End the Fed: a Trojan Horse destroying the Truth Movement from within
The Truth Movement is probably the biggest problem the Money Power dealt with in a long while. But it is being attacked from all sides and from within. Libertarianism and the End the Fed crowd are a Trojan Horse and the most insidious threat the Truth Movement faces. It happened because we still have not come to grips with ‘the dismal science’, economics, and we must pass the final frontier in truth-seeking: Usury.
The Truth Movement rose in the aftermath of 9/11. The Internet allowed the few mavericks in the know out there a platform and the trauma of the 9/11 attacks gave them an audience. It became the cause truth-seekers from all over the world rallied around.
Not only were the perpetrators, the Zionists and the Neo-Cons led by the Bush clan, quickly established, but also a larger picture arose. Zionist and US Empire conquest of the Middle East. And behind that murderous alliance an even more sinister force became widely visible: a cult building World Government, World Currency and World Religion.
It originated in Babylon and spread through the world via Jewish Supremacism. It hides within Jewry and behind other proxies, most notably Freemasonry and the Vatican. And of course the Banking Cartel, which is a global, monolithic bloc. Through banking it also controls all major industries. This power base allows them to control every Government and every Nation on the Globe and they are looking to externalize the Hierarchy in a New World Order.
The Money Power
They are the Money Power and American Populists called them thus because they rule through money. They control the money supplies of the world. First by controlling Gold, which has been in their possession since ancient times. Later through fractional reserve banking and credit by double-entry bookkeeping.
They use this control to centralize power through three basic tools: Usury, the boom-bust cycle and the power to finance those they control or want to control, while choking the rest.
Usury is by far the most important. Usury distributes wealth from the poor, who don’t have money and must borrow, to the rich, who have money to spare and make more through interest-bearing loans.
The poorest 80% of the population pay more interest than they receive to the richest 10%. Within the richest 10% bracket, the poorest 8% pay more interest to the richest 1% than than they receive from them. And even within the top 1% a similar redistribution of wealth to the very most opulent occurs.
This means that eventually all the interest ends up with the very richest men on the globe.
All in the Truth Movement have at some point come along the estimates of the Rotschild family fortune. Nathan Rothschild owned 50 million in assets in 1817. At 5% per year (a most conservative percentage) the Rothschilds would now be worth a cool Trillion. At 8% it would be an unfathomable 250 Trillion. This is compound interest. Usury at its very worst.
Usurious Usurpation.
Libertarianism, Austrian Economics and the End the Fed movement
Libertarianism goes back all the way to the Jesuits of 17th century Salamanca, Spain. The Jesuits were simultaneously developing proto-communist models.
Free Market fundamentalism and Marxism are an evil twin. The dialectic is much older than Hegel.
Even today the Jesuit influence is palpable, with Father Sadowsky training both Murray Rothbard and Tom Woods. Catholic economic science, which always was against Usury and put together a very profound and utterly undefeatable case against it, was thus subverted from within.
Libertarianism itself is ‘economically conservative’ and ‘socially liberal’.
Austrian Economics is the economic arm of Libertarianism. It was built by the Volker Fund, who picked up on von Hayek, Mises and a little later employed Rothbard and Gary North to disseminate their ideas to libraries and other centers of knowledge. It also provided the theoretical framework for the think tanks with which they littered the entire globe.
Austrian Economics is the most unashamed defender of the parasitical class. It defends Usury. It promotes the disasters of deflation as the natural cure to excessive credit expansion. It ignores the monopolistic tendencies of capital and blames the State for monopolies and cartels. It defends property rights, even if they are clearly irreconcilable with natural law, as for instance is the case with Land.
‘Socially Liberal’ is a fancy label for Cultural Marxism. Libertarianism defends every degeneracy known to man: feminism, homosexuality (including same-sex marriage), abortion, pornography, drug abuse, mass immigration, all the way to a free market for children where debtors can liquidate their last assets.
Conservatives fall for this crap, because they reason once they allow Cultural Marxists to do their thing, they won’t bother people looking for a Christian, conservative family oriented life style.
Pure defeatism. And foolish too. Cultural Marxism is a disease that must be combated vociferously for it will never stop until everybody is as far gone as they are themselves.
All this is sold with the wonderful slogans of Liberty, Freedom, Choice and voluntary contracts.
In reality it is the Liberty of Banks to monopolize currency. The Freedom for the usurer to bribe politicians to enforce all those wonderful voluntary contracts that the poor chose to underwrite to avoid starvation.
Enter ‘End the Fed’
According to Tom Woods the ‘End the Fed’ movement is a natural result of ‘free market economics’. It certainly is, that’s why it’s so worrying, considering this utterly corrupt lineage.
The ‘End the Fed’ movement was until recently run by Ron Paul, who maintains Arabs did 9/11. Rand Paul recently did the obligatory sucking up at the Wailing Wall and Yad Vashem. Both of them preferred losing obviously rigged primaries to exposing Diebold. They never attacked Romney even once during the elections, proving that they never intended to win and were only in it to get the Truth Movement to vote Republican without splitting the vote on the right. And to guarantee a good future for Rand in Washington.
It promotes the nonsensical idea that the problem is Central Banking while defending commercial banking. While everybody knows that the banks created the CB’s to begin with. It promotes a Gold Standard, claiming bankers hate Gold, while everybody knows Rothschild and his buddies made their fortunes controlling Gold and lending it to Sovereigns throughout modern history.
So how did these obvious liars become the darlings of the Alternative Media?
It would have been impossible without Alex Jones. Alex Jones maintains Arabs own Hollywood. He blames Hamas for resisting the Gaza occupation. He’s on record admitting his family is CIA. He’s married to a Bronfman Jewess. He’s always talking about ‘the elites’, ‘Nazis’, ‘the New World Order’, while slyly inserting Libertarianism into the Truth Movement. He is setting up the patriots and the militias for civil war, which will destroy them while hiding the real enemy.
His big break came by giving Ron Paul a platform in the Truth Movement. Destroying it from within and disabling the real opposition in two crucial elections in 2008 and 2012.
People say Alex Jones did a lot of good and helped a lot of people wake up. What rubbish. We all know disinformation cannot exist without some truth and that’s Jones’s game. He’s the most blatant Cointelpro operation since Rosa Parks.
Conclusion
What is the Synagogue of Satan if not the church of self? Its fundamental belief is ‘do what thou wilt’. And that’s why Libertarianism is Satanic to its very core. That’s why Anton LaVey said he only had to add some ritual and magic to it to create the Church of Satan.
We can have an ‘End the Fed’ Movement, or we can have a Truth Movement.
If we choose the latter, we must get to grips with Usury, because without ridding ourselves of that cancer, we will never get rid of the Money Power.
It’s about time we made up our minds.
Afterthought: I must make clear that I of course heartily support killing the Fed. I don’t believe in nationalization. An organization like the Fed cannot be reformed. The problem is what will replace it.
The Money Power is looking to move on and it is done with the Fed so Libertarianism is simply promoting policy.
Related:
The Daily Bell: Usurious Commercial Banking is Freedom, Interest-Free Government Money is Tyranny
Usury and its effects on Rome and Early Christianity (Eduardo)
The Fight against Usury by Juri Lina
H. von Creutz: The Money Syndrome (the original studies that Margrit Kennedy popularized)
the Money Myth Exploded by the St. Michael’s Journal. Money explained to kids.
The Bible on Usury, by John Turmel
Why we need Monetary Innovation by Margrit Kennedy
Interest-Free Economics (all the problems of Interest AND the solutions)
Faux Economics (doing away with Libertarianism, Austrianism and its main mouthpieces)
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- End the Fed: a Trojan Horse destroying the Truth Movement from within | Arab Nyheter
- RESPONSE TO ANTHONY MIGCHELS ARTICLE ON USURY – Roger M. |
- The sulking Elves from the Woods of the North | Real Currencies
- Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? | Real Currencies
- Do the Rothschilds Own all Central Banks?
- Libertarianism is Dying! Truthers Unite! | Real Currencies
- What happened to Brother Nathanael and his U-Turn on Ron Paul and Monetary Reform? | Real Currencies
- Austrian economics is big business: The Mises’ Institute’s $22 million war chest | Exposing Faux Capitalism
- Brother Nathanael Kapner: ‘monetary reform is the mother of all reform’
- Let’s forget about Ron Paul. It’s time to move on. | Real Currencies
- Brother Nathanael Calls for National Convention on Monetary Reform! | Real Currencies
- CIS – Does Rothschild own all Central Banks? | ronaldwederfoort
- Henry Makow: Do the Rothschild’s Own all Central Banks? | isely
Well put,but getting the people to accept reality ha been an up hill task for me over 30 years.
Only hope is history is now on our side.
Incidentally how do I post a new article in relevence.?
thanks moneylender Clearly it’s an uphill struggle, but it keeps us off the streets, I guess.
How do you mean, post a new article in relevence?
I have located an article on the surveillance of to citizens of Holland and others in general.
Any way here itis.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/panopticon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TopDocumentaryFilms+%28Top+Documentary+Films+-+Watch+Free+Documentaries+Online%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail
Thanks!
Yeah, Holland is about the most closely monitored society of all. I think only England is close.
Holland really is a very safe country. Always was. Still they manage to make it all about ‘crime’. Weird. Just shows you can fool most people all of the time.
I´m a Central Banker, I´m here to help. What can I do for you
Ah! I was just looking for someone to take the house and the business, but I’m not married anymore! Thank God for the banker!
Come over to our side, the pay is better
Evil better pay good, though it is still possible to make butt-loads of money without joining THEM. Still….
I really feel that my decision to pursue a career in Central Banking has enriched humanity. I mean, I never killed anyone, personally.
Head on Anthony!
Whether Alex Jones is an agent – at least the backing of libertarianism, Austrianism and Ron and Rand Paul are the biggest telltale signs – not actually his Jewish or CIA connections. There are many Jews who oppose THE MONEY POWER.
