"A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
-- John Adams
Many conservatives and Libertarians continue to zealously argue that "our last hope" to restore Liberty in America is an Article V convention. These people are naive and misguided.
Holding an Article V Convention of States, is the worst possible idea, for a vast number of reasons.
First and foremost is simple logic. The driver for this is the notion that the federal government ignores the Constitution's intent to limit federal power and authority. It thus continually neuters the citizenry of our authority over our own lives, and circumvents all of the Constitution's protections of individual unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
So, if the current Federal and State Governments ignore the Constitution as it is written and ratified, why should anyone believe that our impeccably honest and disciplined elected government employees will suddenly start respecting The Constitution once it's been changed?
The point is that neither the Federal, nor our State and Local governments obey the Constitution. So why would State Legislatures have any interest in changing it in any way other than to make it fit their pattern of disobedience, in order to validate and posthumously legalize their misdeeds? [rhetorical question]
In other words - the only way the government would actually respect the Constitution, is if the document is changed to instead legalize all of the heretofore Unconstitutional acts which Government has been perpetrating until now, to thereby validate and sanitize their century-long history of malfeasance.
Can anyone with even half a functioning brain actually believe that elected members of state governments, are any less corrupt than those residing in The Federal Government ? --- [Rhetorical Question].
America has been systematically and surreptitiously transformed into the current fascist-socialist system under which we all suffer - by the very same people in our State and Local governments who would be running this convention. To believe that an Article V Convention would actually result in any positive restoration of property rights, individual freedom and sovereignty, is hopelessly naïve, and very dangerous.
It's just common sense to understand that since no federal, state, or local government in the US will follow the law of the land -- it will do absolutely no good to change those laws which all of the corrupt layers of our governance already violate at every turn.
And that's not even the half of it ...
There is no established process for conducting a Convention of States.
Imagine someone told you that they could "improve you" by re-engineering your DNA. They tell you that they will follow a vague "procedure" that not only had never been tried before, but which consisted in making up the actual procedure as they went along. They tell you further that not only were the results not guaranteed but that there was a very real probability, that, while tinkering with your DNA, they might change something other than what you’d discussed – and such change would then be irreversible (the law of unintended consequences).
This alone should inspire you to question the wisdom in pursuing this dangerous idea.
Furthermore, the practical aspects are ALWAYS IGNORED by celebrity zealots like Mark Levin. His book, “The Liberty Amendments” has received a great deal of attention. It does indeed have a lot of great ideas about what HE THINKS we should do to save America, but go ahead and ASK HIM HOW, in detail, such a convention would work to implement his proposals for new amendments. He doesn't know. In fact, there exist no detailed rules or procedures on how such a convention would be conducted. It may be authorized by Article V, but no one knows how to do it - and when you have 34 US States all trying to cooperate on a process that has never been defined - it will be chaos. And furthermore, Levin’s proposals aren’t the only ones out there. There are at least as many if not more Marxist Liberals who also have proposals for amending The Constitution. Their ambitions are not to restore Liberty, but to dismantle the last vestiges of it in order to make room for their depraved Marxist ideology.
What would the composition of a convention of states look like? Would every state get a single representative? Would votes be apportioned according to population with larger states getting more? We don’t know. And how would delegates be chosen? Election? Appointment? Lottery? We don’t know, and neither does Mark Levin. Would the convention be obliged to produce an amendment on a discrete issue or set of issues (only a term limits amendment? only a balanced budget amendment? both ?)?
Would this "convention of State Legislatures" be free to rewrite the country’s DNA as it saw fit (enshrining single-sex marriage, replacing the Second Amendment with the terms of the UN Arms Control Treaty? Let’s bring back the Equal Rights Amendment while we're at it, and force Christian taxpayers to finance abortions for 14 year old's without their parents' consent. And do either the states or the Congress even have the power to tell a convention what it cannot do? We don’t know. Would States in an Article V Convention be prohibited for example, from re-writing the Bill of Rights and perhaps eliminating the Second Amendment altogether ? NO ONE KNOWS.
However -- Here is what I DO KNOW:
If our Federal, State, and Local governments ALREADY FOLLOWED THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION as it is written and ratified today - we would not have a Federal Reserve Fiat Money System (a violation of Article 1), A Social Security Administration, a tax on Labor Compensation garnished from our wages by every employer in America as a condition of being in business ( a violation of numerous sections including - the 16th amendment), we would not have property taxes on our principal residential homes (a violation of the 5th amendment), there would not be any state law which infringes on the keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) of arms ( a violation of the 2nd and 10th amendments); we would not have a patriot act, a national defense authorization act, Obamacare, a Department of Education and Common Core, ... and on and on and on. The list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL acts which both the Federal Government and all State governments have perpetrated against we the people, is far too long a list to include here. It would require several volumes of text.
How many times must I repeat the logic against it? Federal, State, and Local governments do not respect the Constitution as it is written today. Why on Earth would anyone believe that a “new and improved” Constitution be respected instead? Those who want that new Constitution to restore limits to government power are fools to believe that the wolves guarding the hen house, will suddenly place a lock on the hen house door of their own volition.
How about we the people stand up to our State and Federal governments in a show of force to "COMPEL THEM TO FIRST FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION WE ALREADY HAVE," before giving all of the corrupt State Legislatures in this country the impetus to revise it?
Calling for a Convention of States will more than likely give them to license to instead - adapt the Constitution to our already inherently corrupt Socialist model that they are currently following. In fact, the criminal cabal in charge of these state governments have every reason to do so, as they can then validate all of the illegal actions they have been taking for generations.
I happen to agree with a lot of what Mark Levin says on his radio show, and he has written some outstanding books on Freedom and America's founding principles --- but "The Liberty Amendments" is NOT one of them. Yet millions of his radio listeners, instead of thinking objectively, run around regurgitating whatever he says without considering the deeper implications.
This genius idea is to let the same political scumbags in our state legislatures who have been disobeying the existing Constitution for generations - be given the authority to write us a new one?
Are you people freaking insane?
Do you all really want to tell all of the self-serving corrupt state legislatures in this country to get together, and transform the Constitution into a new document that finally conforms to all of the egregious criminal acts that the states and feds have been subjecting us to for the past 3 or 4 generations? Go ahead -- tell all of these state politicians that you are in favor of them amending the Constitution with new mandates, that wind up validating all of the illegal and formerly unconstitutional bullshit they have been doing to us for nearly a century.
The Article V convention of States language in The Constitution is the following:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress…
What is equally important, is what this does NOT say. It says not a single word expressly authorizing the states, Congress, or some combination of the two to confine the subject matter of a convention. It says not a single word about whether Congress, in calculating whether the requisite 34 states have called for a convention, must (or must not) aggregate calls for a convention on, say, a balanced budget, with separate and differently worded calls arising from related or perhaps even unrelated topics. It says not a single word prescribing whether the make-up of a convention (as many conservatives imagine) will be one-state-one-vote (as Alaska and Wyoming might hope) or whether states with larger populations should be given larger delegations (for which the bastions of Marxist Socialism - California and New York - will surely argue).
And suppose the Congress, or perhaps the Supreme Court will then get to resolve these questions—the same Congress and Supreme Court that the process is aimed at doing the end run around? If the Supreme Court resolves them, does it do so only at the very end of the process, after years of national debate have been spent in devising amendments that we find out after the fact were not generated in proper form?
Justice Burger once described the entire process as “a grand waste of time.” One reason is that after advocates get the process rolling by convincing 34 of the States (itself a fairly challenging number) the amendments that emerge from a convention do not get ratified unless 38 of states ratify - an even more demanding number.
And for those who continue to spew the nonsense that critics don’t understand the concept of Federalism – listen up and listen good. Career politicians at the State and Local level, are no less corrupt and power-mongering than those at the Federal level. In fact, most of those State and Local parasites view their posts as nothing more than an “entry level” stepping stone toward becoming Federal parasites in the future. There are very few if any State Legislators who don't covet a step up to the US Congress or Senate. Do you really believe these people would give you a new Constitution that further limits the power of the Federal Government to which these career politicians aspire to ascend? It's sheer idiocy, given the fact that our current Constitution already should be limiting Federal power to an extent that hasn't been seen in 3 generations.
Whether in spending programs, regulations, subsidies - you name it - almost every big expansion of federal power has been skillfully designed as a deal that cuts state political elites into some of the resulting flow of power and money. Consider, for example, how state education, police, road, and environmental departments have come to depend on Washington’s largesse. There is no way in hell the States are going to tie a tourniquet around the Federal Teat on which they have been suckling for decades.
Yes, the federal government ignores its constitutional bounds, yes, the Supreme Court treats the law of the land as something more akin to a “non-binding letter of intent,” and yes, that’s infuriating. Just don’t confuse a plan for talking, which is what a convention of states really is, with a plan for actually changing things for the better. A Convention of States is most likely to be a cure that will kill the patient.
We must restore The Constitution we have now, not rewrite it and risk winding up with something that instead gives legal authority and validation to the corrupt sociopaths in charge – the same sociopaths who have been ignoring the existing constitution for generations. The Best chance for "we the people" is not to change the Constitution - but to Change the entire House and Senate. We must ROUT Congress and replace almost everyone there with new blood - candidates who understand that we have had enough, and demand new representation by people who will RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION, and not continue to treat it as a dead letter.
by F. A. Grieger – Author of Chase The Rabbit.
When people spew nonsense like “taxes are theft,” they really have no idea what they’re saying.
Yes, you read that right - I said "nonsense." Anyone who knows me is now scratching their head. As someone who finds most taxes abhorrent and immoral, I say this with conviction. Many taxes are for the most part, NOT theft (while some taxes are in fact - criminal).
Before I lead you down the rabbit hole - let me qualify my meaning with a few examples.
Consumption tax - such as sales tax for example - is not theft because it is voluntary. You can choose what you buy, or whether to buy something at all. You can choose whether or not to use a toll road or take the long way home. You choose how frugal or wasteful you are. You therefore have some choice in the matter. That’s not theft.
“Income” tax (as defined by the US Supreme Court in 1913 - and again in 1920 - when levied against capital gains or a dividend on a stock), although I consider it distasteful, is also technically not theft, because this was authorized by the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution. I wish it hadn’t been, but my wishing does not make it “illegal.”
However - what a Constitutional Amendment SAYS and MEANS - versus how it is applied by our government - are not necessarily one and the same. More on this later.
Here's one that is always good for a chuckle: "How would we pay for roads and bridges without an income tax?"
Answer: Roads and bridges have never been financed with income taxes - they are financed with state and federal taxes levied on gasoline and diesel sales, as well as commercial road-use taxes. Again - these are all consumption taxes - and therefore - not theft.
And here's where we "chase the rabbit" down the hole ...
My all-time favorite --- Labor Compensation Tax (on wages, salaries, and tips). This is also not theft ...
BECAUSE IT IS CRIMINAL EXTORTION...
... and in this author’s humble opinion, the magnitude of a crime matters. And indeed, "we the people" are being fleeced of our earnings by a vast organized criminal syndicate of Biblical proportions.
Petty theft is a misdemeanor, while extortion – well – that’s a felony. In fact extortion when performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization is called a RICO felony. RICO stands for “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties (life imprisonment) and a civil cause of action against the perpetrators.
Given this definition, every employee of the IRS, and Federal Government, whether elected or appointed, who took an oath to “uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” is in violation of multiple federal crimes including RICO felonies, perpetrated against every citizen who has reported and paid a tax on their wages, salaries, or tips.
The fact that the 16th Amendment authorized the government to tax income - BUT NOT LABOR COMPENSATION - is what escapes the understanding of almost everyone in this country. People don’t grasp this because for several generations now, the term “income” has been conflated with labor compensation (wages, salaries, tips), qua – your paycheck – such that virtually everyone has accepted that income – and labor compensation – are interchangeable.
I assure you they are not - and The United States Supreme Court has said so - several times.
Compensation - is not Income, and the Supreme Court held this principle in the 1913 case Stratton's Independence -V- Howbert; as well as in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920). The court’s decisions in both cases held that income was defined as "a gain on corporate activity." This would constitute a capital gain on the re-sale of a good for a profit, or a dividend paid from stock ownership. In other words - money which you acquired without having to trade your time and labor. The word "income" itself, suggests it is "money coming in," without anything else going out (i.e. - a net gain).
When you work for a wage or salary – you are providing a service to the employer. In this case, you are in fact trading “a piece of your life” in return for the money you are paid. That’s a piece of your life you can NEVER – EVER get back.
Consider this concept from a more personal perspective. Imagine that you are at the end of your life. You are lying on a cold slab looking up at your loved ones who have come to see you off to the afterlife - if there is such a thing. You know that these are your last moments on earth. Never again will you see your children, be able to play with your grandchildren, or share the love of your family. Never again will you enjoy the warmth of a beautiful sunset. You have at most a few hours left before the eternal sleep. Once you cross that threshold, you will never be able to come back. Before tomorrow your only mortal life, the most precious gift you will have ever received will be gone—forever.
How much would you pay to have one more day? What is one day of your finite life worth?
When you trade that precious day of your life, for some money – that money becomes your property.
And America's founding was based on a respect for an individual's right to their own life, their own liberty, and their own property. Your labor - is your property. Furthermore, Labor Compensation is NOT a gain - because it is an equivalent value – to the piece of your life you sacrifice in return for the payment - thus the term - compensation. When you trade some hours of your life in return for some money from an employer - you and the employer have agreed that the value of your labor and life given up - are EQUIVALENT TO - the money you are paid. Neither party in that transaction has gained anything - it is an even Trade. This is not "income," because no "net money" came in. That is why the Framers of the Constitution - as well as the Congress which was duped into passing the 16th amendment - did NOT consider or intend that Labor Compensation EVER be taxable – even under the then understood definition of income and its application to the 16th.
Furthermore - the Article 1 provisions explicitly PROHIBIT Capitation. Capitation is a "head tax" or a "tax on your head." It is a tax for existing - a tax on your life. By extension - a tax on your time and labor is a tax on "part of your life," which is simply "partial capitation." Capitation (whether partial or full) remains prohibited by Article 1, and was not authorized by the 16th Amendment. Anyone with any sense of value, understands that taxing an individual for their life, or for part of their life, is fundamentally unethical. That is why – it is also – Unconstitutional.
That's right - the tax imposed on the American people's LABOR - by our Federal Government, is in DIRECT violation of the meaning and intent of US Constitution, EVEN UNDER THE 16th AMENDMENT. And it ALWAYS has been.
Unfortunately for “we the people,” trying to escape the Unconstitutional Labor tax and then arguing this principle in a court – regardless of its veracity - will still land you in prison if you don't pay what they demand. That is why when people say something like "income taxes (as misapplied by our government) are theft," - I immediately differ. It is NOT THEFT -- IT IS EXTORTION - and to repeat myself - the magnitude of the crime matters.
We all know that criminals don't obey the law - thus the term "criminal." Remember earlier when I wrote ... what a Constitutional Amendment SAYS and MEANS - versus how it is applied by our government - are not necessarily one and the same. ?
Clearly, when the government is run by criminals, we shouldn't expect them to follow the law of the land - the US Constitution - and indeed - they don't.
Irwin Allen Schiff was an American tax protester known for having published several books in which he demonstrated that the income tax in the United States (as it is deliberately misapplied in violation of the meaning of the 16th amendment) is illegal and unconstitutional. In protest, he tried to apply these principles to his own refusal to file tax returns and was imprisoned. He eventually died there – a political prisoner of the United States Internal Revenue Service.
The Unwitting Conscripts
What is even more insidious is that neither the IRS nor the Federal Government collect taxes from you.
Your employer does.
Every business in the United States has been conscripted by the US government to be its tax-collection agent as a condition of being in business. This too amounts to extortion. Furthermore, every one of us must agree to have our wage or salary garnished by our employer on behalf of the government as a condition of employment.
