  I don’t find it funny.  Perhaps you now know the attitudes of the central bankers regarding their power and what they think of your lives.

They are doing it again and will do it again and again until they are stopped.


Band-aids for Cancer

September 16, 2008

Hello to my readers.  It is apparent that the financial woes we are facing are foremost in everyone’s minds these days.  We have a big problem in that very few are willing to look at the real reasons for the mess.

 

I know that what I will write here will seem like an over simplification.  But one problem we face is that we have been convinced that the issues are complicated and that we cannot understand them unless we are some sort of money expert or head of the FED, or on a government committee who claim to be on top of it.

 

But this is simply not true.  The people controlling your money and its value would like you to focus on the details of the system in operation, and ignore the real reasons for the mess.  This is exactly what is happening right now, and the politicians are playing the same game.

 

So let’s look at the root causes and forget about the band-aids which will never cure the cancer.  These band-aids are what you are hearing about now, they are the focus of the world monetary system, and Wall Street, and the politicians.  And as the system hemorrhages at the surface, these band-aids seem like the thing to do.  But they will never cure the problem. 

 

So we shall look at the basis of the problems in the hopes that understanding the REAL causes might help to find some REAL solutions.

 

First let’s look at the structure of the monetary system.  Even the term “monetary” system is a bit misleading.  Money is only a tool used by the people at the top to manipulate everything.  Their concern is not money; it is power and control of wealth.

 

Now let us look at who we mean by the people at the top.  The entire system is structured in a pyramid.  Here at the base where most of us struggle for survival and some quality of life we have the various low level financial institutions like Wall Street and our local banks and lending institutions.

 

One step up on the pyramid we have the governments.  Now even further up we have the central banks such as the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve and the Swiss bank, etc.

 

But eventually we come to the top of the pyramid and we find the BIS (Bank for International Settlements.)  This bank is hidden from most of us and they want it that way.  You cannot deposit your money into this bank.  They don’t want it.  They have a charter and it is amazing how they have set up their own power.  They are above the law.  They answer to no one but themselves.  They have ultimate power and have defined themselves exactly that way.  They are above government.  They have complete diplomatic immunity, and have no limits of immigration etc.  They can go where ever they wish at any time with no restrictions and they can do anything they want and I mean anything.  That is the way they set it up.

 

But before looking at this bank and how it came into its present position of power, which happened in the mid seventies, we should understand its origins and for that, we need to understand the level below it, which up until its creation were at the top of their individual pyramids before the consolidation under the BIS.

 

The concept of a central bank is as the name implies the top bank of a country.  In the case of the United States, this is the Federal Reserve which was established in about 1913.

 

For more on the Federal Reserve System read  Creature From Jekyll Island – G. Edward Griffin http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html

 

In any given country there needs to be one central bank which controls the money supply and its creation.  This institution has the greatest of power and used to be controlled by the government; however this is no longer the case. 

Historically, for example, the Bank of England was controlled by the King, and our revolutionary war was fought (despite the spin of the popular history books) because King George did not want to grant the colonies the right to their own money system.  He knew that the real power was in the control of the money and he wanted the colonies to be subject to the Bank of England.

Our country won its independence and with it the right to control its own money.  Which they did using the gold standard.  But the American people were growing concerned that a few bankers were gaining a monopoly on the money game and wanted to stop them.

 

That is when the bankers got together and fooled the public into thinking that the Federal Reserve System would do it.  In fact they did exactly the opposite and the FED became the central bank of our country.  Keep in mind that it is a privately owned bank and there is no government control over it.  But the government needed it because the central bank had the power of creating money.

 

The bankers effectively took over the government and to this day it is the system we have.  They took us off the gold standard so that they would have unlimited control over the money system, without regard for any substantive limits.  In effect, they gained the power to create money out of thin air.

 

And what have they done with this power?  They created intentionally stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression which followed.  They have also reduced the buying power of the dollar to now be only 2% of what it was when they took over.

 

And they did it by creating a system based on debt.  Every dollar they create out of nothing is loaned to the country at interest.  You need to understand that this is a scam, pure and simple.  They promote debt.  It is how they transfer the wealth and power to themselves.  They create the national debt.  They allow the lesser banks under them to promote debt.  Under the Federal Reserve System, a bank can loan out ten times the amount of money that they have borrowed from the Fed. 