Have you considered contacting the THRIVEMOVEMENT and Foster Gamble? They are backing Bill Still’s solution as a way out, Still (and Karl Denninger) being someone Alex Jones stayed very far away off (at the puzzlement of many people), since his proposition dismantles usury and fractional banking. Though they also foolishly let G.E. Griffin and David Icke a platform to talk. But apart from that they seem honest and since one person is calling the major shots there it cannot be easily subverted (one of the fallacies of democratic structures to think that it is a strength while anyone with money can implant new “leaders” and change the direction of the movement at will later on).
I think that Foster Gamble does not understand the fallacies of trying to destroy “fiat” currencies and the money power’s backing of liberterianism. This kind of fuzzy logic can often be seen in the TRUTHMOVEMENT, even among the honest ones.
At least they also promote new energy technologies which is the 2nd biggest threat to the money power (Agenda 21, Global Warming, Energy Poverty, Transportation constraints and many other points would be gone). Needless to say neither one of those steps can be taken without the awareness of the people or the inventors, businessmen and polititians get wiped off faster than you can say monetary reform.
“Whether Alex Jones is an agent – at least the backing of libertarianism, Austrianism and Ron and Rand Paul are the biggest telltale signs – not actually his Jewish or CIA connections. There are many Jews who oppose THE MONEY POWER.”
Of course! You know I don’t mind Jews in general. But a jewish heiress to a massive fortune does ring alarm bells and admitting extensive family ties to the CIA…..well……you know……One of the weirder phenomenons in the Truth Movement is introducing people as ‘ex-CIA’ with the idea of enhancing their credibility. And it’s the combination of connections and treasonous ideas and behavior that gives a full picture of a guy out of control.
Thrive seems a limited hangout at best. But still I’d be interested to do things with them. It’s unfortunate that my Libertarian bashing is making it more difficult for people to access the Usury narrative. I realize all too well that most Libertarians are just people happy to have found an alternative to the ravages of the mainstream. The fact that they are looking for answers is such a great thing, that’s why I so despise Libertarianism as it is clearly designed to lead these people up a blind alley.
Marrying a Jewish girl is no crime – actually I am quite fond of some of the Jewish customs – the strong family ties etc. – one ex of mine being Jewish. But of course they have been duped for so long (the same as the rest of the world). You can meet plenty of wonderful disillusioned Israelis in India where they spend their time after the grueling military service – easily recognizable by their traditional garb of long hair, minimum maintenance clothing, obligatory sandals and strong haggling skills (in order for their money to last as long as possible so as not to return to the Illuminati-created powder-keg called Israel).
If most people in Europe were Jews and the minority Christians THE MONEY POWER would have fastened their fangs onto them and turned Christians into the discriminated people. But so it has been the minorities of Sabbatean Jews and those poor downtrodden Luciferians – they obviously had enough in common.
Again – Alex Jones so far has offered dead-end solutions and that is the biggest sign of disinformation – but I would not stake my life on it so far. Look also at his “adverseries” like Mark Dice who critizes Ales Jones, but offers the same gold-based-Ron-Paul-Austranism-solutions.
Mark Dice is back in Jones’ lap, look at the recent videos at Jones channel on youtube. He’s a spineless supercool boy, the American version of Charlie Veitch; now he’s attacking anyone who thinks the people at Boston might have been actors.
Frankly I do not see much difference between them – mainly style.
Here’s the WAY OUT!!!!
Rothbard on Bailouts and Public Debt Repudiation
Murray N. Rothbard presented this speech at the Michigan Libertarian Party Convention, held in Southfield, Michigan, in May 1989. This is an excerpt where he discusses the S&L Bailouts, Public Debt, Repudiation and Foreign Debt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Unmu9kiKA
Gee, that Murray sure seems pro-liberty to me.
Yeah – liberty is freedom and war is peace and austerity is prosperity. Newspeak for economists.
Talk about drivel.
Remember… anything you want to do under MPE can be the same as under the system of exploitation, with the additional advantages of a) it costing less; b) it having a greater chance of succeeding (within the resultant environment); and c) with the potential to make far more money (because there’s far more free money to be earned by deserving projects).
There’s at least one American who knows you have your head up your ass regarding “liberty”… and it’s not just Thomas Jefferson, either. Try James Madison, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln….
But then again, its “End the Fed”. They want to preserve banking. George Soros must be buying them donuts and coffee.
But hey, I´m discussing things with Austrians. Keep the sentences short, rooted in myth and faith, and as thus wholly indefensible or indescribable.
“We need small government, let free markets be free, don’t you love liberty and freedom, we need to take our country back!”
Stuff like that is what Libertarians respond to. I bother with all of these ‘details’ about ‘how things actually work’ and it sets off their ‘liberal educated elite’ sensors – causing the thinking portion of the brain to shut down.
Yeah, you’ve been talking to them, I can tell, hahaha
Great job Jake 🙂
This blog post seems to contain several errors and misleading statements.
1.
A simple google search Alex Jones Bill Still brings lots of matches, Bill seems to have been often on Alex, and they seem to agree on certain crucial points. (Not that I personally follow either of them or would agree 100% with everything they say).
2.
Cultural Marxism, homosexuality etc, well, what can I say, I still prefer cultural liberalism to the Middle Ages. Is there an agenda behind these things to make society weaker and more controllable? I don’t know. But it makes sense to me that homosexuality is a natural regulator against overpopulation. It’s especially prevalent in dense urban areas. That’s where all the hipsters live, right?
3.
I usually don’t let labels like “Austrian” economics blind me. I try to see things logically. So I would say it’s not the problem of gold itself that it has landed in the hands of the few due to clever manipulation throughout the centuries. Pure gold would just be a good barter item, nothing more, nothing less. As long as it’s the monopolistic, enforced barter item, it doesn’t matter how much gold or matchbox cars someone stores in their basement, as long as I can still barter my carrots for your tomatoes and we can form our own local economy.
4.
I think this interest and usury thing is always a bit of a red herring.
The problem we have today is more succinctly described as socialism for the rich, and capitalism (without real capital) for the masses.
Interest the way it is often described in posts like this doesn’t really exist. If anyone tells you money magically multiplies in your savings account, they are lying. They are hiding the real mechanics how things work: where value is created and where it’s sucked up. Today inflation alone outruns most grannys’ savings accounts anyway.
If we have soft money (like credits or promises for future services), then we don’t need interest, because money supply can always be expanded on-the-fly by people on the spot. There is no counterparty risk in the sense that there’d be a loss of any scarce means of exchange. This is how it works in most LETSs. There’d at most be reputation loss.
If we have a hard currency (i.e. debt-free, think gold and silver or bitcoins), and I lend someone money, I carry the risk that they won’t pay back. So I charge interest. This way I can hedge against the risk of other debtors going bankrupt. Also without interest I wouldn’t have any incentive to lend anyone any money in the first place.
Again, *I* carry the risk. If the debtor goes bankrupt, there’s basically nothing I can do.
The debtor is mostly a business. This means I’d basically have a share of that business. They need to produce the interest that I charge. This is also called dividends. So interest would always be backed by dividends. Interest and dividends are essentially the same.
The business can also make a loss. So I’d have negative earnings, negative interest in that month.
Yes, interest could also be negative. So you see, in an honest and not corrupted economy, everything is a transparent zero sum game. No magically multiplying money. The problem today is that banks do not have to take on such losses. They get the benefits of their investments without the risk. That’s why we have socialism for the rich.
Compound interest: another fallacy that’s often purported. If I have a share of a company, and I get dividends, and I reinvest them into the same share, what happens? The price of the share rises. Eventually it will be overvalued, and the price of the share will drop again: I will have made loss. Again, everything is correct, a zero sum game.
There was a phase of free banking in the US when things worked like that. Banking as a service mediating between lenders and debtors. If I get more and more debtors than savers, I can lower the rates for debtors and rise the rates I pay out to savers. If I get more and more savers, then I must lower the rates I pay them out. If savers compound, I must lower the rates as well. That way I’d always keep balances in check if my bank wants to stay alive.
Turns out the problem wasn’t usury in this era: many banks went bankrupt. People demanded more stability, and the FED was introduced. The rest is history. Since then, the FED dictates interest rates: it’s a command economy that dictates growth without substance, mindless consumption and runaway inflation.
We now have the worst of both worlds (soft and hard currency): Money backed by nothing, it is debt (or promises, we’re held as collateral for public debt), but they charge interest on it nevertheless.
So I think the big misunderstanding here is that interest and lending fee/risk hedge should *not* be different things. As far as I know, the old religions like christianity or islam do not see it as usury when interest is just the lending fee to hedge against risk of loss.
You may define “usury” as “socialism for the rich”: If they don’t have to take on the appropriate risk for their investments, you have to look at how they’re doing it. Mostly the construct is political.
Free banks would usually have to compete. So they shouldn’t become too powerful. That happens only when there are banking monopolies. I think it happened in the US because the Bank of England (the old European Central Banking model from which the pioneers wanted to get away from) infiltrated some of the banks and essentially took over, so that the other banks could not compete and failed. Thus, in a way we still suffer from the long history of the power structures of the past.
Free banks could also be community banks, and transparently and democratically be managed from the people for the people. Still, if a hard currency is used, they’d probably have to charge fees or “interest” from loaners just in order to be able to keep their service operational and alive.
Thanks Herzmeister,
1. I didn’t say that, it’s in a comment below.
2. Of course there is an agenda behind Herzmeister. Can’t you see it? Feminism is communist invention, as is sexual ‘liberation’. There is an utterly clear link between decline of empires and sexual degeneracy. Do the research, it is uncontroversial.
It’s beyond the scope of Real Currencies to address it at length. However, to me it’s a given that all these depravities are specifically designed to weaken resistance to Money Power. I just mentioned it to show the other side of Libertarianism to complete the picture.
Resisting sexual degeneracy is obviously not the same thing as clamoring for a return to the middle ages.
3. that’s a total no-brainer, of course. There is nothing enigmatic or weird about gold. It’s just totally controlled for at least 2000 years now. Making it useless as money.