Think long and hard about this next bit: Every business is required to spend enormous resources in time and manpower just to process withholding from their employees’ wages on behalf of the IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and state and local tax authorities. None of these government agencies ever reimburse US companies for spending their own resources on acting as their tax enforcement agents. Companies are forced to garnish your wages and administer the collections at their own expense - solely for the government’s benefit.
Feeding the Beast
Businesses therefore have no choice but to account for their cost of compliance as part of their overhead. They must then pass those costs on to their customers in the price of every product or service they sell. Therefore, with every purchase you make, with every [after-tax] dollar spent, you are funding the government’s costs incurred in confiscating your own hard-earned money. And "we the people" consent to this? It is like being stopped by a mugger in the street and then willingly handing him a loaded gun with which he will proceed to rob you … with your consent. We are unwittingly feeding the beast that is bent on destroying us (or enslaving us—which are synonymous). By this standard - every employer in America is acting as the Government's "enforcer" in their illegal extortion tax scheme. It is a Mafia-Style "protection racket" of biblical proportions.
But this is only the very teeny weeny tip of a vast economic iceberg, intent on sinking the ship called “The American Dream.” So let’s take a trip down the rabbit hole, and learn why America is not anything like what you have been taught.
“They call it the American Dream … because you have to be asleep to believe it.” --- George Carlin
The 16th Amendment, and The Federal Reserve Act were both passed in 1913 – by the same Congress, and then signed into law by the same president – Woodrow Wilson.
This is NOT a coincidence.
Did Wilson make this statement because he suddenly realized the ramifications of what he had done or to mask his foregone knowledge of it and therefore claim innocence in the matter in an attempt to sanitize and protect his legacy? Was Wilson truly unwitting in his participation in the ruin of his country as he claims?
Prior to seeking the US presidency, Wilson had been the president of Princeton University and was the first doctorate-level academic elected as president of the United States. Could a man of such a prestigious education truly have been so naïve, so obtuse, so extraordinarily stupid?
Whenever we look back in history on those events where government elites have imposed some destructive policy designed to obliterate the intent of The Constitution, the pattern is the same. The officials responsible pretend to have been hapless innocent bystanders that were unknowingly duped along with the rest of their countrymen. Politicians hoping to escape blame for their deliberate ruinous actions almost always hide behind the notion that world events are driven by some inexplicable tide of history. This may be true for natural disasters but not for the social conflict that politicians deliberately instigate. There is always a cause and effect, and the ruling class has had thousands of years to figure out how to cheat the peasants out of their hard-earned wealth and their hard-won freedom. When highly educated and well-connected government officials feign innocence by playing dumb, one should be exceedingly skeptical of their sincerity.
We have long witnessed the destructive consequences of this deliberate, surreptitious, and incremental eradication of our property rights. We see it in the heavy price we pay for the continually increasing economic uncertainty and inefficiencies of our current system. We see it as public entitlement benefits continue to grow at the expense of those from whom those resources are plundered. We incrementally slide further and further to a point of total servitude by debt and taxes.
America’s founders went to extraordinary lengths and bore enormous personal risk in order to secure our freedom. It is a painful irony they thus set the stage for us to finally eradicate hundreds of years of British Colonial physical slavery that was imposed upon a small portion of the population - only to have it replaced with debt slavery imposed upon the entire population.
The Federal Reserve System is neither federal, nor does it have any reserves. It is a central bank which - in direct violation of Article 1 of the US Constitution - has been authorized by Congress to issue Fiat currency - a debt instrument - as legal tender in the US Monetary system. The Constitution however had guaranteed to the American people a system of Sound Money (the opposite of Fiat money). This is because only sound money is compatible with the Free Enterprise Economic model we generally refer to as “Capitalism.” It was Karl Marx who in 1848 wrote in his Communist Manifesto that one of the cornerstones of Communism is a central bank controlled system of fiat money issued as “credit” (or debt – which to a banker are synonymous).
The reason for this is that a debt-based money system - ensures that you cannot have control over your property - when all property is valued and denominated in that debt instrument - it is controlled by the lender, not the borrower. Every Federal Reserve Note ever created - is a debt - owed back to the central bank that issued it - in our case - The Federal Reserve. That's not the only example of how your property rights have been eradicated. Just refuse to pay the extortion tax on your home (property tax) - and then you'll find out who REALLY owns it.
You see, by the beginning of the 20th century, every industrialized nation on Earth – Germany, France, The United States, Britain, etc., operated their monetary systems on a gold or precious metal standard (the only true sound money). This of course was a thorn in the side of the Bolsheviks, whose ambition it was to dominate the planet with their degenerate Socialist notions that your life and labor belong to the State (or more correctly those in charge of the State Bank), and not to you. To eradicate individualism and the possibility for freedom and liberty – they had to make this system go away – EVERYWHERE – so they could replace it with Marx’s Utopian vision for equal misery and abject global slavery.
At the time, the most industrially advanced, and wealthiest nation with one of the three largest gold supplies on Earth, was Germany. The real enemy of Communism and collectivism however was the United States and her free society protected by our unique Constitution. The Marxists knew this had to be done in manageable steps. While Bolshevik revolutionaries were jockeying for power in Russia, with an ambition for violent revolutionary change, a quieter and more subdued “social movement” was taking place in Great Britain. The Fabian Socialists of England who had embraced Marx’s perverse ideology, did not believe in the Lenin-model of violent revolutionary overthrow. Their modus operandi was much slower, painstaking, systematic, and surreptitious. Their idea was to corrupt the money, and the culture, and then allow the society to descend into Marxist Socialism unwittingly on its own. Their deceitful tactics are well known. They were proud of it. Their official symbol is today emblazoned on a stained glass window at the King's College Museum of Cambridge University - their original meeting place.
The symbol - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.
The Fabian principle has been successfully applied here in the United States generations ago. Our version of the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, is our Marxist Socialist Economy - which has been disguised and deliberately mislabeled as "American Capitalism."
One of the Fabians' more famous founders was George Bernard Shaw. Under his sponsorship, economist and “unofficial” Fabian member - John Maynard Keynes - achieved prominence in Britain and became the then youngest ever - head of the British Treasury.
To start their evil process of securing global domination and control of the world's means of production, the bankers had to first destroy every sound-money based economy on Earth. Their first target of destruction was pre-WW-I Germany – her wealth, her industrial might, her powerful and disciplined military, and most of all, her vast gold reserves. By sponsoring the assassination of the Austrian Archduke during a visit to Yugoslavia, they would knowingly drag the Reich into the First World War. This would enable the Zionist Rothschilds and their ilk to not only profit from their financing of the resulting conflagration, but would achieve a major step toward dismantling the industrial world’s gold-backed economy to make room for their deceitful and unscrupulous system of centrally controlled usury - Central Banking.
Interestingly, it doesn’t take much research to connect the dots on the most pivotal events of the 20th century, and what they all have in common. The historical continuum from just before the First World War, the war itself, The Versailles Treaty, the Bolshevik Revolution, the resultant economic destruction of Germany and the Weimar hyperinflation, the US Great Depression, the rise of the Nazis, WW-II, Bretton-Woods, and Nixon’s eventual rescinding of Bretton-Woods in 1971 – ALL of these events are connected. Most disturbing, is that they are connected by a singular purpose, and also by one man.
It might be useful to note here, that All wars - are Bankers' wars.
The purpose – to destroy any remnant of a sound (gold-backed) monetary standard, in any industrialized country.
The man - John Maynard Keynes.
Keynes was the most influential “economist” of the 20th century (I use the term economist loosely in his regard), The architect of the economic terms of the Versailles Treaty, The head of Britain’s Treasury, The author of many of The Fabian Socialist Society’s manuscripts, and along with convicted Communist Spy – Harry Dexter White – The principal architect of the Bretton-Woods Agreement which created the World Bank, and the IMF. Yes, this one man was all of those - the guiding light that has misled the entire world down the Fiat money pit.
Keynes was an admitted pedophile and degenerate. This is the man whose perverse ideas have been embraced by dozens of Nobel Prize winning so-called "economists," like Paul Krugman - the "mastermind" behind the "Trillion Dollar Coin" idea. Keynes and his depraved disciples led the entire world down the self-destructive path on which every industrialized country on Earth now finds itself.
To ignite the fire of Marxist Socialism on a global basis, any remnant of Free Enterprise Capitalism had to first be extinguished. The shining beacon on the hill – The United States of America – was the ultimate target, but the Fabian Marxists understood that America would have to fall LAST. Germany thus became the first victim of the Marx / Keynes plot to corrupt every formerly free and sovereign country on Earth. They did this by taking the gold, and impoverishing the people under a mountain of debt. That pattern has been repeated everywhere – in every industrialized country - without exception.
The historical pattern that the vast majority of people have failed to recognize is the principle which connects the dots on all of these pivotal events of the 20th century and into the 21st -- The deliberate and systematic dismantling of “the precious metal standard” and sound money as the basis for the economy. The intent of the global banking aristocracy, since Marx and his later admirer, J.M. Keynes, has been to systematically de-link the sound money system from every industrialized country – and replace it with a fiat monetary standard - as was exactly Karl Marx's vision. Keynes’s vision – he wrote in numerous essays - was always for a one-world fiat currency, under the control of a one-world government. He had attempted to achieve this already at Bretton-Woods, but failed in lieu of a longer-term more incremental approach that was favored by his colleagues (mainly Harry Dexter-White - his American Communist counterpart). That slower approach has today reached its final stage. We are now witnessing the implementation of their “final solution” – the cashless society (see my other article of the same name).
The ultimate purpose was to impoverish and control each country’s respective working class under the debt-slavery imposed by the global Fiat money system.
The respective puppet governments of these industrialized nations (including the USA) have been complicit in this. It is the reason our political class is so intent on surrendering American sovereignty to the UN – a creation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt - FDR – Joseph Stalin’s partner in crime.
Statists benefit from replacing sound money with fiat - because the universal goal of ALL politicians is to expand their power, and expand their governments. They can only accomplish this by being able to DEFICIT SPEND (borrow money without the consent of their citizens). Deficit spending is only made possible under a fiat monetary model. Under a gold standard - not only every individual actor in the economy, but every government and institution - MUST ALL live within their means, and can only borrow within their respective ability to pay back the debt. Such debt cannot be increased arbitrarily. This is the driver behind the corrupt and malignant partnership between Governments and Central Banks.
When you borrow money to buy a house or a car – you are effectively pledging your future labor, as the means with which to repay the debt. When your government borrows money to finance its foreign interventions, its bombing of foreign sovereign countries, its phony wars on drugs or terrorism (which it instigates), that government ALSO pledges YOUR FUTURE LABOR as the means with which to repay that debt. It does so however without your consent. It can because it collects that repayment from you in the form of a tax on your labor (and your life). If you object to this - you lose your freedom and are imprisoned. This constitutes extortion of the highest order. Under a gold monetary standard, this would be impossible for the government on the scale I’m referring to here.
This clearly demonstrates the inextricable link that Marx so cleverly recognized, between a Fiat monetary system and Progressive Taxes. It is the most effective means to destroy individual property rights and implement a Communist dictatorship - almost irreversibly.
Wars on the scale of those fought in the 20th and 21st centuries were only made possible by the power to print money as debt – and then surreptitiously force the citizenry to service that debt with their labor – against their will - conscripted unwittingly through progressive tax policy. Communist dictatorships are well-known for the hundreds of millions of dead they have sacrificed to their cause. This was only made possible by holding the people's money, labor, property, and their lives - hostage.
Both progressive taxes and fiat money are the cornerstones of Marxist Socialism - as was written in the Communist Manifesto. Socialism is defined as “central control of the means of production.” The means of production are land, labor, and resources. Not theirs, but YOUR LAND, YOUR LABOR, and YOUR RESOURCES.
For the government to centrally control something that is yours, it must declare that you don’t really own it. This is why the fundamental difference between Marxist Socialism and Free Enterprise Capitalism has to do with property rights. You cannot sell, trade, or redistribute that which you do not own. Therefore under Socialism – there can be no real property rights.
Free Enterprise Capitalism on the other hand, DEMANDS an absolute respect for individual property rights. This is why a true free enterprise capitalist economy cannot function on an underlying system of fiat money and progressive taxes - they are fully incompatible. They are the two basic tenets of Communism. To eradicate property rights at the base of the economy – the money and the labor must be controlled by the central planners. This is done with debt and taxes. In other words, you cannot have capitalism, without property rights, and you cannot have property rights, without a system of Sound Money.
This was the genius of America's founders - who wove this principal into the fabric of the US Constitution - for the first time in the history of humanity (59 years before Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published their manifesto).
When all money is debt – all property denominated in that debt is by default – controlled by the lender (the issuer).
When a government can threaten you with imprisonment for not paying the tax on your labor or your home – YOU, YOUR LAND, YOUR HOME, YOUR LIFE, and YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES are all controlled by the government. That is how individual property rights are eradicated.
As such, in America – our property and our lives are controlled wholly by The Federal Reserve and the Federal Government respectively through the cancerous partnership they forged in 1913 – with the Federal Reserve Act, and the continually misapplied 16th Amendment. This is “central control of the means of production.” This is Marxist Socialism. This is America - and it's no dream.
This is why fiat money and a progressive tax on labor compensation were and remain, expressly prohibited by the US Constitution (even under the 16th Amendment). Our Congress and Supreme Court’s total disregard for the Constitution notwithstanding, it was that magnificent document which had to be perverted, and manipulated by the charlatans who have deemed it a “living document," so that its protections of individual life, liberty, and property could be subverted and disregarded. This is how America was long ago transformed into the Marxist-Socialist state it is today. Our federal government and its agencies, as well as most of our State governments, are in complete violation of the US Constitution, and have been for generations.
Government of the People - By the People - and For the People ?
Our governing institutions now only attract the same ilk - corrupt career politicians - parasites in form and in motive. They are attracted to "careers" in politics solely in order to have access to power - so that they can abuse it.
Power corrupts, but more importantly - Power Attracts The Corruptible.
This is why the prospects for actually restoring the so-called "American Dream," are rather grim. There is not a person alive today, anywhere on Earth - who has witnessed Free Enterprise Capitalism in practice. The last vestige of that marvelous creation of our founders, was abandoned in 1933, when FDR with the stroke of his fountain pen, abused his "executive order privilege" and confiscated the gold owned by America's citizens, and then outlawed its use as money. Franklin Delano Roosevelt - who referred to his Communist friend Joseph Stalin affectionately as "Uncle Joe," was without a doubt, America's first Communist President. Had he not died in office, he should have been impeached, prosecuted, and hanged for Treason.
If ever there was an American monument or statue that should justifiably be removed and pummeled to dust -- it's this one:
People who vehemently dispute this reality are in denial. They cannot tolerate the painful cognitive dissonance they experience upon hearing these unvarnished truths after generations of indoctrination that America is “capitalist,” or "free."
I assure you, America is nothing of the kind. The corrupt predecessors to our current corrupt government abandoned the free enterprise system and knowingly threw the American people under the bus, long before even my generation was born. I'll repeat it so it finally sinks in:
No country operating on a system of fiat money (The Federal Reserve System) along with a system of Progressive Taxes on labor compensation, can be called "free market," or “capitalist," because such a system is ENGINEERED TO ROB YOU OF YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
The continual dialogue from the left blaming "Evil Capitalism" for our economic dysfunctions such as the wealth gap, the expanding poverty, the skyrocketing costs of living and healthcare etc. - have nothing to do with Capitalism (the system we don't practice). These are the direct consequence of our dysfunctional Socialist economic model. Any reference to America as "capitalist," is simply false-flag propaganda, intended to stain REAL Capitalism, so that it will never be restored.