 

So the Fed is in the business of creating money out of thin air, and then loaning it to everyone to create debt.  This is a cycle of enslavement and we are all caught in the system as long as it exists.

 

So today we are on the verge of a financial collapse because of this scam.  It has worked very well for the bankers.  And our government, who is caught in the very same trap, has the brilliant idea that the way to correct it is to give more power to the FED.  It is insanity.

 

One of the biggest sources of income for the central banks is to loan money to fight wars.  They care not for any politics or loss of life.  They care not about democracy or any such things.  They simply like to promote war because they create debt and that is the source of their power.  They certainly do not care about you or human suffering.  They care about their own power.

 

The one time greatest country on earth, created to free men more than two centuries ago is now back in the hands of the bankers, who seek only to enslave.

 

This is the cancer underlying it all, and all the band-aids we use will do nothing to correct it. 

 

In light of all this, everything begins to make sense.  The monetary system is a scam and as long as we have it we will never be okay.  I would like to think that some politician somewhere would stand up to this.  The last one to do so was JFK who had plans to put us back on the gold standard.  We all know what happened to him, now don’t we?

 

So what are the latest developments of the cancer?  The central banks got together in 1930 and formed the single bank of all banks, the BIS.

 

Here is the inside dope about them:

 

Global Banking: The Bank for International Settlements

 

 

 

Who controls global monetary affairs? The BIS! Based in Basle, Switzerland, the BIS is central bank to central banks. The BIS has greater immunity than a sovereign nation, is accountable to no one, runs global monetary affairs and is privately owned. This is a must-read report to understand the globalization process.

Preface

When David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973, the intent was to create a “New International Economic Order” (NIEO). To this end, they brought together 300 elite corporate, political and academic leaders from North America, Japan and Europe.

Few people believed us when we wrote about their nefarious plans back then. Now, we look back and clearly see that they did what they said they were going to do… globalism is upon us like an 8.6 magnitude earthquake.

The question is, “How did they do it?” Keep in mind, they had no public mandate from any country in the world. They didn’t have the raw political muscle, especially in democratic countries where voting is allowed. They didn’t have global dictatorial powers.

Indeed, how did they do it?

The answer is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), self-described as the “central bank for central bankers”, that controls the vast global banking system with the precision of a Swiss watch.

This report offers a concise summation of BIS history, structure and current activities.

Introduction 

The famous currency expert Dr. Franz Pick once stated, “The destiny of the currency is, and always will be, the destiny of a nation.” 

With the advent of rampant globalization, this concept can certainly be given a global context as well: “The destiny of currencies are, and always will be, the destiny of the world.”

Even though the BIS is the oldest international banking operation in the world, it is a low profile organization, shunning all publicity and notoriety. As a result, there is very little critical analysis written about this important financial organization. Further, much of what has been written about it is tainted by its own self-effacing literature.

The BIS can be compared to a stealth bomber. It flies high and fast, is undetected, has a small crew and carries a huge payload. By contrast, however, the bomber answers to a chain of command and must be refueled by outside sources. The BIS, as we shall see, is not accountable to any public authority and operates with complete autonomy and self-sufficiency.

Leading up to Founding

As we will see, the BIS was founded in 1930 during a very troubled time in history. Some knowledge of that history is critical to understanding why the BIS was created, and for whose benefit.

There are three figures that play prominently in the founding of the BIS: Charles G. Dawes, Owen D. Young and Hjalmar Schacht of Germany.

Charles G. Dawes was director of the U.S. Bureau of the Budget in 1921, and served on the Allied Reparations Commission starting in 1923. His latter work on “stabilizing Germany’s economy” earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925. After being elected Vice President under President Calvin Coolidge from 1925-1929, and appointed Ambassador to England in 1931, he resumed his personal banking career in 1932 as chairman of the board of the City National Bank and Trust in Chicago, where he remained until his death in 1951.