4. A red herring? 5 to 10T paid by the poorest 80% per year globally? The rationales for usury, including the time argument are irrelevant. Money that needs usury is simply unsuitable as money. The poor must not be forced to pay this gargantuous sum. ‘Free banking’ does not work if it means the poor are paying, simple as that.
It surprises me that this is even an issue for you, since you well know that it is completely superfluous as interest free money is the easiest thing in the world.
Are you sure you’re not a little too obsessed with speculating in Bitcoin to keep your eye on the ball when it comes to monetary reform?
lol, I don’t speculate with bitcoins. I have some, but I’m not daytrading. I see nothing wrong with having more choice to be able to choose where to store the information of the value of my labor, without it being corrupted by inflation. The perfect store of value (risk-free, full control over it, not speculative) has just not been invented yet.
2. true, maybe it’s beyond the scope of your article. But generally, I just want to live and let live. One’s utopia is another one’s dystopia. Like-minded people should be able to come and live together in whatever way they choose.
> A red herring? 5 to 10T paid by the poorest 80% per year globally?
That’s a strawman argument. I said myself the issue is “socialism for the rich”.
> as interest free money is the easiest thing in the world.
I don’t think it’s *that* easy to implement, otherwise it would widely exist already. In short, there’s always the problem of trust. Migchels-Coins would either have to be debt-free (then they’ll be scarce, and people would charge interest on loans) and be backed by natural resources (then I have to trust Anthony that he would keep his promise of whatever backing), or he allows me to issue them myself as my own promises, then people have to trust *me*. Again, I believe an eco-system of many forms of monies might very well be a solution.
(typo in my comment: I meant about gold “As long as it’s _NOT_ the monopolistic, enforced barter item…”, please fix if you can)
Regarding your last rejoinder, trust in fiat money itself is never an issue because
Interest free money doen’t have any worth in and of itself as it’s not a commodity; it’s worth is derived entirely from goods, labor and services. interest free money is just a conduit for labor/created goods and comes into existence upon demand for them. As such, there is no need to back fiat with commodities. Production and demand are its backing.
It has little to do with trust. There is collateral and there are simple rules. People screwing the system simply face a debt collector.
You are right that there are limitations to interest free currencies in the market. I have a very clear perspective on that, you can read about it here.
However, for a State it IS really extremely simple. It’s basically just banking, but instead of Fractional Reserve Banking it should use Mutual Credit and instead of killing everybody with usury on credit by bookkeeping, the real costs should be passed on to the debtor through handling fees, which would be a fraction of usury.
Ay there! Forgot that Alex Jones gets Bill Still from time to time – though not very often – especially recently – the last time was 2011. He at least sells his DVDs. I have listened to Alex Jones quite often for some time and there is no doubt about it that Alex Jones definetely favors the Ron-Paul-Austrianism. Looking at how often some other guests get on makes you wonder – especially since a lot of people like Bill Still on the show.
However despite the prevalent thinking here I am NOT convinced that Alex Jones is a clever NWO-shill. People make errors and get frozen in the thinking that they have to get THEIR COUNTRIES BACK – as Alex Jones often puts it! Back from what? The US was more liberal than most countries and they enjoyed some good times in the 50s, but even then it was in almost complete NWO-control on so many levels – WWI, WWII, Kinsey-sexual-agenda, media-control, All presidents since McKinley were almost complete stooges (only Kennedy tried to move against them later on – who knows maybe Lincoln tried to do that too), medical depopulation-agenda etc. You simply cannot go back, because the past consciousness and state is gone and will hardly return again in our lifetime.
We will see, what happens – so far Alex Jones leads the public into dead-end solutions – but yes – he mentions rarely the Bill-Still-solution – though there are better ones in my opinion (modern Silvio-Gsell-demurrage via social credit monetarization and mutual credit for asset-backed essential securities) – some that the money powers have faught even more strongly with.
Look at the real-life solutions that Alex Jones has so far supported: END-THE-FED (will not end banking rule), RON-PAUL and RAND-PAUL (global depression would ensue if they would implement their policies – money power would rule even more via gold-standard) and let us not forget the TEA PARTY (sounds good, but is unfortunately more or less an unfettered free-market-Rockefeller-funded-Austrianism).
Nevertheless Alex Jones could still be an erring man until someone comes up with more proof.
I appreciate your defense of Alex and I concur to a large extent in the sense that there is no legally satisfying proof.
In a trial I would defend him as his lawyer simply because of that.
In the real world, there never is.
This is an information war and we cannot afford the luxury of legal proof. We have to settle for the observation of acts and particularly their real implications.
The very, very least one can say of Jones is that he is full of crap and has done incredible damage to the Truth Movement.
Combined with his bizarre communication (blinking, screaming, messing up public gatherings) and his connections (his wealthy Jewish wife and his recently admitted major CIA family connections) would be considered very, very serious evidence in conspiracy minded circles.
I can live with almost every mistake and the main reason why I’m really upset with him and would like to see him out of the equation all together is simply that he never takes anything back. Not even his bizarre Y2K nonsense. A real man should say: “hey I screwed up and I’m learning”.
One of the key things that I continue to notice with the Money Power is how gently all different strands of their grand strategy continue to come together.
Alex Jones fits hand to glove with their entire plan and M.O.
That’s why I have no problem taking a sling at him once in a while when relevant.
“I’m just a little tired with all the self congratulatory ‘oh we’re winning against the new world order because of the internet’ while simpleminded nonsense like Libertarianism can have such an impact……”
We are nowhere close at winning, but there are improvements – that last interview of AJ with Bill Still – most liked comment is: “I would love to know how Ron Paul would answer the question about how to keep the gold or silver from being taken over …or bought up…in the case of a gold backed currency?”
You see those specs of light as even the “Truthers” awaken to even greater truths. Meanwhile intellectuals are dwindling through toxic food, vaccines, chemtrail & HAARP bombardment, total propaganda from cradle to college.
Trust no one of course – unless guys like Bill Still and you, are on AJ-show once a week, Alex Jones is very possibly an agent.
And there is also another thing.
We are too friendly amongst each other.
Good people do that: they continue to cut people slack until it goes way too far.
But we are up against the Money Power here.
They take advantage of our friendliness. This is the reason why the Libertarians have been allowed amongst us. They had some seemingly good points, regarding the boom/bust cycle, state tyranny and the Fed.
But a closer look shows it’s all nothing. Yet, because they’re nice guys and we don’t want to hurt any feelings, we allow it to continue. The result? These assholes take over the whole thing.
Even today only Henry and Rixon post my anti-libertarian stuff.
And that’s another thing: even after all that we have seen with the Ron Paul debacle none of the ‘leaders’ in the Alternative Media make a clear choice. Most of them are still in awe with him.
That’s bad.
I think we need a little more real male checking of who’s who. Where is all this ‘oh we’re all so grand together’ getting us?
You are right of course – it is getting us nowhere. But I do not see much of a chance frankly.
To be honest – our best chance is to be taken over by an alien race who plans not to kill 90% of us useless eaters. “Gee, why kill you? You 7 billion creative workers/soldiers/consumers eat less than what 50% of your one continent Africa can produce and you take about as much place as 3 x The-Size-of-Texas – that is even if every family and couple is given a 400m2 garden + house. Your singles can live in unobstructed high-rise-appartment-buildings. Foolish humans, what’s the f…ing problem?!”
But in earnest – given the current state of mind of most in the alternative field – it is an infowar that might be won in generations after their madness-infested-super-dictatorship falls. There may be other peaceful ideas aside from an infowar, but those are best not discussed over internet forums. The more people are aware of the global cons, the better.
The money powers are not infallible – they were wrong on the poverty gene, lower IQs of the poor (proven to improve tremendously through better food and stimuli during pregnancy and infancy) – other wrongs will be transhumanism – Souls will not go along with that immortal-bullshit-transfer-to-PC-crap and cloning and indoctrination that is supposed to produce the perfect slave except that Soul will not let itself be captured by it forever – plenty of people break free from their programming – everyone is unique – even perfect clones and this will not change ever.
By all means – take off your gloves – but don’t be surprised if you have hit sometimes just an honest erring human 🙂 We do have to stick together – that is how THEY won and that is how we can win.
Thanks Bourchakoun.
The main thing is to get some debate going here. I’m just a little tired with all the self congratulatory ‘oh we’re winning against the new world order because of the internet’ while simpleminded nonsense like Libertarianism can have such an impact.
The minute Alex Jones wises up and comes clean, I’ll be his best pal, no problem.
Furthermore, I’m not at all against all the others who are just flirting with it, simply because they don’t know better yet.
But there is this small clique and I’ve mentioned ‘m often enough, and they have been hanging out together forever and created this whole thing and are wasting everybody’s time (at best) and they’re not to be trusted.
Yeah these optimists suck. We’re definitely not winning, everything is going to hell fast, and now all they need for a final Global unification ( after all these transatlantic economic treaties they’ve been signing these last days ) is a great cataclysm, a big war that leaves the masses willing to submit to anything, even to the “pure doctrine of Lucifer” as Pike wrote.
But while the Pure Doctrine of Lucifer doesn’t come, let’s share some of the contentment and cheerfulness of Boston, celebrating the glorious and extremely brave victory of 9000 of it’s special agents armed and geared up to the teeth over an extremely evil unarmed 19 year old terrorist.
http://youtu.be/CdthumzpMCM
Yeah – mininuke-candidates in 2045 as mentioned in military docs.
Though this is another topic – he was unarmed and the owner of the boat alarmed the cops. They could have done it with 4 cops on a normal shift and not martial law and 9000 Judge-Dredders driving around in combat-vehicles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-boston-suspect-had-no-firearm-when-barrage-of-bullets-hit-hiding-place/2013/04/24/376fc8a0-ad18-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story_1.html
This is only the beginning, though it probably will not come that fast. Slow economic destruction is way more safe and efficient.
Well said, made many of those same points myself.
Voluntarily entered loans at interest is just the charge for the opportunity cost of being without one’s capital, and uncollateralized risk.
Gold and silver coin were free market real commodity money mediums of intermediary exchange. all voluntary.
Indeed the US Constitution NEVER was amended to remove gold and silver as constitutional money.