This is not my opinion, or theory, or some conspiratorial tin-foil-hat wearing nonsense. This is historical and economic fact, and it is incontrovertible. To reinforce the reality of the pickle in which we find ourselves today in America, observe this consequence from real economic DATA:
The data provided in the following table (The Global Wealth Data Table - from 2014) reveals that although the United States is near the top of the developed world in average or mean wealth, this is due mainly to the number of multibillionaires in the United States. The median wealth per US adult, however, is substantially lower (column 4 in the table). For those unfamiliar with statistics, it is another way of saying that the enormous wealth held by America’s centimillionaires and billionaires is a statistical anomaly. The average wealth therefore is not a representative measure of the vast cross-section of Americans. The median wealth is far more indicative. It is that value where 50% of the population owns more, and 50% of the population owns less in terms of real assets. In fact, a direct measure of the magnitude of this wealth gap is given by the ratio of median to mean wealth (column 5 in the table).
This is lower in the United States than in every other G20 country except Russia.
The startling impact of this huge wealth gap is further illustrated in column 6 of the table. This data shows that adults in the United States with a median level of wealth (as assets) hold a substantially smaller percentage of the nation’s overall wealth than any other country except China and India.
In other words, referring to column 6 of the data table itself, the reader can see that a middle-class citizen of Finland owns $122.50 for every one billion dollars of Finland’s wealth. A Canadian owns $13.40 for every one billion dollars of Canada’s wealth. A citizen of Czech Republic owns $49.40 for every one billion of his country’s wealth. In Thailand it is $5.40. By comparison, in the United States, a middle-class citizen owns just sixty cents for every one billion dollars of total wealth in the country.
Only the citizens of China at forty cents and India at thirty cents hold less than Americans in terms of assets in proportion to their national wealth. Therefore, the only two countries in the industrialized world whose citizens have fewer property rights than in the United States are China and India.
Even the former Communist nations of Czech Republic and Russia enjoy substantially more property rights than Americans. Even more ironic - recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin instituted a flat income tax in Russia of 15%, while Americans continue to suffer under the onerous Marxist progressive tax on labor compensation and pay more than twice in taxes as our Communist Russian counterparts.
This is clear evidence that America’s middle class has already descended to the standard of a Third World country, and the apparent prosperity in America is illusory and unsustainable.
The one characteristic common to all Third World Socialist countries is that there is no middle class, or if there is one, it is disproportionately small as compared to poor class. Just look to Venezuela, Cuba, China, and Russia as your examples. Virtually all Third World countries are dominated by a small, obscenely rich ruling elite who own and control virtually all land, resources, and means of production along with a large population of poor and destitute who have no property and no means of ever escaping poverty. This is exactly the direction that America has been headed for the past several decades. One more hiccup in our phony debt-fueled bubble economy - and we will have achieved Marx's Utopian "dictatorship of the proletariat."
And when they implement their cashless society - there'll be no turning it back.
Americans do not own real assets. They own only debts. All the while our legislators are paid a high-six figure salary to spend every waking hour, of every day, figuring out new and creative ways to rob the citizens of even more of their hard-earned money.
Whenever someone regurgitates the usual “feel-good” platitudes like: “sure we have problems and things aren’t like they used to be, but the US is still the best country in the world to live, raise a family, and even get rich if you try hard enough…” I have to shoot coffee out of my nose from laughing. People who say this have never lived anywhere else, nor have they any understanding of real world history and economics. The notion that America still is “the land of opportunity,” is a bill of goods being sold as false hope. Getting people to buy into this nonsense is the means by which unwitting, well-intentioned falsely optimistic people are lured into slavery via the inescapable debt cycle. The student loan crisis is the best example of this principle – selling false hope to debt ridden rent-slaves in order to trap them for life into employment servitude – by an employer who withholds half of their earnings on behalf of the corrupt government that has enslaved them.
Here are the sad but true facts of America’s so-called prosperous middle class (as of December 2016):
Anyone who who still thinks America is a Free Enterprise Capitalist land of opportunity where the middle class has a chance -- needs their head examined.
by F. A. Grieger - Author of "Chase The Rabbit"
What you learn in the next 10 minutes, may change everything you thought you knew, about our economy, and our Socio-political landscape.
Recently, Donald Trump announced that he would not seek, to "prosecute" Hillary Clinton (prosecute for what precisely he didn't say - since she has evidently committed numerous crimes). Nevertheless, this actually comes as no surprise to me. Many, including myself, are so disgusted with the Clintons, that this recent disclosure was rather disappointing.
In the final weeks of the campaign, the vitriol between candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was extraordinary. The commentary ran the gamut from the serious to the petty. From Mrs. Clinton’s illegal handling of classified materials, to alleged money laundering by the Clinton foundation, to Mr. Trump’s foul-mouthed slurs about the female anatomy—it was more painful to watch than an episode of The Apprentice. Some of the most inflammatory accusations involved not only the candidates, but also centered around Mrs. Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton.
There was plenty more in the "main-stream-media" as well (along with fake news). The most disgusting of these, alleged the former President’s and Mrs. Clinton’s participation in what is called "The Lolita Express." This is an actual business run by financier Jeffrey Epstein. The "business model" is fairly simple. Mr. Epstein operates a private Boeing 727 jet between the US and a private Caribbean Island for exclusive guests and clientele. On both the jet and the island, underage children are provided to pedophiles and sexual deviants for sex-orgies with minors. It enables these degenerates to have their way with with children - reportedly as young as 12 - with impunity.
This is not some crack-pot conspiracy theory. So, before you start mumbling the "tin foil hat wearer" accusations at this, first be aware that Mr. Epstein, is a Florida registered sex offender, and there is no question that he has been a long time friend and confidante of the Clintons since their days in Arkansas. This is the character of individual whom the Clintons consider a "close family friend." Personally, I grew up with old-fashioned values, and like my parents used to tell me "Show me what kind of people your friends are, and that's a reflection of your own character - so choose your friends carefully."
Where's the evidence of this? Well, there are photos of the former President aboard Epstein's jet. Not only that, it's in those pesky e-mails that Mrs. Clinton thought she had managed to erase from history.
In a recent exclusive interview by Breitbart news with Erik Prince, founder of the security firm Blackwater, Prince stated that the New York City Police department had obtained voluminous evidence of nefarious activities contained in over 650,000 emails, located on a laptop computer owned by Huma Abedin, wife of disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner.
The Blackwater founder stated,
There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs …
Mr. Prince continued,
“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy [Weiner] was doing,… they found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times.”
Over the years, we have read countless news stories about high level political officials all over the world being caught in this kind of behavior. One must ask, how does this pattern of depravity relate to the larger issue of socio-politics? It may seem far-fetched to some at first, but once you connect the dots to the psychology of power and control, the connections between our governance and our economy to the degenerate character traits shared by the people we allow to be in charge starts to make sense.
Pedophiles, like rapists, are committing crimes of physical and psychological violence. For them, it's not about sex so much as it is about controlling someone weaker. They enjoy causing people to squirm in discomfort. This is what validates their existence and in their minds—their superiority. Both crimes emanate from the malignant, narcissistic sociopath’s need to subordinate and control others—both physically and psychologically. These people see other humans as objects—to be used for a purpose and then discarded. Narcissists harbor no remorse, regret, or guilt over the lives they ruin because they are completely devoid of empathy. This is a mental condition that most normal empathetic people find difficult to understand, because it is so psychologically aberrant.
And herein is the connection to political power - expressed through a Socialist economic model. Socialism is defined as "Central Control of the Means of Production." The means of production are land, labor, and natural resources. The labor part of this - is people. Socialists are intent on controlling people -- all people. The tool for this is to control your property - which includes the fruits of your labor. They obtain the consent of the masses by claiming they need the power to "fairly redistribute wealth and property" for the sake of the poor, but this is a lie. They simply want to control others, because they do not recognize individual sovereignty.
Actual slavery has been proven to be economically inefficient for the slave master. Therefore, those seeking to enslave others have figured out how to control indirectly through manipulation, rather than directly through bondage. Pedophiles and rapists enslave their victims psychologically. Socialists enslave their victims economically. It's becoming clear that many of these sociopaths have a penchant for both depravities.
They do not recognize any other person's right to their own life, their own property, their own dignity, not even their own body. In fact, stripping their countrymen (their victims) of their dignity is their ultimate goal - and they do this by creating a dependency society. The sex offender, the rapist, the pedophile, does this to individual victims which they have targeted. Socialist politicians do this to entire economic regions. For some of these politicians, their particular depravity extends from their attraction to political power - all the way to their individual sexual perversions.
As I wrote in my book "Chase the Rabbit," - Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - but more importantly -- Power Attracts The Corruptible.
At the end of the day - it is all about control. They are all control freaks. Mentally ill to the core. And herein we can discover the most bizarre link to our economic model whose architect is well known:
John Maynard Keynes, the most influential economist of the 20th century.
Since right around WW-I, the entire industrialized world has been led down the path following Keynesian economic philosophy. Our current economic model - and that of all of the word's industrialized countries, is based mainly on Keynes's ideas. This destructive path bases our entire global economic model on a system of FIAT money - issued as a debt instrument, and expandable to an infinite monetary supply. It's purpose is to enable a ruling authority to control an entire population - through debt servitude.
Every industrialized country in the world abandoned the Gold Standard (Sound Money), either during or shortly after WW-I, mainly as a consequence of Keynes's influence.
Prior to WW-I - Germany was the most productive and most economically powerful country on Earth. The Versailles Treaty ended all of that when under the terms, Germany was forced to pay "reparations" to the victors in Gold Bullion -- impoverishing Germany and leading to the Hyperinflation - that led to the rise of the Nazis and ultimately right back into war.
John Maynard Keynes was one of the leading advisors on the economic policy sections of The Versailles Treaty. Later, during WW-II, it was the Bretton Woods Agreement under which all currencies of the allied countries were "pegged" to the US Dollar which was then operating on what was called the "Gold Exchange Standard" (as distinct from an actual gold standard -- which FDR ended in 1933). Again, Keynes was one of the principal architects of Bretton Woods, although he capitulated on its terms - as he pushed already then to establish a single, global, FIAT (debt-based) currency.
Nixon finally rescinded Bretton Woods in 1971 removing the US Dollar from the last vestige of the gold standard altogether. Global hyperinflation has been the result. Nixon's famous quote which became the Time Magazine headline banner was : "We're All Keynesians Now."
[Speak for yourself Mr. Nixon.]
So what does all of this have to do with "Pedophelia?" How is this related to the Clintons and "The Lolita Express?"
As I inferred earlier, there seem to be many links between powerful career politicians and sexual perversion such as pedophilia, sex with minors, and rape. Remember Andrew Wiener’s exhibitionism—texting photos of his "wiener" to a 15 year old? At first this recurring pattern would seem a rather odd coincidence. But is it? The question we should be asking is, for every one of these degenerates that we have found out about, how many more remain hidden within the halls of power?
The one common denominator that has led the entire world down this destructive path of debt-based FIAT money, and fractional reserve banking -- enabling a huge and powerful government with a blank checkbook -- was John Maynard Keynes. Our entire system of governance in America has in fact been corrupted mainly to ensure the continuance of our UNCONSTITUTIONAL Federal Reserve system, a system that is indeed a product of Keynesian and Marxist economic philosophy.
Some have even written that the destruction of morals through sexual perversions such as pedophilia is one of the cornerstones of Marxist Socio-economic policy. It destroys the family, warps the minds of individuals, and further enables a society of dysfunctional dependents. Socialism is all about Central Control.
The most successful implementation of this economic concept in history, has been the Keynesian economics practiced by all of Western society during the past century. Most people would never make such a connection, but this concept is validated by the historical record. The following commentary proves its veracity:
Keynes and The Fabian Socialists:
Within the library of the British Museum, are a collection of documents, journals, and manuscripts. Among the documents are official membership lists of the Fabian Socialist Society. Keynes’ name is not mentioned as an official member. Since Keynes had already achieved some notoriety as an economist, they felt he would be far more effective at spreading the cause of Socialism surreptitiously rather than overtly. Keynes was not only clever, he was also very political. Despite the pretense of supporting the free market (on occasion), he remained a strong socialist. His philosophy and publications were used as key reading by the Fabians. Apart from being on the closest terms with many key Fabians such as the Webbs and George Bernard Shaw, he also lectured regularly at the Fabian Society. In fact, Shaw was a chief patron and sponsor of Keynes in Fabian socialist circles in England and the United States.
The "Coat of Arms" symbol for the Fabian Socialists is depicted on a stained glass window that was designed by George Bernard Shaw, in 1909. It is currently on display in the Shaw Library - at the London School of Economics. The image -- A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.
Some of today’s most respected American economists, including a few Nobel Prize recipients, identify themselves as followers of Keynes and his principles. Examples include Princeton professor and Nobel winner—Paul Krugman, Columbia University Professor and Nobel winner—Joseph Stiglitz, Jason Furman—Obama’s Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, and many others.
At another British library—The Modern Archives of King’s College, Cambridge, resides a collection of much lesser known journals. They include the personal hand-written diaries of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was married to Russian ballet dancer Lidia Vasilyevna Lopukhova. They never had any children and the Kings College diaries are devoid of any mention of his wife. Instead, his journals are exclusively devoted to a detailed accounting of his sexual experiences with boys and young men over several decades.
In 2008, The Atlantic reported:
"Keynes obsessively counted and tabulated almost everything; it was a life-long habit. As a child, he counted the number of front steps of every house on his street. Later he kept a running record (not surprisingly) of his expenses and his golf scores. He also counted and tabulated his sex life.
The first diary is easy: Keynes lists his sexual partners, either by their initials (GLS for Lytton Strachey, DG for Duncan Grant) or their nicknames ("Tressider," for J. T. Sheppard, the King's College Provost). When he apparently had a quick, anonymous hook-up, he listed that sex partner generically: "16-year-old under Etna" and "Lift boy of Vauxhall" in 1911, for instance, and "Jew boy," in 1912. During his early 20s Keynes kept an extensive record of his homosexual activities and encounters with young boys. Again, the records he kept are available from the modern archives at King's College, Cambridge."
Zygmund Dobbs wrote in his work "Keynes at Harvard":
"In 1967 the world was startled by the publication of the letters between Lytton Strachey and Maynard Keynes. Undisputed evidence in their private correspondence shows that Keynes was a life-long sexual deviate. What was more shocking was that these practices extended to a large and influential group called "The Cambridge Apostles." Homosexuality, sado-masochism, lesbianism, and the deliberate policy of corrupting the young was the established practice of the Apostles, which eventually set the political and cultural tone for the British Empire.
Keynes and his other pedophile conspirators projected homosexuality and drug addiction as an intrinsic part of their collectivist society of the future. His regular sex partner, Lytton Strachey, indicated that their sexual attitudes could be infiltrated, corrupting the whole population “subtly, through literature, into the bloodstream of the people, and in such a way that they accepted it all quite naturally, if need be, without at first realizing what it was to which they were agreeing.” He boasted that he intended “to seduce his readers to tolerance through laughter and sheer entertainment.” He further explained privately that, “he sought to write in a way that would contribute to an eventual change in our ethical and sexual mores—a change that couldn’t ‘be done in a minute,’ but would unobtrusively permeate the more flexible minds of young people. It is the classic expression of the Fabian socialist method of seducing the mind."
This was written in 1929 when it had already been in practice for over forty years. It is no wonder we are today witnessing a rapid growth in pervasive student mental disorders where drug addiction, violence, homosexuality have become the new normal.
Keynes was characterized by his homosexual lover - Strachey - as “A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician. His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys." In communications to his homosexual friends, Keynes advised that they go to Tunis, “where bed and boy were also not expensive.” As a pedophile tourist, he traveled throughout the Mediterranean area in search of boys for himself and his fellow socialists. Taking full advantage of the bitter poverty and cultural ignorance in North Africa, the Middle East, and Italy, he purchased children who were prostituted for a few English shillings [See Lytton Strachey, A Critical Biography, Michael Holyroyd, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, two volumes].
These leftist hypocrites then, as now, loudly denounced the poverty and imperialism which they claimed were features of capitalist immorality. However, for their own degenerate purposes, they eagerly sought out the worst backwaters of destitution to satisfy their perverse impulses through the sexual enslavement of children.