Owen D Young was an American industrialist. He founded RCA (Radio Corporation of America) in1919 and was its chairman until 1933. He also served as the chairman of General Electric from 1922 until 1939. In 1932, Young sought the democratic presidential nomination, but LOST to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

More on Hjalmar Schacht later.

In the aftermath of World War I and the impending collapse of the German economy and political structure, a plan was needed to rescue and restore Germany, which would also insulate other economies in Europe from being affected adversely.

The Versailles Treaty of 1919 (which officially ended WWI) had imposed a very heavy reparations burden on Germany, which required a repayment schedule of 132 billion gold marks per year. Most historians agree that the economic upheaval caused in Germany by the Versailles Treaty eventually led to Adolph Hitler’s rise to power.

In 1924 the Allies appointed a committee of international bankers, led by Charles G. Dawes (and accompanied by J.P. Morgan agent, Owen Young), to develop a plan to get reparations payments back on track. Historian Carroll Quigley noted that the Dawes Plan was “largely a J.P. Morgan production”1 The plan called for $800 million in foreign loans to be arranged for Germany in order to rebuild its economy.

In 1924, Dawes was chairman of the Allied Committee of Experts, hence, the “Dawes Plan.” He was replaced as chairman by Owen Young in 1929, with direct support by J.P. Morgan. The “Young Plan” of 1928 put more teeth into the Dawes Plan, which many viewed as a strategy to subvert virtually all German assets to back a huge mortgage held by the United States bankers.

Neither Dawes nor Young represented anything more than banking interests. After all, WWI was fought by governments using borrowed money made possible by the international banking community. The banks had a vested interest in having those loans repaid!

In 1924, the president of Reichsbank (Germany’s central bank at that time) was Hjalmar Schacht. He had already had a prominent role in creating the Dawes Plan, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen and other prominent German bankers and industrialists.

The Young Plan was so odious to the Germans that many credit it as a precondition to Hitler’s rise to power. Fritz Thyssen, a leading Nazi Industrialist, stated

“I turned to the National socialist party only after I became convinced that the fight against the Young Plan was unavoidable if complete collapse of Germany was to be prevented.” 2

Some historians too quickly credit Owen Young as the idea-man for the Bank for International Settlements. It was actually Hjalmar Schacht who first proposed the idea3, which was then carried forward by the same group of international bankers who brought us the Dawes and Young Plans.

It is not necessary to jump to conclusions as to the intent of these elite bankers, so we will instead defer to the insight of renowned Georgetown historian, Carroll Quigley:

“The Power of financial capitalism had another far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks, which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent rewards in the business world.”4 [Bold emphasis added]

So here we have a brief sketch of what led up to the founding of the BIS. Now we can examine the nuts and bolts of how the BIS was actually put together.

The Hague Agreement of 1930

The formation of the BIS was agreed upon by its constituent central banks in the so-called Hague Agreement on January 20, 1930, and was in operation shortly thereafter. According to the Agreement,

The duly authorised representatives of the Governments of Germany, of Belgium, of France, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of Italy and of Japan of the one part; And the duly authorised representatives of the Government of the Swiss Confederation of the other part Assembled at the Hague Conference in the month of January, 1930, have agreed on the following: 

Article 1. Switzerland undertakes to grant to the Bank for International Settlements, without delay, the following Constituent Charter having force of law: not to abrogate this Charter, not to amend or add to it, and not to sanction amendments to the Statutes of the Bank referred to in Paragraph 4 of the Charter otherwise than in agreement with the other signatory Governments.5

As we will see, German reparation payments (or lack thereof) had little to do with the founding of the BIS, although this is the weak explanation given since its founding. Of course, Germany would make a single payment to the BIS, which in turn would deposit the funds into the respective central bank accounts of the nations to whom payments were due. (It would be the subject of another paper to show the shallowness of this operation: Money and gold were shuffled around, but the net amount that Germany actually paid was very small.)

The original founding documents of the BIS have little to say about Germany, however, and we can look directly to the BIS itself to see its original purpose:

“The objects of the Bank are: to promote the co-operation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international operations; and to act as trustees or agent in regard to international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements with the parties concerned.” 6

Virtually every in-print reference to the BIS, including their own documents, consistently refer to it as “the central banker’s central bank.”