Fractional reserve fiat at $0.035 cost per $100 FRN, issued in unltd quantinties as pleases the statists, as DEBT, with interest to boot, is the NUB of the problem, and a system of wealth transfer robbery from last spenders of fiat to first spenders, who’s purchasing power with new money is greatest.
Here’s one hell of an expose’ of the gangster banksters and their entourage of statists by one of misguided Anthony’s prime demons, [& I dare Anthony to disprove a single word of it ;>)
Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy
by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html
A LITTLE intro:
Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists; they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges. They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism.
Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout.
Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs.
In the early years of the 19th century, the organized capital market in the United States was largely confined to government bonds (then called “stocks”), along with canal companies and banks themselves. Whatever investment banking existed was therefore concentrated in government debt. From the Civil War until the 1890s, there were virtually no manufacturing corporations; manufacturing and other businesses were partnerships and had not yet reached the size where they needed to adopt the corporate form. The only exception was railroads, the biggest industry in the U.S. The first investment banks, therefore, were concentrated in railroad securities and government bonds.
The first major investment-banking house in the United States was a creature of government privilege. Jay Cooke, an Ohio-born business promoter living in Philadelphia, and his brother Henry, editor of the leading Republican newspaper in Ohio, were close friends of Ohio U.S. Senator Salmon P. Chase. When the new Lincoln Administration took over in 1861, the Cookes lobbied hard to secure Chase the appointment of Secretary of the Treasury. That lobbying, plus the then enormous sum of $100,000 that Jay Cooke poured into Chase’s political coffers, induced Chase to return the favor by granting Cooke, newly set up as an investment banker, an enormously lucrative monopoly in underwriting the entire federal debt…………….
Does this look so far like Rothbard is a bankster’s chump???? Bwaaahahaaaaa.
Here’s more grist for those not so quick to swallow Anthony’s flimsy presumptions…..
“What is Money?” with Joseph T. Salerno — Ron Paul Money Lecture Series, Pt 1/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNZLR7xMI7Y
Parts 2 & 3 should be watched as well.
The only way to take back your economic rights and put an end to the unrelenting austerity is not to end the Fed but seize control of it by nationalizing it. That you are somewhat of a monetary anarchist probably explains your reluctance to draw this obvious conclusion. Sorry, but govt can be a good force in the world if the people own it.
Join a movement that knows the enemy, will not be distracted and has a complete plan of action for everyone: http://againstausterity.org/ http://tarpley.net/
huh? Is that you pm :-)?
I’m not in favor of nationalizing the Fed, simply because you cannot teach a vampire new tricks.
But in my previous article I proposed several ways of providing solid interest free units by Government, although I indeed believe the market could play a useful role also.
yeah, sorry for the attitude, not awake yet and need some coffee…
Bank of North Dakota has been operating in the people’s interest since 1919. The people rose up and made it happen. No debt, no vampire’s and always a budget surplus to reinvest in to the state economy when the rest of the United States is deeply in the red to the Fed. A great model for a national bank.
np.
Public Banking (like in ND) is much better than private banking, I agree. However, it’s still interest-bearing and that remains a major problem.
No doubt interest in any amount is always wrong economically and morally; and i admire your uncompromising stance, but …..
the amount charged by BND is so small, and not compounded that i am tempted to call it an overhead administrative fee. How else could their budget alway have operated at a surplus while serving the ecomic needs so well of N. Dakota for nearly 100 yrs. ? Usury would never have permitted this.
Ellen Brown is no fan of interest on money, but believes that what their doing is worth studying and imitating because it seems to work. http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/public-banking-for-we-the-people-conference-call-2/
We agree pm, I’m with Ellen and Public Banking as being a clear step in the right direction.
I’m not referring to the low percentage on the State debt, although they’d do better to just give the bank a budget to run its operations. Interest simply is the most lousy way imaginable to pass on administrative costs. But ultimately its a moot point, as long as we are talking real costs and not predation.
I’m referring to the public, which does not get interest-free credit.
Gold & Silver are interest free units of weight – DUH!!!!!!!!!
Nationalization is still statist.
YOU never studied money huh?
What Is Money?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtF_zbI5j7M
Nationalization of the money supply is the opposite of statism. Debt free currency decentralizes by taking economic power from the private FED and returing it to the people. It does this by removing the unearned rents attached to currency in the form of unrepayble interest paid to a privately owned central bank. Unlike private institutions, Govt does not have to charge interest to create money, and whatever credit they create gets spent into the economy not as a debt, but as immediate payment for goods, services, and labor.
Last time i checked, gold and silver were commodites that can be traded, horded, shorted by the financial elites in the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVlqwJ00LMU Gold/silver could be fiat in theory if everyone in the world agreed that it had no intrinsic market value. Only then could it be used as an interest free currency. until then it remains an unsould and deflationary form of money. The real reason for the revolutionary war was due the the king of england requirement of all debts to be paid in gold. Ever study history much?
Here’s a good place for Marxbites to study history:
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/astle/astle_index.html
The Babylonian Woe describes how precious metals and Usury combined to usurp the natural order of man, and the Tree of Life.
This emotional desire to store wealth in the form of Gold, and take usury on it seems to run deep in our primitive brain. The shylocks only need a little push to make mankind go in the direction they want.
Duane Willing calls this a fire in the mind, and hence is in the form of a God – MOLOCH.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51100525/Willing-Money-The-12th-and-Final-Religion-Religious-Origins-of-Money-2008
This fire in the mind so permeates their thinking they cannot let go. Moloch has a deep hold and his sheeple are in a trance. Marxbites is a perfect example of a mind that is consumed by this fire.
By the way, I support the anti-austerity boys all the way, I hate deflation almost as much as usury.
I’m a bit surprised that these conspiracies keep you up at night. The machinations and misdirection will continue.
So the End the Fed movement is a red herring created by some conspiracy of libertarians? Those I’ve talked to on the subject seem to have fairly rational views, IMO. I think that movement generally believes central banking may be OK, just not under the current setup, with the Fed bailing out the moneylenders, its dubious “ownership”, its complexity beyond most peoples ken, and the secrecy surrounding the institution.
then you haven’t been talking to the people in charge! They want to close the Fed, end fiat money and maintain Money Power control of the money supply by introducing a Gold Standard. End the Fed is a red herring. What matters is what replaces it.
I can’t say I have access to leaders of the movement, just regular folks (the sheeple?) But, I agree that what replaces it is more important than simply eliminating it.
The difficulty I see is the magnitude of the changes that might be proposed is too threatening, in terms of the unknown and unintended consequences. Political leaders avoid this kind of thing like the plague. The various proposed setups I’ve heard described, and the concepts behind them are so contrary to historical means of money management that no one really can say where they would lead in the long term.
And I don’t believe the populace has the intelligence, perception, and integrative mental mechanisms to get a clear picture of the problem, never mind the solution. I’m having a little trouble with the integrative mental mechanisms myself. Too many ideas, accusations, and information; each movement has some attractive aspects, but they all tend to go off the deep end once they get started.
“And I don’t believe the populace has the intelligence, perception, and integrative mental mechanisms to get a clear picture of the problem, never mind the solution.”
This is indeed the case.
That’s yet another strength of regional currency: people who DO understand can just provide a simple service for the people who don’t.
Pure, factless, ad hominem loaded, garbage Anthony.
Austrians DESPISE the money monopolists AND corporate statists, which by definition, central banksters are.
Rothbard spent his ENTIRE career sussing out the nexus between power elites, banking and their horrors of war.
Anthony, I can’t help but believe you are controlled opposition to free markets because of the revival of classical liberal economics the Austrian School is doing such promoting.
Maybe some of you clueless clowns could benefit from a read of this:
President Jackson’s Veto Message Regarding the Bank of the United States; July 10, 1832
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp
For if the Austrians aren’t Jeffersonian/Jacksonian, no one is.
Drivel on.
The austrians are in fact like Pres. Jackson. Old Hickery did away with the privately owned BUS by not renewing the charter only to leave the country in a monetary vacuum, which was immediately filled by a number of wildcat private banking institutions which defrauded the public, failed and left the country in an economic depression. By leaving the banking in the hands of the private sector he paved the way for the Fed reserve act in 1913.
If he austrians think they will accomplish anything different by merely ending the fed, they are ignorant of history as well as economics. The bankers will still be lending nations their debt enslaving currency, only from the BIS in switzerland. The problem with the austrians is they can only see as far as the govt — and never the money powers that control them with monetary debt (eg., usury).
That’s a very interesting take on Jackson. It has much merit.
Contemporary observers, Condy Raguet and William Gouge, noted that the renewal of the charter was (and could be) defeated not because the BoUS was unconstitutional or in-expedient, but because State bank interests wanted this competition out of the way; and we also know that N.M. Rothschild was behind some of these Sate bank interests. And we know that when the deposites were removed, the secretary of the Treasury actually encouraged State banks to issue their notes based on this gold/silver deposit with them. (just a tid-bit, that during Jackson’s presidency the account of the United States was transferred from Baring & brothers to N.M. Rothschild)
Mr. Sevier (of Arkansas)
In the Senate, February 20th, 1840.
“During the existence of the first Bank of the United States, the States owed nothing; and we find that, up to 1830, which was fourteen years after the charter of the last Bank of the United States, the debts were trifling, and were confined to a few of the most wealthy and populous States. The charter of the second Bank of the United States expired in 1836.
“We find that the increase of the State debts, from 1830 to 1835, down to the period of the very close and termination of the Bank charter, that the State debts were increased from a very trifling debt, by the still trifling additional debt of forty millions.
“Soon as the Bank of the United States was destroyed, and its days were known to be numbered, and its branches in the several States were being withdrawn, the States went to work to supply their places. They had no money to start their banks, and, from necessity, went into the market with their bonds to raise it. The ball, once put in motion, could not be stopped. If one city had a bank, another city must have one also; and if the cities had banks, the country villages must have them also. And in this way, the work was overdone, and too many banks were established; and as they were all banking upon borrowed capital, for which they were paying a high interest, it was necessary for them to make at least that interest, over and above their expenses. Each bank was driving at the same object; and to accomplish it, they were led into excessive issues of their paper, and we all but too painfully know the result. This is one of the causes of the State debts.”