In many decadent areas of the Mediterranean, they sought out a pervert’s Utopia where children could be purchased as part of a cultured socialist’s holiday. These degenerates began in the 1920s, scheming ways to secure public acceptance of their depravity. Havelock Ellis, a founder of the Fabian Society, authored a massive work entitled, Studies In The Psychology Of Sex. Ellis was a sexual pervert and drug abuser. He and a group of fellow Leftists pioneered the experimental use of hallucinogens in private orgies.
Ellis was a pathological case. He drove his wife into lesbianism and drug addiction, urging her to recite her Lesbian experiences for him and his friends. Mrs. Ellis was eventually committed to an insane asylum and died in misery after publicly denouncing her husband as a sexual monster.
The Fabian socialists used the writings of Ellis to introduce sex education into the public schools. They started in the colleges and gradually eased into the high school level. In the early 1930's Ellis had complained to his fellow socialists that he found wider acceptance for his books in the United States than he did in England. Today, his perversions are standard reference material for academic sex educators, and Havelock Ellis is popularly called “the father of social psychology.” Keynes, Strachey, and their ilk used their malignant writings to help contaminate the entire English-speaking world. In the United States they both found expression in the New Republic, the New York Times, and the Saturday Review Of Literature.
Keynes and his partners seized upon the works of Ellis as justification for their depravities. They were also greatly bolstered in their campaign by the theories of another Austrian Leftist—Sigmund Freud.
Dr. Freud acknowledged in private correspondence that he copied the thesis of sex as the central determinant in human action from Havelock Ellis. Echoing Ellis, he laid down the premise that homosexuality and carnal depravities are not a matter of abnormality, but merely a case of personal preference. This, plus his declaration of atheism, overjoyed the socialist Keynesian crowd.
Edward Bernays, mentioned in the book "Chase The Rabbit" as “the father of advertising and public relations,” was the nephew of Dr. Sigmund Freud. It was Bernays, under contract to Woodrow Wilson, who developed the PR Campaign to "sell" America's entry into WW-I to the American people. Bernays's propaganda was used by Wilson to gain Congressional authority to enter the War, in order to destroy Germany and with it, Europe's basis for a Sound Money based monetary system.
On February 22, 1918, Keynes proudly boasted of “being a bolshevik.” The British Government then sent Keynes to the Versailles peace talks, along with Woodrow Wilson and his closest adviser Colonel Edward Mandell House. There he joined forces with his Fabian American comrade, Walter Lippmann, who was among those representing the equally blind U.S. Government. The ensuing pro-bolshevik and anti-American machinations were largely responsible for destroying Germany’s economy, the hyperinflation of 1922-1923, and setting off the chain of events that eventually brought Adolf Hitler to power.
Their perverse sociopathic mentality is woven into our very economic system. It is based on fiat money and central control of the economy as a means to enslave the people under perpetual and inescapable debt, while allowing their government to expand unrestrained through its ability to deficit spend. Whether you act our your perversions by oppressing a little boy, or an entire society, is simply a matter of scale; but those who seek to control others by force or coercion, do so because they are depraved, mentally ill degenerates, who seek power -- so that they can abuse it.
Clearly, Keynes had no regard for children or for humanity in general, because he had no regard for the future. He saw all people as nothing more than objects to be used for his amusement. He saw humanity's purpose as simply to create wealth and value for him and his cronies to control, until they could be discarded. Theirs is the mentality of a Sociopath. John Maynard Keynes’ lack of concern for the future is clear in his comment – “in the end, we’re all dead anyway.”
That type of mentality is standard within the character of someone who cannot delay gratification. But free enterprise wealth creation depends entirely on one's willingness to save for the future, and that depends on an absolute respect for individual property rights. To a childless freak like Keynes, the future is irrelevant, so long as you can satisfy your desires in the here and now....no matter how perverse those desires may be and regardless of who pays the price. To Keynes - controlling and manipulating others psychologically and physically is the ultimate expression of power and control, which is why he so zealously advocated for a Socialist economic model underlying a huge and powerful government enforcer.
This depraved mentality - is absolutely incompatible with the American character of the rugged individualist. It is absolutely incompatible with America's founding principles. This is why today - under the new Trump Presidency - We The People must rise and express our new vigilance over America and her Founding Principles. We MUST RESTORE INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY, RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, and the Dignity of the Individual as the bases for our ethics, values, morals, and our fundamentally American Character.
Take America Back - Restore The Constitution - Happy Thanksgiving.
 Becker, Kyle. “Bill Clinton wasn’t only one to go to sex slave island.” Independent Journal. Nov., 2016. http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/728945-report-bill-clinton-wasnt-the-only-one-to-go-to-sex-island-hillary-went-with-him-six-times/
I am now almost 51, and it took me this long to figure out how the world really works.
This time last year, I didn't know. The truth is, I didn't work on the question much for the first 40 years of my life, so it isn't really surprising I didn't discover this sooner. I am not claiming to understand how ALL of life works. Just this one thing. This is what I finally understood: all famous people are there to misdirect you. ALL OF THEM. They didn't accidentally get famous. They don't accidentally get on TV or in movies or in books or on CDs or on the internet. And they certainly don't earn their way into these positions, as is now clear. So how did they get there? Why do you have to see them and hear them all the time? Why do you know who they are?
Because they were placed there.
They were chosen to fill that position, and they were chosen in order to misdirect you from the truth. You will say, “C'mon, Miles, that can't be true. All of them? I mean, they disagree with eachother. How can they all be placed there?” Look at it this way: say you wanted to control everyone in the world. Well, people are at different levels. They have different interests and beliefs and levels of intelligence. So if you want to control everyone, you have to place your guys at all these levels, on all possible paths.
If you are a football coach setting up a defense on the field, you don't put all your tacklers in the middle of the field, or all on one side. You spread them out. You want to block all possible paths to the goal. You have to defend against the run and the pass, the short ball and the long ball.
It is the same with government.
If you want to govern [rule] people, you have to keep them on the path you have chosen for them. That is how the governors understand government. You may think government is about keeping people employed and building highways and educating children, but it isn't. It is about “governing” [ruling] them. Moving them around at will. Think of a governess. She keeps the kids out of trouble and molds them into the sort of adults her employer or her society requires. Same thing with the governors. They keep you from troubling them and mold you into someone who can make them richer. That is what our society requires, and very little else. With that goal in mind, the last thing the governors want is “enlightened” people or “self-actualized” people. Those people might make money for themselves, think for themselves, and govern themselves. People like that make very poor clients. People like that are just trouble. So the governors have to head them off. Since people take many different paths, the governors have to place their blockers and tacklers everywhere. They have to have blockers for smart people and dumb people, lazy people and ambitious people, caring people and uncaring people, progressive people and conservative people, men and women, young and old. And they have to have blockers and tacklers up and down the field, on the fifty-yard line as well as on the five-yard line. If you get past one line of tacklers, they have to have another line ready for you. To switch the visualization, no matter how high up the mountain you climb, they have to have some guru on a goat-ledge positioned there to shunt you off on the wrong path.
No matter how deep down the rabbit hole you have climbed, they have to have some bearded caterpillar waiting for you to give you bad advice in solemn tones, recommending you eat the wrong cake or try the wrong door. I admit it took me a while to figure this out.
Over the past decade I have lost more and more of my old heroes. I got around them and moved on up the mountain. But then I came to another set of heroes perched up there, and instead of learning from my past mistakes and looking at these heroes with suspicion, I instead protected them from questions like that. I didn't want to lose them, so I didn't look closely at them. I nodded politely in the old ways and knelt down for the next lesson. But eventually they said something that didn't fit the script, and the curtain was torn. I then felt like Jim Carrey in The Truman Show, when his car radio accidentally picks up the director's channel. I was forced to pick up my bamboo mat and kettle of fish and move further up the mountain.
No matter how high I got, I was always met by a new expert, pointing sideways along a path and smiling knowingly. Finally, I figured out the game. I figured it out by noticing that all these guys popped up there like jack-in-the-boxes, rising up from underground tunnels dug centuries earlier by an army of evil moles. They knew I would come eventually—me or someone like me—and they had made plans. The entire mountain and rabbit hole had been trapped and mined, and I began to look around for David Bowie in the Labyrinth. Like Bowie, these pretend sorcerers gave themselves away to a keen eye, since they got more desperate the nearer you got to the truth. The longer I stayed on the right path, the less likely I was to be fooled by the next trap, and they knew that.
That doesn't mean any of this is easy. Maybe the hardest part is that you have to pass through a treacherous middle level on the mountain. Once you pass the halfway point on the mountain, the gurus get more clever. You already know a lot by that time, so they have to take that into account. They have to lead the lesson by re-teaching you a lot you already know.
This makes you trust them. [Even when they are lying to you repeatedly]
One of their greatest tricks is unmasking gurus on lower levels, although those gurus are really their colleagues. They say, “Oh, by the way, you know that the gurus at level 42, 43, and 44 are working for the man, right? They were trying to keep you from climbing up to this level, because they are jealous of the view I have from here. Beautiful, isn't it?” Guru 45 then subtly suggests his view is superior to views from even higher, and that you have no need to climb up further. He has to say that in just the right way, though, at the right speed, with the right inflections, or you remember that guru 44 just told you pretty much the same thing. You hit another hard part when you realize all the gurus are planted. As soon as that sinks in fully, they stop sending you gurus. The jack-in-the-boxes stop popping up from the mountain ledges, and you find yourself alone with the birds and the bears. That is scary not only because you have no one to talk to, but even more because your trick of doing the opposite of what you were told no longer works. You can no longer wait for the guru to point left and then move right. You have to decide on your own, without the help of negative evidence.
I know some of you are laughing, but do you understand how hard that is? If you are a good ways up the mountain, just think how many of your decisions were decisions of avoidance. Compare the number of paths you refused because they looked bad to the number of paths you chose because they looked good. If you are like me, most of your progress has been due to the former. Given ten paths, you chose number 7 because 1-6 and 8-10 all stank. And they all stank because you could see lots of stinky people clogging up those paths. The choice was easy. But once you get past the gurus, you no longer have stinky people showing you how not to live. Up above you are only empty paths, none of them either beckoning you or offending you. All is silent. With the mountaintop draped in cloud, how do you know which way to go? Let us transport ourselves back down the mountain some ways, where the gurus are as thick as flies on a summer dunghill. At this level, I will not find many who wish to learn my lesson. The students are in thrall to the teachers, and do not wish to fall out of thrall. These students will tell me that one side or the other must be right. Given a certain question, they can't all be wrong, can they?
Public School live shooter practice drill with local militarized police - conducted without parental permission or oversight.
Well, if they are all paid to be wrong, they can.
This is easiest to see from the so-called debates we watch on TV. Whether it is political debates between candidates or manufactured debates on news programs, we always see the question divided two ways, and the people on both sides speaking nonsense. The truth is always avoided by both sides, as if it is a virus. Let's take a topic, say, gun control. This is probably the hottest topic of the past two years. My knee-jerk reaction is to be against gun control, if only because the governors are for it. If the government is trying this hard to sell me something, I know it is not worth buying.
The government has proven over and over it can't be trusted, so I do the logical thing and refuse to trust it
ut that doesn't mean I have gone out and bought a gun. I am not a hunter so I have no use for a gun. I don't really think a gun is going to even my chances against the government. But this is exactly what the pro-gun side seems to be arguing. And it seems to be what the audience is hearing, since the audience is going out and buying guns like they are about to be discontinued.
Here is what you never hear in the gun control debate from either side.
This is what I would say to the government when it sent in some stuffed shirt to promote gun control: Look, I have no need for guns. Most of my neighbors have no need for guns, unless they are hunters. If you want us to quit buying guns and ammunition in such outrageous numbers, why don't you quit scaring the shit out of us with all these faked murders like Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon? Why don't you quit arming the police with tanks and machine guns? Why don't you quit using the army and National Guard to run suspicionless checkpoints? Why don't you quit running drills in schools and small towns, with black helicopters and live ammunition? Why don't you quit tasering people to death for minor infractions? Why don't you quit building private jails to house people who have done next to nothing? Why don't you quit turning the DHS into a Gestapo? Maybe if you guys quit acting like Nazis, we would quit buying so many guns. Has that ever occurred to you? But you never hear that. You often hear some variation of the argument that the Constitution gives people the right to have arsenals of AR-15's, to protect themselves from the government. That isn't any more sensible than the government line.
If we are going to debate the topic (rather than just allow that what is, is what must be), we might want to make some rational suggestions, such as that it isn't necessary for the government to be at war with its own people. We got along fine as a country for 225 years without a Department of Homeland Security, and it wouldn't be that hard to turn back the clock just 14 years, to before 2001. None of this is necessary, neither the arming of the citizenry nor the militarizing of the police force. If we got rid of a few bad people at the top, it would all end tomorrow. As it goes with that topic, it goes with most others.
Neither side is ever telling you the truth, because they are both trying to make a buck off of you.
The gun control people are trying to get more taxes for “Homeland Security,” while the gun advocates are hoping to sell you a gun. Just imagine the total market for domestic arms sales in the past five years. It boggles the mind. Which means the government is probably playing both sides, as usual. I would be willing to bet that most of the money spent on guns in the US since Obama took office has gone into the pockets of the same billionaires who are profiting from Homeland Security. It is doubtful that most folks have ever thought of that. Those who haven't should study the recent history of Smith&Wesson. Did you know that Smith&Wesson was bought out in a hostile takeover in 2001, and that the government was involved? Remember, 2001 was also year one of DHS. Coincidence? Did you know that the $200 million company was bought for $15 million, and that this rock-bottom price was due to fire-arm regulation by President Clinton? Did you know that after an initial plunge due to the Clinton regulation, their sales have since skyrocketed?
Smith and Wesson Sales Revenue by Year
Just a coincidence, right?
Did you know that the buyer of Smith & Wesson was a start-up company named Saf-T-Hammer? We are told it was a maker of gun locks, but it wasn't. It was a start-up company with no history of making anything. “Saf-T-Hammer never manufactured that lock independently before buying out S&W, and does not now manufacture it separately from the guns.”
This brings up the question of who does own Saf-T-Hammer.
Well the company changed names to Smith and Wesson Holding Group, which now has 83% Institutional Ownership. What does that mean?
It means the company is owned by institutions, mainly investment firms and banks. The two biggest owners are the Vanguard Group and Fidelity Investments, but other owners include the Royal Bank of Canada, ING, and Barclays. So my suspicion is proved true once again. The billionaire investors are making money off you both ways: they tax you for Homeland Security, which scares you into buying guns, and the money you spend on guns also goes to them. This list of institutional investors of Smith&Wesson rings a bell, since the top two appear on Project Censored's 2013 list of the world's top investment firms:
1 BlackRock US $3.560 trillion
2 UBS Switzerland $2.280 trillion
3 Allianz Germany $2.213 trillion
4 Vanguard Group US $2.080 trillion
5 State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) US $1.908
6 PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Company) US $1.820 trillion
7 Fidelity Investments US $1.576 trillion
8 AXA Group France $1.393 trillion
9 JPMorgan Asset Management US $1.347 trillion
10 Credit Suisse Switzerland $1.279 trillion
11 BNY Mellon Asset Management US $1.299 trillion
12 HSBC UK $1.230 trillion
13 Deutsche Bank Germany $1.227 trillion
The number is managed funds. Notice that Vanguard and Fidelity are high on the list. Blackrock bought out Barclays Investments in 2009, but Barclays still has company assets of over 2 trillion. Note, that is company assets for Barclays, not managed funds.
Beyond that, all of these companies have been caught up in illegal activities in the past decade, including the gigantic LIBOR and ISDAfix scandals, in which these people were caught fixing the prices of just about everything. Many of them have been fined hundreds of millions of dollars, but they still refuse to obey the laws. Most of them have been caught laundering huge amounts of money, but again, they have just been slapped on the wrist and gone on as before. Vanguard was prosecuted by the government under the RICO Act for illegally investing clients' monies in offshore gambling sites. They bought off the court.
You might also be interested to know that Vanguard and Blackrock are invested in Sturm, Ruger &Co., a competitor of Smith&Wesson. No matter what brand of gun you buy, they are raking in the money.