So, the BIS was established by an international charter and was headquartered in Basle, Switzerland.

BIS Ownership

According to James C. Baker, pro-BIS author of The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation, “The BIS was formed with funding by the central banks of six nations, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three private international banks from the United States also assisted in financing the establishment of the BIS.”7

Each nation’s central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares. The U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve, did not join the BIS, but the three U.S. banks that participated got 16,000 shares each. Thus, U.S. representation at the BIS was three times that of any other nation. Who were these private banks? Not surprisingly, they were J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York and First National Bank of Chicago.

On January 8, 2001, an Extraordinary General Meeting of the BIS approved a proposal that restricted ownership of BIS shares to central banks. Some 13.7% of all shares were in private hands at that time, and the repurchase was accomplished with a cash outlay of $724,956,050. The price of $10,000 per share was over twice the book value of $4,850.

It is not certain what the repurchase accomplished. The BIS claimed that it was to correct a conflict of interest between private shareholders and BIS goals, but it offered no specifics. It was not a voting issue, however, because private owners were not allowed to vote their shares.8

Sovereignty and Secrecy

It is not surprising that the BIS, its offices, employees, directors and members share an incredible immunity from virtually all regulation, scrutiny and accountability.

In 1931, central bankers and their constituents were fed up with government meddling in world financial affairs. Politicians were viewed mostly with contempt, unless it was one of their own who was the politician. Thus, the BIS offered them a once-and-for-all opportunity to set up the “apex” the way they really wanted it — private. They demanded these conditions and got what they demanded.

A quick summary of their immunity, explained further below, includes

  • diplomatic immunity for persons and what they carry with them (i.e., diplomatic pouches)
  • no taxation on any transactions, including salaries paid to employees
  • embassy-type immunity for all buildings and/or offices operated by the BIS
  • no oversight or knowledge of operations by any government authority
  • freedom from immigration restrictions
  • freedom to encrypt any and all communications of any sort
  • freedom from any legal jurisdiction9

Further, members of the BIS board of directors (for instance, Alan Greenspan) are individually granted special benefits:

  • “immunity from arrest or imprisonment and immunity from seizure of their personal baggage, save in flagrant cases of criminal offence;”
  • “inviolability of all papers and documents;”
  • “immunity from jurisdiction, even after their mission has been accomplished, for acts carried out in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings;”
  • “exemption for themselves, their spouses and children from any immigration restrictions, from any formalities concerning the registration of aliens and from any obligations relating to national service in Switzerland ;”
  • “the right to use codes in official communications or to receive or send documents or correspondence by means of couriers or diplomatic bags.”10

Lastly, all remaining officials and employees of the BIS have the following immunities:

  • “immunity from jurisdiction for acts accomplished in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings, even after such persons have ceased to be Officials of the Bank;”[bold emphasis added]
  • “exemption from all Federal, cantonal and communal taxes on salaries, fees and allowances paid to them by the Bank…”
  • exempt from Swiss national obligations, freedom for spouses and family members from immigration restrictions, transfer assets and properties – including internationally – with the same degree of benefit as Officials of other international organizations.11

Of course, a corporate charter can say anything it wants to say and still be subject to outside authorities. Nevertheless, these were the immunities practiced and enjoyed from 1930 onward. On February 10, 1987, a more formal acknowledgement called the “Headquarters Agreement” was executed between the BIS and the Swiss Federal Council and basically clarified and reiterated what we already knew:

Article 2
Inviolability
 

  • The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss public authorities may enter therein without the express consent of the Bank. Only the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.
  • The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.
  • The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its premises.

Article 4
Immunity from jurisdiction and execution 

  • The Bank shall enjoy immunity from criminal and administrative jurisdiction, save to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative.
  • The assets of the Bank may be subject to measures of compulsory execution for enforcing monetary claims. On the other hand, all deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the prior agreement of the Bank, be immune from seizure or other measures of compulsory execution and sequestration, particularly of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law. 12 [bold emphasis added]

As you can see, the BIS, its directors and employees (past and present) can do virtually anything and everything they want, with complete secrecy, immunity and with no one looking over their shoulders. It was truly a banker’s dream come true, and it paved the international freeway for the rampant financial globalism that we see manifest today.