Following the extinguishment of the federal debt in 1835, in four years, member States took out more than $100million in loan for banking and internal improvents (darling of Larouche)
To avoid the coming default, Larouche’s favourite bank, Baring & brothers, circulated this letter in 1840, to encourage the Federal government to assume the debt of member States (the assumption of debts by the Federal government was the foundation of the first bank of the United States, carried out by Tarpley’s hero: Hamilton)
Well, it did not happen as hoped for, and even the House of Rothschild had to take a loss following the irrational exuberance.
The Independent Treasury act somewhat curtailed the activities of banks, and during those years banks generally only issued 3 notes for each coin they had –the lowest ratio in that century.
Then came Lincoln and crew: out went the Independent Treasury, in came a permanent debt and the National currency Bank System (a 3rd Bank of the United States in different organizational form); then these national banks organized themselves into the Federal reserve system
Lincoln was not an agent of the banks, as you so ignorantly state, but did everything he could to stop the advance of their usury banking system. The greenback, established through the First legal tender act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Legal_Tender_Act#In_the_United_States and national bank plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bank_Act, failed because they were sabotaged, like colonial script has been in the revolutionary war period. The money powers lobbied congress to put onerous restrictions on the greenback by making them unsuitable for the payment of taxes and the national debt. The banker gold backed currencies circulationing simulatanesously with the greenbacks has no such limitations. Hence, Speculators exploited the valuation differences, further devaluing its value and causing widespread inflation. This was the reason the greenbacks were recalled with the contraction act http://www.mindcontagion.org/banking/hb1866.html , and later completely with the Specie redemption Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie_Resumption_Act_of_1875 . Gold backed currency is what the money powers wanted, and never Lincoln’s interest free fiat money.
“It defends property rights, even if they are clearly irreconcilable with natural law”. What exactly do you mean by that? You’re against property rights? So no one should own anything? That’s lunacy man. If it weren’t for property rights, even with it’s problems, the little remnant of order left in the world today would disappear and we would all go back to the jungle. Each one by himself, and God against all.
In fact, the last trait of “Civilization” standing is the principle of property – take that away and we’re all pagan barbarians today, each doing his own thing, completely detached from reality. You might even go as far as to say that the only thing keeping people’s mental sanity and shielding them from absolute hedonism and solipsism today is property. As culture was bombarded and destroyed by Hollywood and Frankfurt School’s cultural marxism, the last remain of the old culture of the Old World Order is ownership.
Nono Henrique, I understand what you’re saying, my formulation is not optimal, but I mean to say ‘defending property rights at all cost, even when it’s simply wrong’. I’m not at all opposed to private property (although I do believe it’s way overrated and people are way to obsessed with owning stuff, which is really very bad for one’s character). Ill gotten gains and monopolization of land are two clear examples of limits to property rights, that’s what I intended to communicate.
Hope this makes it clear.
I get it, and agree with you. Austrians focus on it, abandoning the fight in the cultural/metaphysical level. That’s to me one more reason to support isolationism and localism; people in small or medium-sized communities are in total control of the culture industry and religion, therefore a phenomenon like Hollywood could never happen – not mentioning ( dis ) educational standardization. One thing in the Austrian’s favor is that indeed to try changing anything in that sphere with the organizational structure of society today is a tremendous waste of breath and energy. Everything is too far away, unattackable; you’ll never reach the key figures, and even if you do, after a lifetime wasted trying to “prove your worth”, you’ll realize they live in a bubble and can’t be touched, and/or the content comes from somewhere else, it’s just a frontman. But then Austrians don’t WANT to change it, preferring to lick the boots of the established structure sponsored by the Money Power instead; and for that they deserve to be ridiculed by the marxists. Funniest thing is to watch marxists and libertarians going at each other throats.
In the end economics is an arm of politics, a science of power and eventual centralization of it. Maybe the big mystery very few have noticed is that studying economics isolated from other aspects of power ( and detached from human history ) is ludacris. I always considered it pseudo-science myself. Alan Watt has mentioned twice a BBC program in the 60’s and 70’s called “Man Alive”, where he claims in one episode graduated economists were interviewed and many said that yeah, Economics is a con game, there’s nothing scientific about it. But I went to the BBC archive in their site and this particular
show is not there. I for one would love to hear it coming from professionals themselves.
One of my economics history professor said the only way those economic models and predictions are even slightly true is because they adjust them every 3 months and even then they can hardly get it right for 2 months straight. Some are very well aware – a lot of the good ones are, most don’t have a bloody clue – it is a job with plenty of mostly useless calculations.
Bill Still said once that 80% of leading economists in the 1930s said that the depression was caused by artificial money supply restriction. They certainly got that “science” on their side in the following decades, making sure that their scientific lapdogs would spout only the approved bullshit.
Sometimes it is just open fraud and manipulation of papers – here a “fault” by a Harvard professor:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190
Dear Anthony,
Interesting read, had to read it 3 times to properly understand the words.
Do these rothschilds own all the physical gold which they looted by central bank gold sales or by hypothecate on leasing etc?
Tks & Rgds, Ashish (I removed the phonenumber, I guess that’s not the intention)
Well – in my humble opinion we know for sure when reading about the real history told to us at least by the likes of Carroll Quigley that the 19th century was greatly about mineral and land acquisition – using the usual money power tools.
I would estimate that most of the gold is still in the earth – partly mines that the money power simply has no intention to use in the next decades. It is similar to the diamond reserves – something that surprised the little people:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/18/russian-diamond-smorgasbord
Most people never care what that means. It means that diamonds should be almost as inexpensive as Swarovski crystalls. The same goes for oil, gas and most likely gold. Oil and gas are likely created through a chemical-geological process – i.e. oil fields “re-plenished” again in Russia, NAlSA proved existence of gas on moons and even asteroids, oil was reproduced chemically but never biologically.
Apart from that the money power controls central banks and Fort Knox gold reserves have likely been transfered as collateral to the money power a long time ago. The last time some politicians had seen Fort Knox reserves has been in the early Reagan era and even then some of those buggers there reported about the strange orange-color of those Tungsten-Gold-bars – they did not even bother with good forgeries – some good gold-plating on the outside.
It is Foster Gamble of the Globalist-P&Gamble Family who said that it is actually not much of a big deal to come out as the Earth’s majority owner of land, precious metals, industrial metals, water and industrial capacity if you control most of the money system for 100-200 years. You can even make moronic decisions since you are making trillions every year anyway!
So in short – commodity based currencies are a scam – unless the commodity is everyone’s work and real contribution – if you look at some of the local currencies – this is actually what they are based on and they work.
The Ethics Of Repudiation
Do you ever get the feeling that no one in the Washington power elite is willing to seriously deal with the major economic threat to future prosperity facing the United States today: mounting government debt and the associated deficits? The problem, as pointed out by Murray Rothbard over 20 years ago:
Deficits and a mounting debt, therefore, are a growing and intolerable burden on the society and economy, both because they raise the tax burden and increasingly drain resources from the productive to the parasitic, counterproductive, “public” sector. Moreover, whenever deficits are financed by expanding bank credit—in other words, by creating new money—matters become still worse, since credit inflation creates permanent and rising price inflation as well as waves of boom-bust “business cycles.”
(I took a bit out Marxbites, it’s way too long for Rothbard here)
cont at
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-01/guest-post-ethics-repudiation
Listening to Anthony who’da thunk Rothbard was so willing to stuff it right up shylock’s ass, huh?
Maybe its because he understands how criminal they are? As most all his work illustrates.
Here’s just a taste of Murray’s great body of scholarship;
Murray N. Rothbard Library and Resources
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html
Ton’s of facts to refute that Austrian School libertarians are in any way agents of the statist power elite’s criminal causes.
I don’t disagree with everything Rothbard says Marxbites. Every theory has some good. Otherwise nobody would believe it, after all.
However, there are problems with debt repudiation.
Better is a (permanent) interest strike.
Furthermore: the US will never default. Like Greenspan said (I even agree with him once in a while): the US has a very great technology: the printing press.
Of course they would print as more debt, so it would probably be inflationary, although it could be done entirely inflation free, through debt free money, but the US will never default.
In fact: this is just another typical case of sly disinformation by Rothbard.
Lincoln, the horse of trojan infiltrators, with a quote which only book-peddlers can find among Lincoln’s papers; historians and archivists cannot:
http://www.illinoishistory.gov/facsimiles.htm
Lincoln who did more for enthroning corporations than all the other presidents before him combined; Lincoln who was the best friend the money power could have asked for; Lincoln who seriously hated the concept of republic; Lincoln who gave 200 million acres to robber barons (oh how much he must have hated combinations); yes, it is very appropriate that you put his picture and a fabricated quote at the front of your piece
only trojan infiltrators like Ellen Brown and Bill Still could declare such enemy of the United States a hero towards whom people should look for their salvation (only new-conservatives hold H.A. Lincoln in higher regard than the book-peddlers and their groupies)
oh no………not another bogus quote……….who puts all this rubbish out there?
I changed the picture, I was not happy with it anyway.
The infiltrators, who in 1862 gave the people the best greenbacks they ever had, marched under the banner and Trojan cover of Honest Lincoln and proceeded to sodomize the residents of the united States —without the aid and comfort of lubricated Trojan.
Railroad lawyers Lincoln, Sherman, Bingham, Alley;
bank representatives Chase, Spaulding, Hooper;
re-constructionists Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner
treated the people to the best infiltration they ever had —their great-grand children still feel the effects of this royal penetration.
Therefore: be very aware when in 2013 infiltrating sodomite zombies put the picture of trojan Lincoln on their horse and shaft.
Ellen Brown’s spiritual fore-fathers infiltrated the 19th century movement of the discontented; she (and her sodomite groupies) is now insinuating herself among the discontented.