[This is the model for surreptitious monopolism - by the banking aristocracy]
The gurus are screwing you from both ends. The people they are hiring to debate gun control in the media on both sides are working for the banks. The escalation benefits them from all directions.
So make a list of all the famous people selling both sides of this argument. No, really. Make an actual list. Write down all the people you love to hate who are on the other side. Then write down all the people that you think are on your side. Then ask yourself, “Are any of them speaking any sense?” Or are they all promoting this escalation one way or the other?
This is how it goes, on all topics. [Take any industry and the pattern is the same: Energy, Healthcare, Financial "services," Food, Agriculture, Transportation, Telecommunications - it is the same model applied to every institution the people depend upon to have a functional economy.]
So what pushed me over the edge on the greater question of famous people? What was the AHA moment? You may laugh, but it was Lyndon LaRouche. Someone said to me recently, “You know, what is weird is how right Lyndon LaRouche was.” And I got to thinking. Yes, he was right about a lot of things, and he was even right about the “out there” stuff, like the government pushing drugs [see Dope, Inc.], laundering money, fluoride, the financial meltdown, pedophilia, and so on. So I went back and studied his writings across the board. Do you know what I found? A higher-level guru, placed fairly far up the mountain to misdirect the most avant of the avant garde conspiracy theorists. I found he was a Marxist until he was almost 60, which of course I saw as a red flag. No one over thirty was still a Marxist in the US in 1970, except a few dupes and a few small-time spooks working the campuses. No true intellectual could stomach Marx's prose, much less his theory.
I say that not as a champion of capitalism or of the US system in general, but only as a champion of reason. It should now be clear that Marxism was never anything else but a disguised replacement for Republicanism, created to appeal to the idealistic youth of the West who were disenchanted with their own failed institutions. That is, Socialism was dressed from the beginning to look like a fairer sister of Democracy/Republicanism, but it was actually a crone in poor make-up. It was purposely created to break down immediately into fascism, the way plastic is now made to break down when exposed to light.
Marxism borrowed the egalitarian platitudes of Republicanism, and even outdid it in its flattering of the lower classes; but the theorists conveniently left out any of the hard facts of government, like constitutions or courts or human nature. And by resting the whole theory on the workers, Marx and his buddies knowingly built their edifice on sand.
Though top-down governance is often or usually predatory, bottom-up governance is simply a contradiction in terms.
You are just as likely to successfully run a country from workers' cooperatives as you are to run your house from the kids' bedroom. I am all in favor of trade unions and worker-owned companies; but at the same time I would not like to see a co-op of Walmart, McDonald's, and USPS employees running the country. While the system we have doesn't put the best people at the top, Marxism wouldn't either. But there were many other red flags with LaRouche, including his promotion of Leibniz, Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, NAWAPA, SDI, and so on. It may seem strange to say it, but LaRouche was a gatekeeper like Chomsky, placed pretty far down the road to catch those who got too far ahead.
Like Chomsky, LaRouche was instructed to admit to a large percentage of US and British crimes, to appeal to progressives and good researchers who had already discovered them. And also like Chomsky, LaRouche was there to prevent deeper truths from being discovered. Ironically, perhaps, LaRouche was—in most ways—positioned further up the mountain than Chomsky. LaRouche could admit to 911 where Chomsky couldn't. LaRouche could talk about outre crimes that wouldn't appeal to Chomsky's audience. And they were instructed to blow a very different smoke regarding Kennedy. While Chomsky pretended to be above the whole discussion, LaRouche was instructed to tell a new variant of the Oliver Stone story, intellectualizing it with the Yalta system and a new player, Mortimer Bloomfield. Notice in that link that LaRouche suggests Kennedy was killed for believing the US could win a war [“war-winning capability”] with the USSR. You have to be kidding me! Talk about muddying the waters with an absurdity. Do you really believe a US President could be too hawkish for the financiers behind him? This should only serve to remind us that LaRouche is himself a hawk, even hungrier for confrontation and new weapons systems than his colleague (I mean archenemy) Kissinger. Which brings up LaRouche's web of contacts.
We are told that LaRouche traveled the world, having meetings with top people in many countries, including the Soviet Union. So how did he manage that? In 1967, at age 45, we are told he was teaching at New York City's Free School, but there is no listing anywhere for that. We are told a group of students from Columbia and City College came to his classes and suddenly the National Caucus of Labor Committees was born. But if LaRouche was charismatic enough to start this movement on his own, why didn't he start it earlier? Why did he wait until 1968, when he was 46? We must ask not just why his movement caught fire then, but how. How were all the magazines and books and travel funded? How did LaRouche manage to schedule meetings with important people, seeing that up to 1968 he was not one and had no contacts? Some would say I have some far-out ideas like LaRouche had in the 1970's. Do you think I can use those ideas to schedule meetings with the heads of state in Europe, Russia and Asia? Of course not. Revolutionary or nonmainstream ideas are precisely what prevent one from doing that. LaRouche's entire biography is a contradiction, since we are being sold the idea that he was attacking the mainstream leaders viciously, while at the same time taking meetings with them. You will say I am implying that SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) or parts of it were infiltrated by the government, but LaRouche himself tells us that. His NCLC was originally a faction of SDS, and although “it was originally a New Left organization influenced by Trotskyist ideas,” it was “opposed to other New Left organizations which LaRouche said were dominated by the Ford Foundation, Institute for Policy Studies and Herbert Marcuse.” If you can accept what he says—that other New Left organizations were dominated by these government think-tanks and foundations—why not his NCLC?
LaRouche's organization has all the earmarks of late 1960's government programs, including brainwashing, violence, cultism, and created confusion, so why not ask the question? “LaRouche writes in his autobiography that in 1971 the NCLC formed 'intelligence units', and the following year started training members in paramilitary tactics.” Intelligence units? Does that sound like the language of a Marxist professor, or of a CIA agent? So if he is an agent, why did they later throw him in jail? Are you sure they did? I have shown you in recent papers that several famous people you thought were in jail probably never were, including Ezra Pound and Charles Manson.
LaRouche's alleged time in jail simply glosses up his resume even more in the eyes of those who would follow him. Notice that LaRouche has always been encouraging confrontation. In the early years we are told his followers beat their Marxist foes with pipes and bats. I think it is just another planted story, but the form of the story is crucial. They want you to think there is a lot of political violence going on, even though there isn't; just as now they want you to think there are mass murders every month, although there aren't. The billionaires love a manufactured world of fear and chaos, because fear and chaos keep all markets brisk. In a world of love and satisfaction, all sales would plummet.
This is why we saw George Bush telling people to go out and buy stuff after 911. They found that they had overplayed that one by a tad, and that people were so shocked they had stopped buying. You want to scare people just enough to make them buy stuff to decorate the bunker, but not enough to send them down into it.
They [the ruling class / shadow government] learned their lesson there, and they keep the security level at a constant bright orange now, instead of blinking red. At orange, most people will be at Walmart every other day stocking up on toilet paper, baking soda, and camouflage pants; at red they will have pad-locked the shutters, armed the booby traps, and lit the candles. Some will say, “What about you? How do we know you aren't another posted guru, planted to misdirect us?” Well, I'm not famous, am I? I am not on TV, am I? I am not promoted by some studio or consortium or publisher or think-tank. No one is sending you here: if you got to these pages you got here on your own, probably by lucking out in a websearch. That is another difference between me and someone like LaRouche. Although most of the US articles about him over the years have been negative, they still wrote about him. You should find that curious in itself. Coverage is coverage, you know, positive or negative. As they say, all press is good press as long as they spell your name right.
None of the articles on LaRouche over the years made any sense, because if LaRouche really were what the articles were claiming—a crazy cultist out to defame America and England—why were they writing about him? Why would the mainstream give someone like that the publicity? Remember, LaRouche was right about some things, and one of the things he was right about was the CIA's total control of the press. We didn't need him to tell us that, since we got proof of it from the Senate hearings in the late 1970's (see the Church Committee hearings). Well, given that, why would this controlled press want to publicize LaRouche at all? Why not just ignore him completely? That's what they do to people they really wish to bury, like me for instance. I don't even have a Wikipedia page. Go try to build a Wiki page for me, and see how long it lasts. By contrast, study LaRouche's Wikipedia page. Not only is it extremely long, it is not nearly as black as you might think it would be, given his professed stance against the mainstream. Normally, Wikipedia blackwashes people it doesn't like unmercifully. Although we see large parts of his page spun negative, we see surprisingly large parts spun positive. You will say those parts were written by his acolytes, but that is to ignore how Wikipedia normally works. Normally, if you go on a page of someone the institutions hate, you will find a complete blackwash. If you try to add any positive remarks or correct the negative ones, your comments will be deleted immediately. But we don't see that with LaRouche. That in itself is a sign I am right about him.
I am not saying you should trust me. You shouldn't trust anyone, especially someone you haven't met in person. You should read everything closely and make a decision based on continuity and logic, not on trust. So how far back does this rule go, you will ask. Is every famous person in history a plant, or just the living ones? I intend the rule to apply to only the living ones, and the recently dead. I have shown in recent papers that we can take the rule back to the Civil War, but the further back we go the more exceptions there will be. My research is limited, of course, so I can't address every famous person who ever lived. But any famous person from the past who is still promoted heavily should immediately fall into your bag and ring a bell. I saw Alan Watts being promoted in strange ways in the film Her recently, and had I not already known he was an agent, I would have been alerted to him in that way. Going further back, I showed in a recent paper that Walt Whitman was being promoted in the film Kill Your Darlings. This was one of the red flags that outed him for me. Since the broad control of media didn't take effect until recently, there will no doubt be many exceptions to the rule even in the late 19th century and early 20th century. There may be some few exceptions still. But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because you have gone back before 1947 that the control no longer exists. It was less perfect and less broad, but it has existed for many centuries, and perhaps forever.
This past weekend, all of America enjoyed a Monday off from work to recognize the “Memorial Day Holiday.”
In no time at all, facebook was swamped with posts honoring the members of our uniformed military, veterans, and fallen soldiers including banter about what Memorial Day is really supposed to be about. The internet was replete with commentary about the fact that Memorial Day was intended to honor only American soldiers who had made the ultimate sacrifice – losing their lives on the field of battle.
As I read through some of these, one post from a noted TV celebrity suddenly stood out for me. It was a comment from Mike Rowe, host of the popular show “Dirty Jobs.” Rowe is clearly one of the few (if not the only) quintessential “manly men” left in Hollywood. He has always represented the traditional male values of self reliance, perseverance, character, integrity, hard-work, devotion to family and country, etc. Therefore, as a fan, I immediately took interest in his commentary. His blog post was in response to a letter he’d gotten from a poster with the same last name “Rowe,” inquiring on Memorial Day “etiquette,” and whether it was appropriate to express thanks to living soldiers and veterans on Memorial Day for their service.
Now, I love Mike Rowe and his shows, but I was truly taken aback by part of his response to this post, in which he wrote the following:
“Wars today require zero sacrifice from the civilian population, and therefore zero understanding. Zero understanding leads to zero awareness. Zero awareness leads to zero gratitude. And zero gratitude is a clear and present danger to our many freedoms. …”
Although I have been a “fan” and admirer of Mike Rowe for some time, I actually found this to be offensive. For the first time since I first heard Mike Rowe’s name on TV, I was not only deeply offended by his comment, but was truly disappointed in him, for I believe this revealed a deep lack of understanding by Mr. Rowe about our country’s founding principles, the economic basis for those principles, and how that relates to our nation’s military under its CURRENT mandate.
As well-intentioned as his comments may be Mr. Rowe, is absolutely 100%, unequivocally WRONG to state that “wars require ZERO sacrifice from the civilian population.” In fact, it is perhaps the most naïve, superficial, and juvenile comment I’ve EVER heard come from this man.
Wars fought not only today, but over the past 100 years, have been bought and paid for by the toil and sweat of every hard-working taxpayer in America – almost entirely against their will and without their consent. What is more damning is that unfortunately, every war fought today should be considered “a banker’s war,” and certainly not a war for “American freedom,” as our poor, deceived, unwitting soldiers have been misled to believe.
This is because as General Smedley Butler so eloquently wrote ….. – “War is a Racket.”
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. ... If only more of today's military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite's as a publicly subsidized [corporatist] goon squad." --- General Smedley Butler
As much as I respect and admire our uniformed military, I can say with 100% confidence, as a natural-born US Citizen – that at least during my lifetime of 54 years, they weren't fighting for me and my freedom - but instead have been fighting against my interests as well as their own - albeit unwittingly. I don't blame them. As a young man, broke, lonely, no prospects for a decent job and struggling to come up with college tuition -- I too had a burning desire to don a uniform and be a "hero." Fortunately, my much wiser parents, who had endured World War II on their own soil in Germany, talked me out of it.
What I am about to write will raise some eyebrows, perhaps even elicit some visceral anger among those who continue to display some kind of blind reverence for our fighting men and women. But what I will write here is the absolute truth – the unvarnished and unpopular truth. It is certainly not intended to diminish, tarnish, or trivialize in any way, the incredible sacrifices made by our uniformed military – I have the utmost and foremost respect and regard for them. I just know beyond any doubt, that they are being misused, without their knowledge or understanding, for purposes that are against their own interests, the interests of their civilian families, and of the American people.
In fact, I pity our fighting men and women. As an economist and lover of history, I know with absolute certainty that they are unknowingly fighting not for American freedom, but to profit a select few corrupt elites. These elites use their conscripts’ inspired patriotism and naivety to voluntarily consent to being sent unwittingly into harm’s way to fight for things that are against America's founding principles.
Wars today are not fought to defend America’s founding Constitutional principles. America’s political establishment abandoned those principles nearly 100 years ago. The US Constitution, for which our armed forces take an oath to “uphold and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic" – has been rendered an irrelevant letter long ago. Nevertheless, the cost of these wars is borne entirely by the taxpaying American citizen, both through direct confiscation of their earnings through taxes, as well as the even more insidious hidden tax of inflation – both of which are consequences of UNCONTSTITUTIONAL policies enacted and enforced by a Dysfunctional Congress and Corrupt Executive Branch – both of which have run amok - intoxicated with power.
And yet - American citizens have no right to object – for every military action since WW-II has been done WITHOUT a formal DECLARATION of WAR by Congress - as is required by the US Constitution. To say that the civilian population sacrifices nothing … is no less insulting and offensive as to say that our military are all traitors.
Neither is the case, for the global ruling elite are deliberately misusing our well-intentioned military for nefarious purposes – without their knowledge or understanding, and without the consent of the American people.
The civilian population of America has been duped, into forsaking our founding principles of individual rights to liberty and property; in order to enable a corrupt global banking aristocracy to implement a pervasive and fraudulent world-wide monetary system that is designed from the ground up, to eradicate individual property rights.
It is this mechanism (central-bank issued fiat money) that enables the mass-confiscation of the fruits of individual labor through taxes and inflation. This in-turn allows our government to “deficit spend” our way into bankruptcy – in order to fund the monstrously biblical scale of warfare we have seen throughout the world since the time of the US Civil War. Without fiat money – which is expressly prohibited by the US Constitution – wars on this scale would be impossible for any country to wage.
In fact, under a system of sound money – waging war becomes unprofitable. This is because only under a system of fiat – debt-based money -- can the citizens’ labor be conscripted not only against their will, but without their knowledge – through inflation and taxes. War is made profitable for the few who finance it, with the slave labor employed to provide value to the fiat money which is used to finance war.
It is for this and other reasons that America’s founders guaranteed to the American people (Article 1 – Section 8 of the US Constitution) a system of Sound Money – a system our corrupt US Congress abandoned in 1913 – for the benefit of a small global banking aristocracy – the actual authors of the Federal Reserve Act.
It is this small ruling oligarchy for whose benefit our military is now constantly engaged around the world – not to DEFEND our nation against subversion of our founding principles, not to PRESERVE our INDIVIDUAL rights to Life, Liberty, and Property – but instead to ensure that this corrupt fiat monetary model will be perpetuated throughout the world -- in the name of “Globalization” (code for world-wide Socialist Utopia).