Day-to-Day Operations

Acting as a central bank, the BIS has sweeping powers to do anything for its own account or for the account of its member central banks. It is like a two-way power-of-attorney – any party can act as agent for any other party.

Article 21 of the original BIS statutes define day-to-day operations:

  1. buying and selling of gold coin or bullion for its own account or for the account of central banks;
  2. holding gold for its own account under reserve in central banks;
  3. accepting the supervision of gold for the account of central banks;
  4. making advances to or borrowing from central banks against gold, bills of exchange, and other short-term obligations of prime liquidity or other approved securities;
  5. discounting, rediscounting, purchasing, or selling with or without its endorsement bills of exchange, checks, and other short-term obligations of prime liquidity;
  6. buying and selling foreign exchange for its own account or for the account of central banks;
  7. buying and selling negotiable securities other than shares for its own account or for the account of central banks;
  8. discounting for central banks bills taken from their portfolio and rediscounting with central banks bills taken from its own portfolio;
  9. opening and maintaining current or deposit accounts with central banks;
  10. accepting deposits from central banks on current or deposit account;
  11. accepting deposits in connection with trustee agreements that may be made between the BIS and governments in connection with international settlements.;
  12. accepting such other deposits that, as in the opinion of the Board of the BIS, come within the scope of the BIS’ functions.13

The BIS also may

  1. act as agent or correspondent for any central bank
  2. arrange with any central bank for the latter to act as its agent or correspondent;
  3. enter into agreements to act as trustee or agent in connection with international settlements, provided that such agreements will not encroach on the obligations of the BIS toward any third parties.14

Why is “agency” an important issue? Because any member of the network can obscure transactions from onlookers. For instance, if Brown Brothers, Harriman wanted to transfer money to a company in Nazi Germany during WWII (which was not “politically correct” at that time), they would first transfer the funds to the BIS thus putting the transaction under the cloak of secrecy and immunity that is enjoyed by the BIS but not by Brown Brothers, Harriman. (Such laundering of Wall Street money was painstakingly noted in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, by Antony C. Sutton.)

There are a few things that the BIS cannot do. For instance, it does not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities. It is also not permitted to make advances to governments or open current accounts in their name.15 These restrictions are easily understood when one considers that each central bank has an exclusive franchise to loan money to their respective government. For instance, the U.S. Federal Reserve does not loan money to the government of Canada. In like manner, central banks do not loan money directly to the private or corporate clients of their member banks.

How Decisions are Made

The board of directors consist of the heads of certain member central banks. Currently, these are:

  • Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam (Chairman of the Board of Directors)
  • Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main (Vice-Chairman)
  • Axel Weber, Frankfurt am Main
  • Vincenzo Desario, Rome
  • Antonio Fazio, Rome
  • David Dodge, Ottawa
  • Toshihiko Fukui, Tokyo
  • Timothy F Geithner, New York
  • Alan Greenspan, Washington
  • Lord George, London
  • Hervé Hannoun, Paris
  • Christian Noyer, Paris
  • Lars Heikensten, Stockholm
  • Mervyn  King, London
  • Guy Quaden, Brussels
  • Jean-Pierre Roth, Zürich
  • Alfons Vicomte Verplaetse, Brussels16

Of these, five members ( Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) are currently elected by the shareholders. The majority of directors are “ex officio,” meaning they are permanent and are automatically a part of any sub-committee.

The combined board meets at least six times per year, in secret, and is briefed by BIS management on financial operations of the bank. Global monetary policy is discussed and set at these meetings.

It was reported in 1983 that there is an inner club of the half dozen central bankers who are more or less in the same monetary boat: Germany, U.S., Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England.17 The existence of an inner club is neither surprising nor substantive: the whole BIS operation is 100% secret anyway. It is not likely that members of the inner club have significantly different beliefs or agendas apart from the BIS as a whole.

How the BIS works with the IMF and the World Bank

The interoperation between the three entities is understandably confusing to most people, so a little clarification will help.  