Peter Cooper, Samuel Cary never proposed a graduated income tax (or any other kind); yet, somehow, it became part of the platform, and eventually (long after the party went out of existence) it became reality…… (so much for the insinuating masters)
something to ponder:
Rush Limbaugh greatly admires this Lincoln whom Ellen Brown presents to her groupies as hero to be followed…..
in what a strange bed does this lawyer Brown feels herself good…..
//* i don’t know who invents the rubbish, but your 3 friends are all too happy to propagate them
Well – yes but even you have to admit that there was likely a good reason to get rid of Lincoln. Given the fact that the US president is the most studied and spied upon person in the world it would be interesting to see the reports on Lincoln by the agents of the MONEY POWER. Can you really absolutely be sure that he was NOT planning to go full-power against the MONEY BOYS? Back in that time a fully aware president waging all-out war against them could have done some real damage. Me personally – I reserve my judgment on him, though your info is highly enlightening too.
Regardless of Lincoln’s legacy – Bill Still’s and even Ellen Brown’s proposals would severely cripple THEIR first power. Never ever ever will they let a Bill Still even propose his reforms to the public as a valid political candidate, nevermind implementing them. Of course those presented here are even superior to that, but there may be even more superior systems to the ones discussed here – completely money-less systems for example.
Yes, we may theorize, and as long as it is just entertaining thoughts, and not becoming a religious dogma, nothing is wrong with it and very entertaining –I compiled a theory article, if you click on my username
Mr. Hollis also theorized:
but my question remains to those who theorize that the bankers had Lincoln rubbed out: what reason would N.M. Rothschild have had to have Lincoln removed from the picture ? Lincoln gave the house everything and anything they had asked for, and could have asked for
=========
re: E.B. & B.S.
the problem is not with the good proposals which they copied from somewhere –the nation-wide postal saving office system was proposed in Congress 150 years ago, and on&off after that
but when a charlatan, who spent the past 20 years selling fake quotes and fabrications, comes to insinuate himself and comes to discredit good ideas, I would reach for the shovel
to be a valid candidate, he (and she) would have to be a valid person, not a plagiarist who saw an opportunity to make easy money off other people’s work (whatever little work there was)
B.S. is now peddling a new product “Jekyll Island”; the only reason B.S. (and Ed Griffin, and everyone else) knows about Jekyll island is Eustace Mullins; if B.S. wants people to read about Jekyll island, all he has to do is tell people to read Mullins’ book (Mullins did the work, not the book-peddlers) –and that is what a honourable person would do; but B.S. is plagiarist, in-it-for-the-money, so he would not reaveal the source of his finagled wisdom; no, he presents himself as the giver of information.
Neither B.S. nor E.B. ever presented new information, they always copy&pasted, so what is the need for them? people who do the work, who do the research should be held up and presented
And what sort of people admire proven thieves, liars and plagiarists? we already have liars and thieves in congress and government, what is the need for more
Totally agree regarding EB/BS regurgitating Eustace Mullins work. Edward Griffon is another plagiarist taking Mullins work and twisting it to shill for a gold standard. Whats your solution?
No one person owns this subject and it’s not plagiarism if someone decides to write another book about it. Historical records are public and the library is full of books with authors writing on the same matter. I certainly would like to links to evidence of Ellen Brown, Bill Still or Griffin stealing someone else’s personal ideas, or being “schooled” by someone from the MPE crowd. Many here are just upset that there favorite author hasn’t for one reason or another been able to convey the information as successfully as Brown (through her books, blogs , and speaking engagements) or Still (through his documentaries, books, and political canidacy as libertarian). Sour grapes is all i see.
Your right about Griffon being a goldbug and inaccurately dismissing the success of interest free fiat but wrong imo him being a plagarist.
>>>> Totally agree regarding EB/BS regurgitating
Whats your solution?
Nothing I can do; these conspiracists are generally leeches, shop-lifters and pick-pockets, and they idolize other thieves; studying and learning is alien to them, research is beneath their dignity; logic, reason and critical thinking is beyond their ability.
If Eustace Mullins just kept what he learned to himself, today none of these gasbags would blab about Jekyll island; their plagiarist heroes could not sell them books
this has been my moto for 10 years now:
but conspiracists are more afraid of the library and facts than vampire of garlic
http://www.yamaguchy.com/forum/index.php?topic=2.0
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lincoln-was-indeed-a-money-power-agent/
Eustace Mullins considered gold and silver coin the constitutional money of the United States.!.
—wrote Eustace Mullins; and to anyone who signed that constitution, article 1 meant gold and silver coin
and Mr. Crozier, whom Mr. Mullins quotes, said such thing (during the exact same hearing) as Every dollar should be a real dollar, good to pay a dollar of debt or purchase, full legal tender, redeemable in and secured by an adequate reserve of actual gold.
name789 – read the constitution rather than taking snippets from others. The States are prohibited from issuing Bills of Credit; Article 1 Section 10:
A “Bill of Credit” may be “currency” – sovereign issued money
The power to issue a Bill of Credit – a credit instrument that has no defined value beyond the ability to lay and collect taxes on future production – fiat money.
Nathaniel Gorham explained at the actual Constitutional Convention:
Under the 10th Amendment, absent the explicit prohibition of Section 10, the States could indeed issue Bills of Credit and competing currencies predicated on anything they wanted. That’s because Amendment 10 reserves all powers not explicitly declared to the Federal Government as held by The States or The People.
Karl Denninger explained:
Your gold standard is neither needed nor wanted by freedom loving people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9qizoBQ4a0&feature=player_embedded
It’s ironic to use a hardcore goldbug like Denniger to support the notion of interest free fiat.
Larry leech, (and full time hypo-crit) who lives on snippets…..
Anyhow, if you had half as much brain as you don’t, you could have comprehended what I wrote
Eustace Mullins considered gold and silver coin the constitutional money of the United States
and to support this I quoted what Mullins wrote.
Instead copy&paste from Dillinger and others read what it says “to coin”; and to coin cannot mean to coin paper.
This is what you quoted from the constitution:
No State shall …. coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;
Any 8 year old european can read this and understand that it means that member States must not issue ‘bills of credit’ (of course, to Larry Leech, who went ot american high school and acquired his knowledge from Lucy Liu’s despot currency concept, this prohibitions means the exact opposite
also, “to borrow money,” to normal people means to borrow somebody’s money; to Larry leech it means firing up the printing presses
a promissory note is only “fiat paper” to you, so don’t confuse yourself with the dictionary
the 10th reserves to the member states that which is not prohibited (but bills of credit are prohibited)
The reason Treasury notes and other notes promised to pay gold and silver coin is because gold and silver coin was the constitutional money, and the only money.
And if you had been able to understand what Mr. Mullins wrote, you could have noticed that Crozier and Mullins objected to the bankers’ circulating of their notes and displacing the constitutional money of the United States. Now, what did Mr. Crozier consider the constitutional money of the United States ? (how could you know, you would not dare go near such records)
“Every dollar should be a real dollar, good to pay a dollar of debt or purchase, full legal tender, redeemable in and secured by an adequate reserve of actual gold.”
—is he saying that every dollar should be redeemable in bills, notes, or promises ? or in Lucy Liu’s chinese despot currency ?
why does Crozier want notes to be redeemable in gold ?
Who is Larry leech, he’s not the Larry commenting here, is he?
oh, of course he is, you just like to insult everybody, hahaha, and I must admit I find it very funny too and that includes your ‘insults’ of me.
like I said, people seek out their own kind, so you and Larry the leech from Pitsburg (a.k.a. DrKrbyLuv, LarryX, LarryL) seek out each other
Only you and Larry can think thare is nothing wrong with telling everyone that they should have worthless paper while both of you are hoarding silver coins (great opponents of gold ye are)
//* i don’t see any insults in my comment, only observations
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/lincoln-was-indeed-a-money-power-agent/
If Lincoln was a bankster shill that hated the republic, then:
Why didn’t he accept the private banker’s loan offfer at the exhorbitant 35% compound intererest to finance the civil war — and print interest free greenbacks instead?
Why did he accept the naval assistance of Russia’s Nicholas I naval fleet to prevent banker financed Britain and France from entering the civil war?
Both of these actions directley thwarted the bankster empire from taking control of the United States via debt and war conquest. It was these actions that helped preserve the REPUBLIC. This also helped Lincoln serve the remainder of his term as president in Springfield, Illinois.
*correction* Alexander II was the russian tsar
like i told you before: for a change, try to argue with facts, not with figments of fabricators
Lincoln himself did not know about this 35% interest rate; only ye groupies and your book-peddlers
===
as to the dumber than door-nail notion that the House of Rothschild wanted to split the united States into two halves
read reality in my “defense of EB” post
To show how dumb you people are, you bring up the tsar of all Russia, that paragon republicanism, national sovereignty and individual freedom; this tsar rushes to the aid of Lincoln in his war against independence minded member States (do you also think that the united states of europe is a great republic, and if someone wants to leave the tsar of Russia should come to the aid of the goverment Brussels?)
Anyhow, the house of Rothschild wanted to keep the United states as one, under the firm control of the government in Washington, and the tsar of all Russia was more than happy to help …… please send $100.00 to Bill Still, he fucked your brain out real good
Do you have a credible source for your absurd, crackpot theory that “Lincoln himself did not know about this 35% interest rate” or that Russia didn’t send their fleet to protect the U.S. from being attacked by the banker sponsored Britain and France? Do you deny that England and France intended to attack the U.S. during the civil war?
No need to be crude
That’s all he’s got.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html
Here is the lecture expounding upon Russia’s defense of Lincoln due to France and England’s intension to side with the South in the Civil War given by Webster Tarpley on C-Span http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SCivil
“It’s ironic to use a hardcore goldbug like Denniger to support the notion of interest free fiat.”
Denninger is no goldbug. He may propose investing in gold as a backup, but he is strictly against any commodity-based currencies. He mentioned it often in interviews – even proposing that a corn or coal standard would me better, though that is as foolish as a gold-standard, but at least it would be more diverse in ownership structure.