Our military is in fact, deployed throughout the world to engage in actions that work against our Constitutional principles, but most Americans – civilian and military alike – have little or no understanding of this, thanks to the deliberate misinformation purveyed to the public by the media, and deliberate mis-education purveyed to our impressionable youth by our corrupt public education system.
It was Karl Marx who wrote in his Communist Manifesto, that to implement Communism – individual property rights must be eradicated. Therefore, a system of fiat money -- also called “ a system of credit “ -- controlled by a central bank holding a government-enforced monopoly on that money’s issue – as debt -- was the cornerstone of a Socialist Economy. Such a system is the absolute antithesis of America’s founding system that was intended to protect individual property rights. Socialism requires the abolition of individual property rights, while FREEDOM – and the FREE ENTEPRISE SYSTEM, require the opposite --- absolute respect for individual property rights.
Has our military been employed to PRESERVE our individual property rights, and our Constitutionally mandated sound money based socio-political system?
In fact, it is quite the opposite.
In one of the best examples: the October 20, 2011 US-backed assassination of Muammar Gaddaffi and the subsequent decline into chaos of that once sovereign country. Just like the Iraqi invasion based on the phony non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” – the Libyan action was advertised to the American public through our news media as a benevolent and necessary action to “liberate” the Libyan people of a supposedly hated and ruthless dictator.” Nevermind that Gadaffi was actually beloved and revered by his own people, such that he traveled openly, exposed, and freely around his own country, without any fear of harm or assassination – something no American president has been able to do safely since Lincoln.
In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. By the time he was assassinated, he had transformed Libya into Africa’s richest nation. Prior to the US-led bombing campaign in 2011, Libya had the highest Human Development Index, the lowest infant mortality and the highest life expectancy in all of Africa. When one watches any foreign newsreel footage of Gadaffi traveling around his home country, he was always in an open vehicle, waving to the citizens of Libya – all of whom enthusiastically waved back and cheered. He was never in an armored bullet-proof limo surrounded by secret service as our US President must travel. Was he truly “hated” by his own people as we and our military were duped into believing? Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media routinely described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship” was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States - in fact more Democractic than the United States. Under Gaddafi’s unique system of direct democracy, traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.
Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Councils.
The Basic People’s Congress (BPC), or Mu’tamar shaʿbi asāsi was essentially Libya’s functional equivalent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom or the House of Representatives in the United States. However, Libya’s People’s Congress was not comprised of elected representatives who discussed and proposed legislation on behalf of the people; rather, the Congress allowed all Libyans to directly participate in this process. Eight hundred People’s Congresses were set up across the country and ALL Libyans were free to attend and shape national policy and make decisions over all major issues including budgets, education, foreign policy, industry, and the economy.
In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, that has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.”
The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Libyan direct democracy was that in Libya all citizens were allowed to voice their views directly – not in one parliament of only a few hundred wealthy politicians – but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.
Libya is a desert with few sources of natural fresh water, yet Gadaffi’s regime developed the most sophisticated fresh water irrigation system the world had ever seen. It was described by “The Economist” magazine as “the eighth wonder of the world,” and it provided clean drinking water to every Libyan citizen. Under the Geneva Conventions, it is considered a “war crime” to target civilian infrastructure, particularly water supplies. Yet NATO’s 2011 invasion of Libya began with the deliberate bombing of this system, and then blaming its destruction on Gadaffi himself.
America’s well-intentioned soldiers know nothing of these historical facts. They are deliberately misinformed, as are the American people. Most important and virtually unknown to most of the outside world, was that prior to Gadaffi’s ouster, he had re-instituted an economy in Libya based on SOUND MONEY – a Gold Standard (the same monetary standard mandated for the US in our Constitution - but IGNORED by our Congress and Federal Reserve). Libya was the only country on Earth to comply with this monetary standard.
In truth, Gadaffi was rooted out and executed in the streets in Libya by foreign invaders (mostly US and NATO troops) not because he was a ruthless and hated dictator within his own country, but because he had announced brazenly in 2009 -- to the United Nations --- that his country would no longer accept FIAT US Dollars as payment for their nation’s exported mineral and oil resources, but only gold. For gold – as also stated in the US Constitution – is THE ONLY real money. For this, the US military was deployed under the false guise of a “UN Coalition” to search and destroy Libya’s leadership, topple their government, and ensure that the fiat-money-based global SOCIALIST economy would continue to prevail.
And then came Benghazi.
Do the well-intentioned and patriotic young boys and girls who flock to join our military to have their limbs blown off, and their minds warped -- after watching propaganda films about the “glory of war”-- truly understand WHAT they are fighting for? Do they understand that it is NOT to preserve and defend the US Constitution and its principles -- as their oaths demand --- the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS for every individual to their own life, their own liberty, and their own property -- but instead to fight for the enemy of those very principles?
The economic basis of how our monetary system is at the very root of these principles escapes the understanding of most well-educated adults, and so it is certainly not understood by the vast majority of our fighting men and women.
And yet, it has been the consequence of this global fiat system’s adoption – that every hard-working tax-paying CIVILIAN has been surreptitiously ROBBED of the fruits of their labor, and most all of their hard-earned property - mainly to enrich the owners of the "military-industrial complex" -- the international banking aristocracy. It seems to escape just about everyone’s understanding that it is only Marxist monetary model which enables our corrupt government’s ability to print whatever money they don’t have, in order to pay for these outrageously expansive and never-ending wars --- enriching their handlers in the baking aristocracy in the process.
The price is paid by our young soldiers who lose their limbs, their minds, and their lives. The price is paid by foreign citizens who should have every right to choose their own destinies but are now under constant military occupation by American soldiers, stationed at over 780 foreign military bases around the world. The price is paid by the grieving parents whose children (both military and civilian) who are maimed, dismembered, beheaded, tortured, and/or killed under the false guise of “spreading democracy around the globe.” The price is paid by every CIVILIAN worker who has struggled for an entire lifetime to try to EARN an HONEST living, worked in futility to pay off a home for their family – a home they will never truly be allowed to own, since inflation and property taxes render their so-called “ownership” as nothing more than an eternal liability – benefitting bankers and tax collectors at the expense of the home “owner.”
Home ownership (qua – PROPERTY RIGHTS) is the very foundation of American individualism and freedom, yet “home ownership” in America is an illusion – a myth – a fraud. “Ownership” in America consists in the “owner” bearing all of the costs and RISKS of ownership, while the only true beneficiaries are again – bankers and tax-collectors. Not a single American citizen living today has ever witnessed true free-market capitalism in practice, because not a single American citizen truly has right of ownership to “their property.” Over the past 100 years, America’s concept of property rights has been eradicated, while our free-market system has been surreptitiously replaced with full-on Marxist Socialism. This has been accomplished largely because our military has been engaged for decades, to ensure that our Constitutionally mandated free-enterprise system of sound money, respect for individual rights to life (labor) and property -- will never be restored.
Enter Mr. Mike Rowe – As regards his well-intentioned but superficial comment that “wars require zero sacrifice from the civilian population, and therefore zero understanding – leading to zero awareness” …
… I have this to say:
The sacrifices made by the civilian population who pays for these egregious examples of waste, fraud, and abuse – are made against the will of the people. Our employers are conscripted by our government - as a condition of being in business - to withhold the illegal tax on our labor - in order to pay the interest on the debt incurred to finance these colossally destructive wars. We are all forced to feed the beast bent on destroying us. It is an extortion scheme so elaborate and insidious, that hardly anyone even understands how the citizenry is being duped into sacrificing every aspect of our American founding principles in order to pay for it.
Furthermore, it is directly from this “civilian population” that our soldiers are recruited – after being misinformed about what their mission will be. Praying upon the well-intentioned patriotism of our neighbors, the ruling aristocracy that has robbed ALL OF US of our labor, and our property – coerces our soldiers into fighting for a false flag – against their own interests and against the interests of their CIVILIAN families. When an action gets out of hand as it did in Benghazi – our so-called leaders WILLFULLY ABANDON our soldiers in order to try to sanitize and obscure their negligence, depraved indifference, and the true purpose of their misdirected political crimes.
Meanwhile, as our government abandons their RESPONSIBILITY to our wounded veterans, we CIVILIANS are accosted at every turn at the grocery store checkout counter to “give generously” to our “wounded warriors” from our hard-earned AFTER-TAX incomes, for which we painstakingly slave - day in and day out - in futility - trying to pay off a fraudulently created mortgage on a home we will NEVER be able to truly own. While the CEO’s of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, The Warburgs, The Rothschilds, and The Rockefellers rake in TRILLIONS from the interest paid on our debts created to fund these illegal wars --- they offer NOTHING to help our dismembered and disenfranchised former soldiers. All the while we CIVILIANS --- the over-taxed, over-worked, unappreciated working middle class are asked dozens of times per day to open our wallets and donate to some corrupt 503c tax-free "foundation" -- and help these poor dismembered men and women try to regain their CIVILIAN lives – after having been so egregiously misused by those same bankers. Our military is being used by them to uphold and defend a system that has been perverted into something that our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to defeat.
What the American CIVILIAN population sacrifices is nothing short of their lives, their homes, their children’s futures, and worst of all, our national sovereignty, as our military is made a subservient lackey to the corrupt United Nations. The cost of this egregious waste, fraudulent misuse, and abuse of America’s military, America’s resources, and America’s soul – has bankrupted our country – not just financially, but morally and spiritually as well.
The true purpose of America’s military should be exactly as the military oath of office states: “To Uphold and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies – foreign AND DOMESTIC.”
If this were the case, our military should not be marching in the deserts and jungles of sovereign foreign countries whose armies have not set a single boot on American soil. They should instead be marching on our TREASONOUS Federal Reserve, as well as against our own TREASONOUS Congress and Supreme Court – both branches of which have and continue to VIOLATE our Constitution, to violate our individual rights to life, liberty and property, with practically every act in which they engage.
In 2011, a UK – Sunday Times article by Angus Stickler stated that a year earlier, “Leaked files reveal the number of Iraqi civilians killed at checkpoints by American troops was six times the number of insurgents. American troops shot dead 681 innocent civilians at security checkpoints in Iraq, including 30 children, leaked files reveal.”
Civilians sacrifice nothing?
Mr. Rowe, I have never heard such a preposterous and absurd comment such as this come from your lips. With all due respect, please reflect on your notion of what constitutes a sacrifice from the Civilian Population, and for whose “defense” our US military is actually being deployed. It is certainly NOT for me, or for my neighbors. No Libyan, no Afghani, nor any Iraqi has ever stolen from me or from the mouth of my child – a single slice of bread – yet my own government and their UNCONSTITUTIONAL monetary and tax authorities have defrauded me and my neighbors out of practically every nickel we have ever worked for during our lifetimes.
Think again Mr. Rowe -- who are YOU really working for?
Bonus Excerpt: From the book: “Chase the Rabbit” :
Members of Congress and All Commissioned Military Officers’ Oath of Office reads,
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
This oath, when taken by military officers, binds them to willfully disobey any order that violates our constitution, whether that order comes from a superior officer or the Commander-In-Chief himself. Therefore, these oaths mandate the preservation, support, and defense of our constitution exactly as it was written and ratified by the states.
Bloodied and Orphaned - A 3-year old Iraqi girl cries after her Civilian parents were killed by US soldiers.
Why was Justice Antonin Scalia the most important Judge on the Bench, in terms of our Constitutional Rights as Americans ?
Why was Justice Antonin Scalia so despised by this administration, that for the first time in US history, this "president" snubbed this Supreme Court Justice's funeral?
What is it about Justice Scalia's importance that fewer than 1 in a 100 Americas even understands the gravity of his passing?
Justice Antonin Scalia, was one of only two "originalists" on the Supreme Court Bench (the other is Clarence Thomas). An "originalist," is a justice who respects the US Constitution in terms of original intent. He rejects the notion of "a living Constitution," which came into being during the Roosevelt (FDR) administration - as a means to subvert the Constitutions protections of individual liberty and most especially, property rights.
Here is an example of what Justice Scalia once so eloquently and so simply stated: "you would have to be an idiot to believe that the constitution is a living organism. It is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things.”
“The second argument,” Scalia said, “is that the text and its original meaning are the only objective standards to which all judges themselves can be held.”
Herein lays the distinguishing characteristic of a constitutional republic as opposed to a pure democracy. Under a constitutional republic even the government authorities themselves must abide by the law of the land (the constitution). No judge should have the authorization to change the meaning or intent of those laws over time in order to suit their personal agendas (or the agendas of the president who appointed him or her), even if they represent a majority. This is the only means by which all of the people, especially those in the minority, can be protected from a tyrannical government. A government that seeks to exert powers it does not have (in order to confiscate the people’s wealth and property for example) will always seek to pervert the law in order to legalize actions the government wishes to take but which are otherwise prohibited by its constitution. The Supreme Court used to be the only thing standing in the way of a government bent on distorting the Constitution’s protections of individual rights.
A man like Justice Scalia was a rare breed. He had the courage to be unpopular with any presidential administration. He stood in the way of everything this president and his administration are after - more power to abuse the citizenry, more power to rob the citizenry, more power to control the people against their will. This president is not the first to show such disdain for our Constitutional liberty and the judicial authority that is meant to enforce it.
Since FDR's deliberate transformation of the SCOTUS into the activist body it is today, the Supreme Court's function has completely changed. Under founding principles, the SCOTUS was never intended to "interpret" the Constitution's meaning. It's meaning is absolutely clear and is not open to interpretation. It is the reason the framers used phrases such as: "Congress shall make no law ...," or "... shall not be infringed." There is no clearer language than that. The sole purpose of the Supreme Court, was not to interpret Constitutional languge, but to interpret laws passed by Congress and then signed into law by the president - in terms of their Constitutionality. The Constitution is the basis-standard. One cannot have a basis standard of anything, unless it is concrete and unchanging in terms of original meaning. The power to ammend the Constitution, does not include the power to change it's meaning and intent. This is what Justice Scalia stood for, in vehement opposition to the Progressive Socialist - activists occupying the other 7 seats on the bench.
Many have been persuaded that a "living Constitution" is somehow beneficial to the people in a "Democracy." But the costs of what benefits a majority in a Democracy -- is sure to be paid by those in the minority. And herein was the purpose of the Constitution in the first place. To PROTECT the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS, and MINORITIES.
If you think you want to live under a "living constitution" so that you can bend the rules to suit you whenever you please, you must realize that this is a double-edged sword. You may not be part of a minority today, but sometime in the future each and every one of us most certainly will be, as the demographics of this country change in the coming decades. In fact, even if you are a young, educated, white man and you are lucky to live long enough, eventually you will be part of the minority of the elderly and infirm. With a living Constitution, some day in the future you may find that a self-serving majority of which you are no longer a part of will have sole authority over your destiny, your savings, retirement, wealth, health, property, and how the fruits of your labor shall be disposed of. Do you want a majority of which you are not a part to have the power to deny you of your formerly unalienable rights—possibly even to deny you the medical care required to extend your life?
With a living constitution that is exactly what will happen to you.
It is already happening to millions of Americans as they watch their property confiscated and their rights violated by our own government on a daily basis.
"The smallest minority on Earth, is the individual; One who would deny individual rights, cannot then claim to be a defender of minorities."
The constitution is about guaranteeing the unalienable rights of the individual. It is not about manipulating those rights over time by a majority who have empowered a corrupt and overreaching government that has more guns than do the citizens—and a demonstrated willingness to use them against those citizens. In a country with a living constitution, it is not a matter of if -- but when -- the government functioning under it will eventually attain enough power to become a totalitarian oligarchy. It is vitally important to understand this objectively. It is not an academic question, for someday in this country, perhaps for your children and most certainly for your grandchildren, it will become a matter of life and death.