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) interacts with governments whereas the BIS interacts only with other central banks. The IMF loans money to national governments, and often these countries are in some kind of fiscal or monetary crisis. Furthermore, the IMF raises money by receiving “quota” contributions from its 184 member countries. Even though the member countries may borrow money to make their quota contributions, it is, in reality, all tax-payer money.18

The World Bank also lends money and has 184 member countries. Within the World Bank are two separate entities, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). The IBRD focuses on middle income and credit-worthy poor countries, while the IDA focuses on the poorest of nations. In funding itself, the World Bank borrows money by direct lending from banks and by floating BOND issues, and then loans this money through IBRD and IDA to troubled countries.19

The BIS, as central bank to the other central banks, facilitates the movement of money. They are well-known for issuing “bridge loans” to central banks in countries where IMF or World Bank money is pledged but has not yet been delivered. These bridge loans are then repaid by the respective governments when they receive the funds that had been promised by the IMF or World Bank.20

The IMF is the BIS’ “ace in the hole” when monetary crisis hits. The 1998 Brazil currency crisis was caused by that country’s inability to pay inordinate accumulated interest on loans made over a protracted period of time. These loans were extended by banks like Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and FleetBoston, and they stood to lose a huge amount of money.

The IMF, along with the World Bank and the U.S., bailed out Brazil with a $41.5 billion package that saved Brazil, its currency and, not incidentally, certain private banks.

Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), ranking member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, blew the whistle on this money laundry operation. Sander’s entire congressional press release is worth reading:

IMF Bailout for Brazil is Windfall to Banks, Disaster for US Taxpayers Says Sanders

BURLINGTON, VERMONT – August 15 – Congressman Bernard Sanders (I-VT), the Ranking Member of the International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, today called for an immediate Congressional investigation of the recent $30 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout of Brazil.

Sanders, who is strongly opposed to the bailout and considers it corporate welfare, wants Congress to find out why U.S. taxpayers are being asked to provide billions of dollars to Brazil and how much of this money will be funneled to U.S. banks such as Citigroup, FleetBoston and J.P. Morgan Chase. These banks have about $25.6 billion in outstanding loans to Brazilian borrowers. U.S. taxpayers currently fund the IMF through a $37 billion line of credit.

Sanders said, “At a time when we have a $6 trillion national debt, a growing federal deficit, and an increasing number of unmet social needs for our veterans, seniors, and children, it is unacceptable that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being sent to the IMF to bailout Brazil.”

“This money is not going to significantly help the poor people of that country. The real winners in this situation are the large, profitable U.S. banks such as Citigroup that have made billions of dollars in risky investments in Brazil and now want to make sure their investments are repaid. This bailout represents an egregious form of corporate welfare that must be put to an end. Interestingly, these banks have made substantial campaign contributions to both political parties,” the Congressman added.

Sanders noted that the neo-liberal policies of the IMF developed in the 1980’s pushing countries towards unfettered free trade, Privatization, and slashing social safety nets has been a disaster for Latin America and has contributed to increased global poverty throughout the world. At the same time that Latin America countries such as Brazil and Argentina followed these neo-liberal dictates imposed by the IMF, from 1980-2000, per capita income in Latin America grew at only one-tenth the rate of the previous two decades.

Sanders continued, “The policies of the IMF over the past 20 years advocating unfettered free trade, privatizing industry, deregulation and slashing government investments in health, education, and pensions has been a complete failure for low income and middle class families in the developing world and in the United States . Clearly, these policies have only helped corporations in their constant search for the cheapest labor and weakest environmental regulations. Congress must work on a new global policy that protects workers, increases living standards and improves the environment.”

One can surmise that a financial circle exists where the World Bank helps nations get into debt, then when these countries can’t pay their massive loans, the IMF bails them out with taxpayer money — and in the middle stands the BIS, collecting fees as the money travels back and forth like the ocean tide, while assuring everyone that all is well.

BIS dumps gold-backed Swiss Francs for SDR’s

On March 10, 2003, the BIS abandoned the Swiss gold franc as the bank’s unit of account since 1930, and replaced it with the SDR.