That’s news to me. maybe he has changed since i lasted kept up with his material. I know for certain that he, like all libertarians, suffers from extreme myopia and blames govt for the national debt ect., when we all know the they are just middle management. Also, he believes in savage cuts to entitlements to the destitute regardless of how it endagers their lives. Balance the budget uber alles! Safety net is theft! I know, because he banned me from his twitter account when i questioned the morality of this.
Yes – Denninger believes in the “free” markets and has certainly not looked deep enough. However his money reform of interest-free non-commodity-backed goverment-created money in the form of Bank of North Dakota is valid.
He and Bill Still were even invited to consult during the time a National Bank was discussed in California. Needless to say that went nowhere. That way every State could finance interest-free infrastructure projects, to a certain extent it could issue the money itself.
But of course on other points he is too close to the free-market-economic-armageddon-soon-crowd. No one is perfect, but he proposes something that would basically castrate partly the money-power, so he is likely a “good” guy.
My understanding is that the Bank of North Dakota operates as a back stop rather than a true bank. They help provide capital reserves for private banks that are creating the money for interest bearing debt. A true bank would directly create the money for the loans that it grants.
In many cases, the loans it helps back are provided for economic gain through private business borrowing but should the people, through the state, be backing those loans?
We have far too many instances where the public backs the loans of private entities and banks. For example, most student loans are government guaranteed. The government secures debt without compensation. Better yet, if the government is going to back the debt, why doesn’t it issue the money?
The government could issue the money for student loans at 0% interest and if there are defaults, they could simply be written off upon defaults with the government assuming the available collateral. Instead of charging interest, the government could fund its operations with transaction fees and collection services paid by the borrowers.
“but my question remains to those who theorize that the bankers had Lincoln rubbed out: what reason would N.M. Rothschild have had to have Lincoln removed from the picture ? Lincoln gave the house everything and anything they had asked for, and could have asked for”
You are right of course – there is no discernable reason visible. It is only pure speculation that he might have wanted to go against them starting with a speech and quick moves to let the Greenback become a real interest-free currency.
On the other hand – who would have thought that a highly promiscuous and on many levels amoral JFK would go against them? Well – of course they knew – Alan Watt studied that very well in his books stating that they likely orchastrated it as a warning to the other families – not even one of their own is allowed to do that.
>>>Kennedy
I like best the theory advanced by Revilo Oliver that Kennedy was shot because he was worth a lot more dead than alive.
But I really wish someone would dig up what –if anything– was between Kennedy Khrushchev, because if true that would also have been a very good reason to kill him
Like Lincoln, Kennedy also was no hero of the people prior to being shot
Oh – Please – The Soviets were in better control by the big boys than the West. Less maintenance was needed on that side – you just needed to control the top KGB and the very upper Politburo top.
And you do not have to be a loving man of the people to oppose THEM. JFK – if really part of the families – must have seen some serious shit. He and his brother might have chosen to oppose that evil, unfortunately they were not as smart as they thought they were.
Agreed; Kennedy should have been shot sooner, before he signed immigration reform and opened the flood-gates
If Lincoln had been shot in January 1861, perhaps, the U.S. and the planet would be a better place today
In 1960 Kennedy needed organized crime and election fraud to get elected
In 1864 Lincon needed the army and election fraud to get re-elected
During the last not so “Great Depression”, Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the United States House Committee on Banking and Currency, moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover, and introduced a resolution bringing conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve for sabotaging the economy:
The Federal Reserve is a franchise (like your local McDonald’s) of the international bank cartel. The U.S. is a client state that outsourced its financial sovereignty and self destiny.
END the FED
Before it ends U.S.
We all hate the Fed Larry, that much is clear.
Nobody knows it better than the Fed’s owners.
That’s why they quickly organized the opposition to clamor for ending it, while promoting a ‘solution’ that is even worse….
Agreed Anthony; if the Fed is eliminated… what replaces it? Surely there are at least a couple of important functions that should be continued – what are they and how are they best handled?
The libertarians espouse a Laissez-faire approach which I think is un-Constitutional as well as un-wise. They would leave management and policy decisions in private hands. And worse, the libertarians ignore a truly independent nation’s greatest financial opportunity – sovereign credit.
Henry C.K. Liu explained “Sovereign credit can finance an economy in which unemployment is unknown, with wages constantly rising to provide consumer buying power to prevent production overcapacity. A vibrant economy is one in which there is persistent labor shortages that push up wages to reduce overcapacity.”
The dumb asses running the country guarantee the national debt, most student and mortgage debt with private and public collateral. This is not needed – if we are going to guarantee the debt (money), we should issue it ourselves.
Thanks Larry. Very nice quote by Liu!
>>>> Nobody knows it better than the Fed’s owners.
so which one you two brave ones would dare to look up the ownership of the member banks ? it is public record
Interesting! “the ownership of the member banks ”
Do you have enlightening information in that regard? Lilely there will be other banks and shell-companies or funds of fund of funds – or will they have “real” people as owners there?
There are several thousand member banks, all public companies; these conspiracists who talk so much about the Fed, in 99 years failed to look into it (instead of giving each other hand-jobs, Larry & Migchels could take a look at facts)
What would be “enlightening” is to recognize that the whole entire pension system is dependant on bank profit and interest from government bonds….. it would be very enlightening if we found out that pension funds own more shares in banks than Rothschild or Goldman; just as it is enlightening that pension funds hold fully one half of U.S. bonds (more than any of the money power guys)
In Canada there is always howler when the chartered banks announce their profits, but no one stops to ponder who actually gets those profits (millionaires or recepients of government cheques)
The “end the Fed” slogan obviously does not mean to imply to end all these member banks, only to end their organization
Migchels passes gas through his face about usury, but fails to reckon how much socialist programmes are entangled in and dependent on revenue from usury
Oh, I realize that full well Name. The Usury seeps through several layers all the way to the top. A whole system is based on the fundamental lie. To give the illusion that everybody shares in the bounties of interest. Which is indeed a total illusion, when the whole becomes transparent.
As i said elsewhere, the disease is being spread, and now the whole population is infected; and I am still the only one on this blog without a bank account and credit card
Frankly I even doubt that withdrawing the savings of the lower 80% would really threaten the banks. Why? Reserve requirements for some UK banks are already 1 to infinity – there are even motions to do the same in the US. The banking families could remain the sole depositors and the scam would continue. All the while debt payments would still have to be made by the conned.
Not having any debts is a good thing. Not using the banking system – well if you manage without it – good for you! But again – I do not believe that we could effectively crash the system by withdrawing money. It would currently be a tool of protest as mass demonstrations are a bit – but unfortunately not more.
points:
a) it would be a matter of principle, not to go into parnership (by opening an account); those who have bank accounts and credit cards have no moral basis to complain about banks
b) the whole pension programme is built on (one-third or one-quarter) a permanent and increasing national debt, and on dividends from these Rothschild-affiliated banks……
c) the two big-talking gasbags (Larry & Migchels) should put their money where they fart, and look into and show who owns the fed; so far copy&paste and hot air is the sum total of their ability
======
Oh, bytehway, Alberta social crediters finally put the gear in thier ass and uploaded a good amount of history:—
http://www.aberhartfoundation.ca/Pages/Premier.htm
Ay ay – you are entering thin ice there. No one who is aware of how the financial markets work believes in that gold-bug-fairy-tale that the FED itself makes trillions of dollars. Any trader could tell you that if he simply knew what the FED does would make him a trillionaire within a couple of years. Nevermind the liquidity control that the FED can provide the banks!
The ownership structure of the regional FED banks are the corresponding banks, which according to your doctrine now are owned by the people since they are owned by funds – pension funds only some of those. Anyone in the investment banking industry knows that the biggest earner in the fund industry are simply the managing of money and the super-high-net-worth individuals.
Now with all due respect – you certainly don’t bring up the infamous “widows-and-orphans depend-on-the-dividend-and-interest-income-issue”? That is one of the scam sales tactics of the industry since decades!
Besides – the real big honchos started hiding their ownership structure over 100 years ago. The only reason we know some of the family names so well is that they were so tremendously wealthy in their own name before the big “disappearence” of their wealth – Rothschild, Rockefeller. I.e. I am sure that the humble billionaire Gates will end up being barely a billionaire by “giving away” his wealth to the fund that he and his family will somehow end up controlling afterwards anyway.
A lot has changed since 1914:
http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publication-series/?id=605
but the intrepid ones could take a look at how things are in 2012
If and when we go into partnership with bankers, we all are on thin ice; no, i do not bring up the orphans, if only widows and orphans got a cheque, that would be hardly a problem; I am just pointing out that: leave the bankers alone, look into the mirror
no bank could exist without people opening bank accounts, no creditcard company …. without people applying for VISA ……
Do you know what they paid for the stock? The FED pays 6% dividends per year, I’d be interested to know what that costs the taxpayer!
Why would anyone with an avatar of Hank Paulson fret about the devastating effect that dividends on top compound interest has on the American public? Wasn’t Paulson the one that extorted all the bailouts from the taxpayers to rescue all of his insolvent drunken sailor domestic and foreign member banks? He also used his office as treasurer to destroy Lehman brothers by denying them bailouts, to benefit his former employer Goldman Sachs. These are the sorts of people Name defends and admires.
>>>>Henry C.K. Liu explained “Sovereign credit can finance an economy in which unemployment is unknown, with wages constantly rising to provide consumer buying power to prevent production overcapacity. A vibrant economy is one in which there is persistent labor shortages that push up wages to reduce overcapacity.”
This, of course, is just a class-room computer model. It may feel good for your clitoris; but how would it work in reality ? a merrygoround with ever increasing speed until the chain of constantly increasing wages and prices snaps and customers fly away in all directions ?
It works like this… the nation issues its own currency instead of borrowing (renting) it from a private banking cartel. Interest free. It is solely the credit and collateral of individual borrowers and the nation and that endows the money with value – interest need not be charged.
When it comes to a sovereign nation, credit is money. The amount of money is only limited by the productive capacity of the people and the intelligent use of natural and man made resources. The nation builds the national wealth instead of a national debt.