Since power attracts the corruptible, powerfully structured institutions will eventually become fundamentally corrupt. It is just a matter of time. For this reason, the framers constructed our government to have limited and separated powers, as defined by our Constitution. Those limits on central government power were meant to be perpetual and permanent. Those who promote the idea of a living constitution in an effort to pervert its meaning and original intent, clearly do so in order to gain and expand power by subverting this basic principle. Their goal is to consolidate and then expand government’s powers so they can eventually abuse that power for their own personal gain.
Whether you’re a liberal or a conservative who has been indoctrinated to believe that we have a malleable living constitution, you must ask yourself objectively why the establishment wants you to believe this. Do you truly believe that an all-powerful fundamentally corrupt government will restrain itself from violating your rights and
taking your property? If the constitution forbids them from doing so it won’t matter because they’ll just change it, and they can so long as you consent to the absurd idea that it is a living constitution. We already see countless examples of government legalizing actions for themselves, which they have criminalized for the rest of us. Counterfeiting the nation's currency being the most obvious and most destructive, yet least understood example.
This is not a conservative versus liberal issue, or a Republican versus Democrat issue. This issue plays directly to every hardworking American family that is struggling to own their home, save for the future, and establish long-term security for their children. These are aspirations that we all share independent of our political affiliations. As long as we the people allow our public schools, universities, and propaganda media to indoctrinate the population with the myth that the constitution is a living document, we will continue further along the path to full-on tyranny. Eventually your children and your grandchildren will “wake up homeless, and penniless, on the continent their forefathers conquered.” Once our freedom and our unalienable rights have been lost, do you truly believe that an all-powerful government run by narcissistic sociopaths will simply give them back to a bunch of powerless peasants?
Justice Scalia's death is a horrendous blow to American freedom, individual liberty, and to Constitutional authority. Now, just days after Justice Scalia's death, the airwaves are replete with conspiracy theories, even including allegations of murder. Given his existence as the greatest obstacle to this government's unrestrained expansion and abuse of its power, one would be foolish NOT to question the untimely death of one of the most important judicial minds in America. The fact that he was pronounced dead from natural causes by phone, without his body being examined, followed by an order for immediate embalming without an autopsy - should raise alarm bells regardless of any conspiracy-mongering.
In the “Federalist #51,” James Madison said, “The necessary partition of power among the several departments—by so contriving the interior structure of the government, its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. The separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government is essential to the preservation of liberty.”
As Justice Roberts’s unconstitutional ruling on Obamacare demonstrated, the consolidation of power vested in the executive branch has become most egregious between the White House and the Supreme Court. This is a weakness in our system that must be corrected if we are to restore constitutional authority and liberty to the people. In “Federalist #51,” James Madison also wrote, “Each department should have a will of its own, and the members of each should have as little agency as possible, in the appointment of the members of the others.”
Given this statement, how is it that the appointment of Supreme Court justices became vested in the authority of the president?
Clearly the actions of FDR throughout his 12-year presidency—starting with his failed attempt to pack the Supreme Court with an increase to 15 liberal judges -- and followed by his patient transformation of the 9-member court through attrition—have more than demonstrated the flaw in this model.
Should the President Nominate Supreme Court Justices?
Absolutely NOT. Restoring America to the rule of law requires that we reestablish a meaningful separation of powers to the branches of the federal government. This must start with the Supreme Court and US Senate. Presidential nominees to the Supreme Court must be approved by the Senate for their appointment to take effect. Therefore, the political dynamics between the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court are inextricably linked. Following the passage of the seventeenth amendment in 1913 however, members of the US Senate have been elected by popular vote, rather than being appointed by State Legislatures. This has left us with 100 US Senators who are no longer beholden to the constituents in their respective states, but instead to the huge corporations, political action committees, and other special interest groups who fund their campaigns. One of the best examples of the consequent dysfunctions of this, was former US Senator Max Baucus of Montana. He spent more than 35 years in Congress "representing" Montana, a state in which he was not even a legal resident for at least 12 of those years, and whose citizens provided less than 10% of his campaign donations in any of his many campaigns for the Montana Senate seat. Max Baucus was not elected to the Senate by the people of Montana, he was sent to Congress by the big-Pharma industry and others outside of Montana who financed his campaigns.
Supreme Court justices are not democratically elected by any majority vote because their purpose is not to represent the will of any majority. Their responsibility is to ensure that our laws are strictly compliant with what is permitted by the US Constitution in order to ensure that the unalienable rights of all people, especially minorities and individuals are protected. If they were intended to bend and manipulate the law in compliance with the will of some majority of the people or special interest, a Supreme Court judgeship would be an elected office. It is not, precisely because the US Constitution must be enforced in terms of a strict interpretation of its original meaning and intent. This also implicitly prohibits the US Constitution from being treated as a living document.
Under article 2 of the constitution the president has the power by and with the consent of the Senate to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. Once nominated, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts a series of hearings with the nominee prior to any Senate confirmation vote. Once vetted as a nominee, the appointment is confirmed with a majority vote in the Senate. Originally, this required a two-thirds supermajority (67 Senators). Several decades ago however, this was changed to a three-fifths majority (60 Senators). Late in 2013, even this was changed to a simple majority of just 51 Senate votes for confirmation—pure Democratic Socialism as opposed to the Rule of Law.
This degeneration in our separation of powers doctrine suggests that the two major flaws in our system, are the presidential nomination privilege, as well as the Senate final confirmation authority.
The Supreme Court is there to defend the liberties of the people. It is NOT there to expand and perpetuate the authority and abuse of power by the central government.
For this reason, Supreme Court Justices should be nominated, vetted, and confirmed; by State Governors and/or State Legistutres, or some combination thereof, similar to how US Senators were formerly appointed prior to the 17th amendment. Furthermore, Supreme Court Justices should NOT have the benefit of a lifetime appointment. Term and time limits must apply to ALL federal government employees residing within the three branches of government.
The importance of these issues, of Justice Scalia's death, and of Obama's ability to now appoint yet a third leftist, progressive, Socialist liberal to the Supreme Court during his tenure, cannot be overstated. What America now faces, is nothing short of disaster; driving us headlong into a state of permanent, irreversible degeneration of our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
America is in serious trouble. Just a few weeks ago, an unarmed American citizen, Mr. Robert Lavoy Finicum (a man whose only crime was working hard on his ranch to provide for his 11 foster children, and exercising his first-amendment right to free speech in protest of the illegal arrest and incarceration of his fellow ranchers - The Hammonds), while on his way to a town-hall meeting to which he was invited by the FBI, was ambushed and shot to death by those same FBI agents, after which his bullet-riddled body was left lying alone and unattended in the snow to bleed out. But this wasn't called murder, and already the news media has forgotten this event - acting as though it never happened. Now we have lost the most steadfast defender of individual liberty in the United States, Justice Antonin Scalia -- people barely bat an eye, and their so-called "president" refuses to even attend the funeral. The same president who refers to teenage thugs as one of his own.
American's have been called sheep, they have been characterized as being "asleep," but it's much worse than this. The American people seem to be in some sort of collective coma to remain so oblivious to how quickly our country is being irreversibly destroyed from within. We the people should instead be marching by the millions on Washington to demand a restoration of Constitutional authority. Instead, we are sitting by while innocent, hardworking, patriotic American citizens are being gunned down by government-authorized murders who have been granted a badge, a gun, and the authorization to kill unarmed Americans with impunity.
Rest Well my Fellow Americans -- Safe in the Knowledge that You Could be Next.
We can all thank Ron Paul for his relentless efforts to bring awareness to the American people, that our Federal Reserve System and their Marxist fiat monetary model are inherently corrupt. Indeed, every one of our nation’s socio-economic ills can be traced back to this institution’s deliberate manipulation of our money – which is the very foundation of our entire economy. Many have also finally figured out that this cancerous partnership between our government and The Fed has been foisted upon the American people in a long-term, systematic, surreptitious process of incrementalism, mainly because its very existence is unconstitutional.
Fortunately, there are a few who see it for what it is and understand that this system must be dismantled and Sound Money restored. In fact, more are becoming aware that this is indeed the ONLY means by which to restore real property rights for all Americans and bring real liberty back to the American people. Chief among those who both understand this and are currently embroiled in the Republican Primaries, are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. What is interesting is their different approaches to this problem.
It’s now clear, at least to this author, that the Rand Paul strategy is to try to use incrementalism as the means to bring about a slow dismantling of the Fed. This strategy seems to have been passed down from his father (who spearheaded at least 4 prior House Bills to audit the fed - all of which passed, but then amounted to nothing). Every few years for the past 20, I have seen some new incarnation of a Ron Paul “Audit the Fed” bill introduced to Congress, and then come to a vote with much fanfare. Most recently, just prior to the senior Dr. Paul’s retirement from Congress, two companion bills were introduced simultaneously in the House and Senate, by the father-and-son duo of Ron and Rand Paul respectively. Ultimately, after the house-bill passed yet again (for the 3rd consecutive time) the Senate version stalled in Committee for more than 3 years under orders from corrupt Democrat Harry Reid – again to no avail.
As much as I admire and support both Dr.’s Paul, I have to ask myself; why do they continue to bother with the incremental approach? Is it because it required this incremental strategy to get the Fed system shoved down our throats in the first place ?
It took at least 3 or 4 generations since 1913—for the Marxist foundations of our fiat monetary system, our system of progressive taxes on income, property taxation, etc. – to take root in America before their effects were widely noticed (while continuing to falsely proclaim our country as “free-enterprise capitalism”). This incrementalism coupled with the false-flag tactic of blaming our consequent and mounting econonmic problems on the “Capitalism” they had already abandoned is how the leftists since Wilson and later FDR, were able to get away with implementing Socialism in America --without anyone noticing.
The question I now must ask is this: Is this same strategy of incrementalism is the best way to “un-do” these insidious and corrupt Marxist institutions such as “The Fed,” the IRS, and others?
After watching things unfold over these past 20+ years -- I've come to a different thought process on this. As much as I admire and respect Ron Paul, and his son Rand as well -- there is an old saying that goes something like this: "the definition of insanity - is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
This push to audit the fed is nothing new. The only thing it has accomplished (other than to “raise awareness”), is to have wasted tens of thousands of billable hours of time for legislators and their lawyers, while having brought ZERO accountability to the Fed.
Continuing to take an incremental approach toward putting the Fed into line is not only a waste of time at this point; but it plays directly into the hands of those who control the Fed. All they do is laugh at these efforts, and continue to use their lapdog media to try to paint people like Ron and Rand Paul and other anti-Fed people as a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing extremists. After-all, if even the Pauls are willing to "incrementalize" something that should clearly be abolished ---- one has to wonder whether the Pauls themselves believe in the efficacy of their own ideas. Like I said … incrementalism hasn't worked over the past 20 years, and doing the same thing while expecting different results … well, you know the rest.
My view is this: let's stop pussy-footing around and finally just open this can of worms so that the American people stop being misled to the idea that the Fed should remain intact—but be "reformed" or "modified" in some way. That is absolute NONSENSE. The only way to restore real property rights and liberty for all Americans, is to restore Sound Money. That means money in accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution---which means, a precious-metal based commodity standard. That means --- No Federal Reserve in ANY form.
Article 1 – Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power … to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; …”
The Constitution further prohibits the US Congress from delegating any of its powers to another party. As such, the Federal Reserve Act has been in violation of this provision since the very beginning, so it’s time for Congress to make this right again, once and for all.
The US Dollar must be based on a fixed standard of a precious metal, its value and volume determined only by Congress, and therefore created only by the US Treasury. No middle-man, no debt. Read that again – NO DEBT.
This means No Fed. Not a "quasi-Fed" ... or a Fed that has been audited, or Fed that has been audited and then "incrementally" stepped toward a "new fiat money with more constraints." None of that is acceptable. We need to RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION – NOW – before it becomes a completely irrelevant letter. Incrementalism at this stage of the game only gives those in charge of the Fed time to continue their shenanigans and thus continue to sabotage the process of restoring our country’s bases for Constitutional authority.
We need SOUND MONEY.....nothing short of that will do. So let's grow a spine, state the truth, educate the people on this...and be done with it. To drive this point home, here is an Excerpt from the book Chase The Rabbit:
Ending the Federal Reserve System:
There are two ways to end the Federal Reserve System. It can either be done in a single bold legislative act, or it could be dismantled incrementally by transitioning the system toward that goal. Either way has certain pros and cons. As far as this author is concerned, I believe that this system must be dismantled as soon and as quickly as possible so that the corrupt, self-serving members of the Federal Reserve system will not be in a position to sabotage the process of restoring sound money—for they have every reason to do so.
Restoring the Gold Standard
Some authors have suggested that the Federal Reserve system could be reformed, in order to restore some stability while allowing the fiat system to continue. Those making these proposals are well intentioned, and they believe that taking such steps will set the stage for an incremental dismantling of the Fed. Incrementalism however is a counterproductive strategy in my opinion. I therefore disagree with these approaches and will explain why under each of their proposed tactics below:
Change the Mandate of the Federal Reserve
According the Federal Reserve’s website, “The Congress established the statutory objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act as being: maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.” The Federal Reserve’s actions during the past hundred years reveal that they are far more interested in achieving the opposite. They willfully create targeted "market-specific" inflations (economic bubbles) and enact policy that maximizes unemployment in order to ensure that the corporations owned by their banking cartel have a desperate and underemployed workforce ready and willing to work for peanuts. If they haven’t fulfilled their existing mandate at any time in the past hundred years, what difference would it make to change their mandate now?
Adopting a Formal Rule to Guide Federal Reserve Decision-Making
The Fed has had formal rules intended to guide their decision-making process since it was founded. They have not followed those rules, and as Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Bernanke have told Congress on numerous occasions, they are not obligated to disclose the details of their actions and are not accountable to anyone. In fact, they have deliberately prohibited Congress any scrutiny of their adherence to those rules. It is for this reason that for the past thirty years former congressman Dr. Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to bring transparency and accountability to the secretive Fed. In 2009 and 2010 he introduced: HR 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. The bill passed as an amendment in the House’s Financial Services Committee and in the House itself. But eventually the most significant portions of the bill were derailed. Dr. Paul reintroduced Audit the Fed on January 26, 2011 as HR 459 along with a companion bill introduced by his son, Dr. Rand Paul, in the Senate as S202. Exactly eighteen months later on July 25, 2012, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the Texas Republican’s bill with bipartisan support, and it passed 327–98. The Senate version of the bill, S202, however, has remained stuck in the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, as Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) is under direct orders from Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “not to let it out of committee.” As of this writing, this bill has remained stuck in the Senate committee on Senator Reid’s orders for more than two and a half years. For a US Senator to deliberately quash a legitimate bill from being voted upon by the Senate—a bill that has passed the House of Representatives twice—is a blatant violation of his oath of office and his obligation to his constituency. If the other US Senators were true to their own oaths of office, they would immediately act to remove Senator Reid from his position for his repeated and egregious violations of the public trust. Clearly the corruption has extended from the Federal Reserve banking cartel and into the halls of Congress. What good is a set of rules for decisions for either the Federal Reserve or the US Senate when the top-ranking members of both institutions willfully violate them?
Clearly, Senator Reid’s relationship with the Fed should be investigated for possible conflicts of interest. If such conflicts are proven, it would render him as incapable of continuing in his duties as a US Senator, and he should in that case be removed from office immediately.
Adopting a Full Gold Standard by Establishing an Official Gold Convertibility Rate for the Dollar
This is essentially restoring the system back to the pre-FDR structure. This is probably the best suggestion by those trying to keep the Federal Reserve system in some form, but as FDR proved, as long as the Fed system exists in any form whatsoever, the means to corrupt our monetary system will continue to exist as well. As long as a private banking cartel controls the nation’s money supply, whether on a gold standard or not, we will forever be fighting the thieves who are bent on robbing us of our property rights.
We must remove the wolves from the hen house once and for all.