SDR stands for Special Drawing Rights and is a unit of currency originally created by the IMF. According to Baker,

“The SDR is an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries. SDR’s are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas. The SDR also serves as the unit of account of the IMF and some other international organizations. Its value is based on a basket of key international currencies.”21

This “basket” currently consists of the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling and the U.S. dollar.

The BIS abandonment of the 1930 gold Swiss franc removed all restraint from the creation of paper money in the world. In other words, gold backs no national currency, leaving the central banks a wide-open field to create money as they alone see fit. Remember, that almost all the central banks in the world are privately-held entities, with an exclusive franchise to arrange loans for their respective host countries.

Regional and Global Currencies: SDR’s, Euros and Ameros

There is no doubt that the BIS is moving the world toward regional currencies and ultimately, a global currency. The global currency could well be an evolution of the SDR, and may explain why the BIS recently adopted the SDR as its primary reserve currency.

The Brandt Equation, 21st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy notes, for instance, that

Since the SDR is the world’s only means of meeting international payments that has been authorized through international contract, “The SDR therefore represents a clear first step towards a stable and permanent international currency”22 [bold emphasis added]

As to regional currencies, the BIS has already been hugely successful in launching the euro in Europe. Armed with new technical and social know-how, the BIS’ next logical step is to focus on America and Asia.

For instance, according to BIS Papers No. 17, Regional currency areas and the use of foreign currencies,

“Canada, Mexico and the United States are members of the trade group NAFTA. Given the high proportion of Canada and Mexico’s trade with the United States, a NAFTA dollar or “Amero” has been proposed by some Canadian academics such as Grubel (1999). See also Beine and Coulombe (2002) and Robson and Laidler (2002).”23

Assuming that NAFTA permanently identifies Canada, the U.S. and Mexico as one trading block, then North America will look like the European Union and the Amero will function like the Euro. All of the work put into the SDR would be perfectly preserved by simply substituting the Amero for the U.S. dollar when they choose to bring the Amero to ascendancy over the dollar.

For those American readers who do not grasp the significance of the adoption of the euro by European Union countries, consider how one American globalist describes it.

C. Fred Bergsten is a prominent and core Trilateral Commission member and head of the Institute for International Economics. On January 3, 1999, Bergsten wrote in the Washington Post

“The adoption of a common currency is by far the boldest chapter of European integration. Money traditionally has been an integral element of national sovereignty …and the decision by Germany and France to give up their mark and franc …represents the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history. The European Central Bank that will manage the euro is a truly supranational institution”.24 [bold emphasis added]

Bergsten will have to rephrase this when the U.S. gives up the dollar for the amero — that will become the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history!

Conclusions

Our credo is “Follow the money, follow the power.” This report has endeavored to follow the money. We find that:

  • The BIS is central bank to all major central banks in the world
  • It is privately owned by central banks themselves, most of whom are also private
  • It was founded under questionable circumstances by questionable people
  • It is accountable to no one, especially government bodies
  • It operates in complete secrecy and is inviolable
  • Movement of money is obscured and hidden when routed through the BIS
  • The BIS is targeting regional currency blocks and ultimately, a global currency
  • It has been hugely successful at building the New International Economic Order, along with its attendant initiatives on global governance.

As to “follow the power,” another paper will more fully explore the influence of power that the BIS exerts over other banks, nations and governments. For your own consideration in the meantime, Proverbs 22:7 provides a useful compass: “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender”.

NOTE: Carl Teichrib, World Research Library Senior Fellow, contributed to this report.

 