Again, I’ll refer to Henry C.K. Lui:
If people want to borrow money, they should be able to do so but at interest free terms. They are the citizens that back the money and it should be a as a public service to make new money accessible to all wanting and worthy borrowers. Transaction and service fees would apply to make lending viable and profitable for private and public lending institutions.
But the state should never owe anyone or any entity!
I read most of the comments and not sure to laugh or cry.
None of you knowledgeable seems to accept the power of us Moneylenders.We have perfected the art from 1694 or even before that.
The Torah, Bible Koran and other religions condemn usury, there fore its correct to say that we have been at it from the time Jesus kicked us out of the Temples.
We have ENSLAVED you all from cradle to grave/
”None is more enslaved than those who hopelessly believe that they are free” Goethe
So if you all are looking for equitable non violent solution trust us Moneylenders to offer it.Forget all the other pundits, waste of time.
Solution
Interest Free Loans issued by a publicly owned Central Bank for productive purposes only.
As the term implies Loans are paid back and cancelled.Money Supply remains constant Nil Inflation.Its self regulatory and no need for quangos to monitor.
Private Banks
They are free to operate and lend money of depositors at what ever rate of interest for all other purposes.Depositors take the risk and reap the benefits.
It’s important to remember the moment you hand over your money to banks it belongs to them to do what ever they wish.
So if some one wishes to purchase a jet or a private luxury auto, or a luxury house etc, they are welcome to arrange with the private lenders to do so, at what ever rate of interest and if the depositors benefit from it good luck
As long as the tax payers are not expected to bail them out when they all go belly up.
If you all think you can take us on you all are living in a cloud coo co land,we will decimate you all and destroy you all, so the above solution is acceptable, so no one gets hurt.
Take note, toxins are in the air we breathe and the water we drink, in the walls of our homes and the furniture within them.”
Now very few countries have taken us on and won, but we will get at them sooner than later.
”Who control the food supply, controls the people
Who controls the energy can control the whole continent.
Who controls the money supply controls the world.” Kissinger and we moneylenders do all that.
Please notify me of any responses to the above messages I forget to tick the ”Notify box”
>>>>Credit drives the economy, not debt.
No; credit drives a bubble, no matter who circulates it
Neither Ellen, nor Margrit, nor Migchels, nor Lucy Liu, nor Larry Leech ever read the letters of the great financier; nor did they ever bother to look up how the credit system and credit currency operated in real life; nonetheless they are parroting the suggestions and proposals of long dead giants of monetary world
“The whole world is, as it were, standing still for want of means. There is not half enough money in the world to supply the new developement of speculation; and the possibility of supplying this want so as to keep pace with the spirit of the age –do you understand me, boy?– is what employs my mind day and night. The difficulty of getting money has always appeared to me a great defect in the scheme of Providence, and were that only got over, man would be all but omnipotent. I believe this to be possible, and have a sort of dim conception working its way in my brain, which, if I can only bring it to maturity, will produce the greatest revolution that has happened in the world since the deluge, and relieve mankind from that cruel denunciation that he should earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, which always gives me an ague whenever I hear it from the pulpit.”
not to worry, the apostle of credit as currency managed to bring to maturity his faint conception:
“Can any one after this doubt for a single moment the perfection of my Credit System ? Can any man that loves his country or his species, refrain from joining with me in denouncing the Specie Circular, the Specie Humbug, the Infamous Scheme, and the tissue of blundering ignorance exhibited by our outlandish Administration ? But for these I might have gone on accumulating “responsibilities” and spending money like dirt, to the end of my life, and what if my debts had increased all that time ? It would only have been a few hundred thousand dollars more issues of paper money, by some body or other, and the vacuum would have been supplied. This is the great beauty of my system. It works by an infinite series, as it were, and there is only one trifling thing wanting, namely, that there should be all debtors, and no creditors, in the world.
“I don’t despair of bringing this about, when, as will certainly be the case a couple or three years hence, our ignorant outlandish Administration is replaced by my disciples of the Credit System. Then shall we see the age of Internal Improvements, unexampled exquisite refinement, and unlimited public prosperity, for then will every body owe and nobody pay; then will the wealth of the nation, like that of England, be demonstrated by the amount of its debt; then will the true Agrarian principle be in practical operation, for a man who borrows a hundred thousand dollars will be as rich as the one that lends it; and then there will be no occasion for a bottom to the sea, for the whole world will be adrift on its surface.”
—Migchels himself couldn’t have phrased better than the real source of his finagled wisdom and bright ideas: unexampled, exquisite refinement, unlimited prosperity
Why is it not surprising that all these 21st century monetary reformists are singing the tunes that were composed by the President of the Bank of the United States 180 years ago ?
Most people fear alternatives like the zeitgeist movement because they have been so trained and indoctrinated into the money system it has become part of their very identity..the sickness is profound and has been normalized by generations and most people have not the once of personal integrity to resist it.
Zeitgeist is full of shit. Scientific dictatorship presented as a mix of old-style communism with elements of New Age for the new generation airheads. But their attack on religion was somewhat worthy, in that “addendum”.
Zeitgeist attack is full of historical inaccuracies and specious reasoning too. The film Zeitgiest Debunked is worth a view http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7GgWOi4SQM
That film only “debunked” the religion issue which was brought up by Zeitgeist in a completely useless and unproductive manner. It only alienated many people to it. No matter whether you are an Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jew or New Ager – in my opinion it does not matter what you believe in – it matters how you live – with love, compassion, understanding, fairness – adhering to the most basic laws as stated by Richard J Maybury:
1. Do all you have agreed to do
2. Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
Of course there may be “exceptional” religions like Luciferism and certain Jewish faiths which basically break all the laws above, then at least they have to remain secret until they rule completely.
Apart from the religion issue Zeitgeist correctly addresses the money issue, the issue of technological unemployment, debunks correctly eugenics and also shows some real alternatives and technologies.
Their solutions again are a bit naive and foolish. People will always need some kind of leadership – the selection process is just mindboggingly stupid right now. And there is also no need for people to live in standardized cities, as money- and technology reform would allow us to spread so thin on this planet that everyone could have a huge park as a garden.
And getting rid of money altogether is in my opinion a matter of technological development. We could probably achieve it within 25-50 years – of course first there would need to be a liberating money reform and an ensuing technological liberation. With enough technological advancement there is simply no need to pay someone to do something he does not like to do.
The scarcity of money/rescources gives you power over other people, so a certain part of mankind will always strive for it.
It was only the religous portion to which i was refering.
Agreed, another 11th hour pretender wanting to eradicate money entirely would just eliminate our means of representation, entitlement and exchange. Far too many take bsgeist seriously.
Reblogged this on Recovering Austrians.
Who owns the non-Federal no-Reserve Cartel?
The easy answer is the member banks – all own a stake with the New York Branch (Wall Street Investment Banks) controlling over 50% of the stock.
The Money Matrix – Who Owns the FED
The U.S. Government owns no stake and has no say though it is them, and its citizens who back up every Federal Reserve Note circulated.
Who controls the Fed?
Policy is implemented primarily through:
Federal Open Market Committee
The Plunge Protection Team
The Board of Governors
Primary Bond Dealers
The BIS… Joan Veon When Central Banks Rule the World Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEJdeWvGIZU
Note: This is in response to questions below requesting more info on the Fed’s ownership & control. Joan Veon’s video series does an excellent job of putting things in perspective.
See Joan Veon
We do not request further information –and your copy&paste from others who also never checked out who owns the fed system, does not provide information in that regard. What i said –which flew miles over your head– was that Larry the leech and Migchels is no source of information on the fed; Larry the leech has nothing to offer, other than copy and paste and fart through his face
Show the ownership list of just one member bank in Pitsburg; the one in which you are partner through your account —of course you can’t, it is beneath your dignity to do some actual work
Ending the Fed would just create precedence for a one world currency.
impossibly pessimistic. if you break your chains you will only be punished
quoting the article: “Libertarianism defends every degeneracy known to man: feminism, homosexuality (including same-sex marriage), abortion, pornography, drug abuse, mass immigration…”
now see here, i happen to be an immigrant feminist gay porn star who likes his weed and i find all that talk a little, typically american, far shifted to the right. degeneracy? that’s hitler talking. lighten up. women are VASTLY superior to men, and should take the power. the sky dosen’t fall down if a man snogs a man. despite the grotesque medical sounding latin name, pornography at it’s best is just pictures of pretty girls that men adore, like train spotting (or if you like, locomography). jesus liked his weed, but the (far shifted to the right) vatican had the audacity to remove that from the bible, but left wine in (italy is a big wine producer. go figure). finally, we are all african immigrants, so naaaah!
i agree that ron paul and alex jones are controled opposition (notice how jonesy NEVER mentions zionism except when back pedalling if criticised about that. really suspect), but it’s new to me that “end the fed” is a trojan, although i had heard the “occupy” movement is a george soross thing, so, great article.
final point. when i was younger, i noticed that all the creepy american power characters on telly, who i called the “problem americans” had german names. being british i put this down to the “bloody germans” and left it at that. since then i have realised that these are people who adopted german names but were not german. none of these “problem americans” have semitic / arabic faces, but are all caucasian and khazars. instead of talking about jews, or even zionists, maybe it would be more effective to focus on the real problem, the khazars.
The real problem is you. It’s me. It’s everyone thinking they’re not personally responsible for all the poverty in the world. Civilization just doesn’t work for everybody. It’s a mathematical fact. This isn’t a value judgment, it’s just the way it is.
some of us are more equally responsible than others.
If what you’re saying , more or less, is that people who want more equality aren’t any better than those who want less equality(though they’ll never admit it), I can really relate, more or less. In the immortal words of Karl Marx referring to the ten planks of communism – “These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be applicable…”
Very interesting,as a newcomer it does seem to me that debt is the big problem,and correct me if I am wrong but money is literally debt,so for more money to be created there has to be more debt,this must mean this system is unsustainable and the interest is the problem but credit in the form of fractional reserve lending still does not seem right,would that not have to be abolished too?
I recommend reading this one John:
https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/the-problem-is-not-debt-its-interest-with-video/