Footnotes

  1. Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, (MacMillan, 1966), p.308 
  2. Edgar B Nixon, ec., Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, Volume III (Cambridge: Balknap Press, 1969) p. 456  
  3. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, (GSC & Associates, 2002) p. 26
  4. Quigley, op cit, p. 324
  5. BIS web site, Extracts from the Hague Convention, http://www.bis.org/about/conv-ex.htm
  6. BIS, Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements Article 3 [as if January 1930, text as amended on March 10,2003], BASIC Texts (Basle, August 2003), p. 7-8
  7. Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation, (Quorum, 2002), p. 20
  8. ibid., p. 16
  9. BIS, Protocol Regarding the Immunities of the Bank for International Settlements, Basic Texts, (Basle, August 2003), p. 33
  10. ibid, Article 12, p.43.
  11. ibid, p. 44
  12. BIS, Extracts from the Headquarters Agreement, http://www.bis.org/about/hq-ex.htm
  13. Baker, op cit, p. 26-27
  14. ibid, p. 27 
  15. BIS, The BIS in profile, Bank for International Settlements flyer, June, 2005
  16. BIS, Board of Directors, http://www.bis.org/about/board.htm
  17. Epstein, Ruling the World of Money, Harper’s Magazine, 1983
  18. IMF web site, http://www.imf.org
  19. World Bank web site. http://www.WorldBank.org
  20. Baker, op cit, p. 141-142
  21. IMF web site, http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm
  22. The Brandt Equation: 21 st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy. The Brandt Proposals – A Report Card: Money and Finances. See http://www.brandt21forum.info/1ckMoney.htm.
  23. BIS, Regional currency areas and the use of foreign currencies, BIS Papers No. 17, September, 2003 
  24. Washington Post, The Euro Could Be Good for Trans-Atlantic Relations, C. Fred Bergsten, January 3, 1999 

Books for Purchase: 

Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, (MacMillan, 1966)
Sutton,
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, (GSC & Associates, 2002)
Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: Evolution and Evaluation, (Quorum, 2002)

 

 

In closing I would like to end with a personal comment or two.  We are paying dearly for our ignorance.  The truth makes everything very obvious about what is really happening here and now.  Investigate, learn, question. 

 

It is the only way out of this.

 

Economic Truth

September 6, 2008

This is my debut as a blogger or commentator and I will dispense with introduction and get right to some issues.

 

There is no doubt that we are in big trouble.  “The truth shall set you free” is wisdom.  Unfortunately very few are telling the truth, and in the unending bombardment of lies from all sides, we are not being set free, but continually enslaved by the lies.

 

The biggest practical enslavement tool used against us is debt.  So what can set us free from debt?  We need to understand how and why the debt is created and work to get rid of the architects of the system.

 

The Federal Reserve Bank is one of the worst players in the game.  They answer to no one but themselves and they control everything.  Their entire purpose is to promote unending debt and enslavement. 

 

Here are some basic facts.  They took us off the gold standard before all of you were born.  As a result they can make “money” out of thin air.  They then lend this money at interest to everyone else, including other banks and to the government.

 

Everything they do is designed to create and promote debt.  They love war.  They lend money to finance them and create more debt.  The more you look into the process the more you will understand the diabolical truth behind it.

 

I would like to clarify two things from recent events to make my point.  First is the Bush economic stimulus package.  This is a plan to “give” everyone some cash to spend.  But no one asks the two basic questions.  Why are we in such trouble in the first place and where is this money coming from?

 

We are in trouble because of the crushing debt.  The money is coming from putting us into more debt.  This is not a good plan for anyone except for the banks who loan the money at interest.  This is the game they play over and over.

 

Metaphorically it is like someone saying to you, “I want to give you some money.  Would you like that?  Fine, there is only one little catch; I have to borrow it from you before I can give it to you.”  You will have more money but you go into debt to get it.  This is a continuation of exactly what caused the problems in the first place.

 

We really need to wise up to this scam.

 

More recently, the government is going to bail out the mortgage lenders (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to “save” the economy.  The lenders put everyone into debt and now they have pushed it too far.  So the government will take over and keep them from going under.  How does it do this?  It supposedly fixes the problem which was caused by debt, by putting every one of us into further debt.  And the Federal Reserve laughs all the way to the bank.  They are the bank.

 

JFK knew about this scam.  He was planning on putting us back on the gold standard.  He was assassinated.

 

None of the politicians want to fix this.  They are caught in the same system which has us in this mess.  The proponents of this debt machine will tell you that it is complicated and that you can’t possibly understand it.  They continue to enslave you by putting you and future generations into further debt.  And then they ask you to trust them.

 

You can trust them.  You can trust them to continue with the scam.

 

The simple truth is that you cannot borrow your way out of debt.

 

Wake up.