Allow Competitive Currencies, Including Private Currencies Backed by Gold or Silver, to Circulate against Federal Reserve Notes
Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian economist who won the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics had written extensively on his mistrust of any government to maintain even an honest gold standard. In November 1977, Hayek asserted, “I am more convinced than ever, that if we ever again are going to have sound money, it will not come from government; it will be issued by private enterprise.” This form of monetary system is the model that is truest to the principles of a free-market economy. It represents the most honest monetary standard and should be held up as the ultimate goal for our monetary system. The most likely to be achievable step in this direction will be to end the Federal Reserve System and restore the gold standard with our Congress-controlled Treasury in control of our money, while allowing competitive currencies to come into being based upon market demand.
… End of Excerpt
Having watched the last two Republican primary debates, something struck me which began to differentiate Ted Cruz, from the rest of the candidates. First as a disclaimer, I must clarify that this is not to make any kind of endorsement; this is just my commentary on a strict observation of the events. In fact, until now; I have been for many years a Ron Paul supporter. Who I am currently in favor of for President I won't say in this article, because I haven't yet made up my mind.
Nevertheless, during the 3rd GOP debate on CNN, it was Ted Cruz who finally had the guts to mention restoring SOUND MONEY based on Gold, as the basis for restoring American principles to our governance. I applaud him for that. I can’t speak for others, but to me, this comment raised the question in my mind; “Is Ted Cruz the only candidate with the knowledge, the backbone, and above all, the courage, to do what is necessary to finally dismantle the Federal Reserve System and restore a true Free-Enterprise Capitalist economy in America?" What has surprised me most, is that Rand Paul has been nearly silent on the issues of sound money and property rights - while these are the cornerstones of a free and just nation.
This election is about restoring liberty, individual sovereignty, property rights, and Constitutional authority. As such--at this point--incrementalism be damned. Stop beating around the bush. The Federal-Reserve is a seven-headed fire-breathing dragon, bent on consuming the fruits of labor of every man and woman in America. You really think poking it with a finger is going to make it get in line? We the people need to decapitate this beast as quickly and as soon as possible, so that we can take back our property, the fruits of our labor, our homes, our families, and our very lives ... and time is running out.
The main distinction between a free-enterprise capitalist system, and its opposite (Socialism, Communism, etc.), has to do with property rights.
In a free society individual citizens have the right to property ownership. In a collectivist society (Socialism, Communism, Fascism) – only the collective owns and/or controls all property (including labor) – and then “distributes” wealth as the ruling class of that society sees fit.
This is only logical.
Under free enterprise capitalism –where individual actors are free to transact with one another voluntarily and by mutual consent—those actors can only trade or sell that which they own. You can’t just sell your neighbor’s property or conscript their labor without their consent. The former is theft, and the latter slavery.
But history has demonstrated that Socialist governments both steal and enslave.
Therefore, for a government to “redistribute wealth” under any form of socialism – that government must eradicate individual property rights.
This distinction seems to escape most people. To state this principle more simply, a free enterprise economic system requires a respect for individual property rights; a socialist economic system requires there be no individual property rights.
The Back Story - The Money
All property — whether we’re talking about your land, your home, or your labor— has a value. That value is measured in terms of the monetary system over which that economy functions. There are only two kinds of money – Fiat money, and Sound money. Sound money (under a precious metal standard such as gold or silver) protects your property rights, because it has intrinsic value, so its purchasing power is stable and the resultant value of your property (and of your labor) is determined solely by the individual actors in the free market – qua - supply and demand.
Fiat money on the other hand is created as debt. Every unit of fiat money created, is owed back to the issuer (the central bank) — plus interest. As such, under a fiat monetary system, all of your property (and your labor) that is valued in terms of that fiat money – is actually controlled by the issuer (lender -- through inflation and interest rate manipulation). Under an inflationary Fiat money system, supply and demand is deliberately distorted, surreptitiously giving the issuer control over the value and disposition of your labor and your property. These economic distortions are evidenced by the many “market-specific inflations” (such as the housing bubble for example), which have been deliberately foisted upon the middle class as means to destroy home-ownership—while at the same time—when coupled with unfair taxation on labor compensation – surreptitiously conscripts individual labor.
Many Americans believe that it was Richard Nixon who took the US Dollar "off the gold standard" in 1971, when he rescinded the Bretton-Woods Agreement. This is not entirely accurate. It was in 1933, when FDR took the US Dollar off of the “gold standard,” that our currency was converted from Sound money - “United States Dollars” into Fiat money - “Federal Reserve Notes.” From that time until 1971, the US dollar was on what was known as "The Gold Exchange Standard." Explaining that is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, all the reader needs to know is that since 1933 – our government and their corrupt partners in the Federal Reserve System have printed fake money, expanding the “money supply” to astronomical proportions. This is what is called “inflation.”
Most people believe that inflation is "caused" by rising prices but this understanding reverses cause and effect. In truth, the word “inflation” denotes “inflating” or expanding the supply of money. This causes every existing unit of money to be diluted in terms of its purchasing power. The consequence is that it takes more money units to buy the same goods or services as before – giving the appearance of rising prices. Inflation is created deliberately, by the central bank's monetary policy decisions.
The goods and services you’re purchasing are the same. Their intrinsic value has not changed. If you’ve lived in the same home for the past 10 years –it’s the same home—it hasn’t changed in terms of its utility or REAL value to you. But its price may have doubled in that time. This reveals that under our fiat monetary system – price and value are not the same thing. Price is always manipulated and perverted under fiat money. What is more insidious, is that the magnitude of inflation can be differentially applied across markets. In other words, through market-specific interest rate manipulation by banks - prices for homes, food, and other necessities can be inflated at a different rate than say - the labor market. And that is exactly what we have seen over the past 50 years, as the graph above so clearly illustrates.
Nevertheless, "we the people" are industrious. Even if most don't understand the underhanded tricks and machinations our ruling class uses to try to enslave us, it is in our DNA to try to create and accumulate wealth for ourselves and for our children.
But the ruling class doesn't want you to create and accumulate wealth for yourself or your children. They want you to create it for them. And they want it ALL. They want your property, your money, your labor, and control of your very life. They are very - very - patient. This is why they surreptitiously took control of "the money supply" in 1933. But their greed knows no bounds, and the fact that we the people can still use cash without the rulers ALWAYS taking a cut from EVERY transaction - is thorn in their side. They're not happy with you having at least some of our former freedoms. Our ruling class is populated with control freaks - mentally ill to the core. They don't want you to have ANY freedoms whatsoever.
Here is how they intend to remove that thorn:
In spite of the fact that the US Federal Reserve Note has lost 98% of its purchasing power since 1933, banks are still required to act with at least some minimal level of discipline. They are still somewhat restricted in their fraudulent fractional-reserve lending practices – due to the reserve requirement to which they are subject. This means that all commercial banks in America are obligated to keep at least 10% of their depositors’ cash on-hand (so they can only “loan out” 90% of their depositors’ money). This is in order that if some depositors come to take out some of their cash – the bank will have some available to return to depositors.
Given this understanding, “we the people” should now be asking ourselves this question: “Why over the past few years, have we begun to witness the emergence of a war on cash?”
The Cashless Society
As with every other insidious Socialist policy and institution that has surreptitiously infiltrated the US economy over the past 100 years, we have been hearing more and more propaganda touting a movement to eliminate cash-money altogether – and move us toward a “cashless society.”
The first thing the reader must understand – is that the only REAL cash – is Sound money. Fiat money is not cash – it is counterfeit. Second, all of the economic ills our country has faced over the past few generations are a direct consequence of the dysfunctions that occur under a Fiat monetary model (which is a fundamentally Marxist construct).
So why would those with power over our system (which has been deliberately misrepresented as “free enterprise capitalism”) want to go to a cashless society?
You can count on being indoctrinated by the mainstream media that this would be for your benefit. But as with all things that have been shoved down our throats by our government, you can bet it is for the opposite purpose.
What will be the consequences?
It will mean a permanent end to individual property rights, and the final nail in the coffin of the free-enterprise system upon which America was founded. America abandoned sound money, and with it real Free Enterprise Capitalism a century ago. However, there still exists the possibility to restore Free Markets and The Constitution.
Moving to a cashless society, however, will make this impossible. The clandestine and incremental slide toward centrally controlled Socialist-Fascism will be complete, and irreversible. Read that sentence again and let it sink in. Unless you want your children, grandchildren, and every generation thereafter to suffer immeasurably — a life of perpetual inescapable servitude — under the thumb of a small group of Narcissistic, Sociopathic, Power-Mongering, Socialist Control Freaks -- you must resist the cashless society with every fiber of your being. There are several reasons for this.
With the growth of the surveillance-based police state, imagine for a moment the consequences of being deprived of any anonymity whatsoever, for every transaction no matter how seemingly insignificant. Without cash, you will have no choice but to involve a “financial institution” to process all of your electronic transactions. Never again will you be able to sell your used television to your neighbor without government interference. Just conducting a garage sale will require you to first obtain permission from the government as well as access to a bank’s electronic transfer services — for a fee of course. You will not be able to buy a stick of gum without paying a transaction fee for doing so.
Every transaction you make will be recorded electronically and data-mined for your preferences, your lifestyle, your whereabouts at any moment, and your every decision. The transaction fees you pay will cover the government’s cost of controlling you. This is the concept of “feeding the beast”—on steroids. The information that will be available to governments when no one can buy or sell anything without going through a bank is big government’s dream come true.
Imagine ordering a pizza and bottle of Coke to be delivered to your home. Three minutes after your order has been delivered and your e-money account has been debited, you receive a phone call from your health-insurance provider. The premiums you pay for this health policy are deducted from your wages automatically — without your consent — since you are obligated by law to have this “insurance”. A pleasant electronically generated female voice on the other end says, “Mr. Smith, the pizza and soda you are about to consume have been proven to be a leading cause of heart-disease. Since your most recent quarterly health screening showed elevated triglycerides and HDL cholesterol, you must be advised that your health insurance premiums will be raised by 7.5%. For your convenience, this will automatically be deducted from your account on the next business day. Have a nice day and enjoy your pizza.”
This is not hyperbole. This kind of blackmail via data-mining is already being practiced by insurance providers of all kinds. And this scenario is only the tip of the iceberg.
An even greater threat that will be imposed by the cashless society is relatively unknown to most Americans — even the ones who are paying attention.
Consider the fact that banks today are forced to have at least some modicum discipline in their lending policy due to the requirement they hold 10% of their depositors’ cash in reserve as physical cash. Most people understand the concept that a “run on the banks” occurs when all depositors try to withdraw their money at the same time, and the bank lacks enough physical cash to satisfy its liabilities.
When physical money no longer exists, the reserve requirement becomes irrelevant since there will no longer be any real money to put on reserve. There can be no risk of a bank run when there is nothing at the bank to run after. In fact, no one will “withdraw money” ever again. Every transaction you make will be “processed” electronically by a computer. Banks will merely create as much electronic money as they need to satisfy the demands of their “depositors” as well as borrowers. With no reserve requirement, banks will be absolved of any fiscal discipline whatsoever.
They will then also be absolved of paying any interest to depositors. Negative interest rates on deposits will become the norm. In other words, you will pay the bank for the privilege of managing your electronic deposits rather than the bank paying you interest for holding and re-lending your money.
Banks can then write loans to all comers and expand the money supply to infinity. All it will take is a few keystrokes on a computer keyboard. Hyperinflation will be the result.
Unintended Consequences (or intended perhaps?)
Restrictions on transactions that will come into effect will be disguised as benefits of the cashless society.
Parents will be lured into embracing the notion that their 17 year old will be unable to buy liquor using a fake ID, since their smart phone, or perhaps worse – the chip implanted in their wrist – will be programmed to prohibit them from buying any. In fact, the ruling class will be able to program your card or chip with whatever transactional restrictions they like, without having to pass a law to do so. The technology is already there to modify your purchasing restrictions anytime the rulers see fit. Did you write a “letter to the editor” criticizing your State Governor for his recent transgressions with a high-school cheerleader? You may find that your unfavorable commentary about a political official has led to your chip being disabled for purchasing your weekly insulin supply, until you print a retraction and apology.
If your electronic “fed-coin,” smart phone, or chip is not programmed to let you buy a certain thing, how will you get it? You don’t have cash anymore and no one would accept it if you did. In that case, you can forget about the 2nd Amendment. Gun registration will be unnecessary, since the leftists in charge of the banking aristocracy will disable any transaction for a firearm from ever being able to take place. As always, criminals will still easily obtain guns and drugs through illegal barter, but you won’t – since you’re not a criminal.
The cashless society will be sold to the American people as a “convenience,” as a “more secure form of payment,” as your patriotic duty, or as some other nonsense.
Conditioning The People for Slavery
This is one of the little known reasons for having had artificially low interest rates for such an extended period of time. The financial “industry” has done this partly to allow normalcy bias to set in on the current generation. They have been conditioning people with the idea that being paid nothing in interest for your “savings” deposits should be normal. Once they move to negative interest rates — paying the bank interest and fees to “manage your deposits” — few people will object and many might not even notice.
In February, 2016, the makers of the classic board game Monopoly announced that the game will no longer feature paper cash. Players will instead have an electronic “bank card,” like a debit card. The process of using games like this to condition children and youth with the idea that cash is “antiquated” is already underway, not only in board games, but even in school. Most public school lunch programs have now disallowed the use of cash for children to buy their lunches. Unwitting parents see this as convenient and safer. However, children are being inculcated starting in the first grade that a swipe card is the same as money. By the time they are adults, they won’t even know how to count change for a cash purchase.
The outcome of the cashless society will be unrestrained hyperinflation and a rapid expansion of poverty. Just trying to feed your children and keep a roof over their heads will constitute “living beyond your means.” The new normal will mean that the most basic standard of living will be unaffordable without using a vast amount of debt.
If you want to try to start your own small business – one that may compete against some bank-controlled corporate behemoth – forget it. You, your children, grandchildren — every successive generation — will be forced into employment and debt servitude from the time you are able to work for your first electronic nickel, until you’re too old and decrepit to walk to the toilet by yourself. By the end of your life, you’ll have no real assets of any kind. It will mark the permanent end of individual property rights—forever.
You will never be able to object to this system once it’s been put in place. If you exercise your first amendment right to free speech by saying something the government (or the bank) doesn’t like — you will likely find yourself deprived of the ability to conduct any transaction at all. In fact, once this economic catastrophe has been shoved down our throats — the Constitution and Bill of Rights will become completely irrelevant artifacts.
Once the cashless society has been fully implemented—it will be impossible to reverse it and restore sound money—as the Constitution requires.
The end result — Miserable, Abject, Global Slavery.
This isn’t some hypothetical futuristic conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy fact – and it is already being implemented right now. It’s important that the American people understand the grave implications of this “last-straw” in the long and surreptitious eradication of our property rights. Consider the fact that there is not a single mention of this (or of property rights in general) by any political candidate who sought elected office during this most recent current election cycle. There is a reason that these facts are being ignored by the media, and obscured from the public.
Implementing The Cashless Society Is Secretly Underway
All over the world, it is starting with subtle capital controls being enacted by government agencies and commercial banks, as well as through changes to the currency system. For example, in the US city of New Orleans, the local government decided to stop accepting cash payments from drivers at the Office of Motor Vehicles. Several branches of Citibank in Australia have stopped dealing in cash altogether. India recently demonetized its two largest denominations of cash, leaving the entire country in economic chaos. A few weeks later, former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers published an article stating that “nothing in the Indian experience gives us pause in recommending that no more large notes be created in the United States, Europe, and around the world.” Summers has long advocated for putting an end to the $100 bill.
JP Morgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., has recently enacted a policy restricting the use of cash in selected markets. Chase has banned cash payments for credit cards, mortgages, and auto loans; and they have disallowed the storage of “any cash or coins” in safe deposit boxes. The war on property rights has moved from one of words—to a war of actions.
Here are several recent and very alarming quotes that should chill any individual who cherishes his or her freedom and anonymity:
1. “Despite advances in transaction technologies, paper currency still constitutes a notable percentage of the money supply in most countries… Yet, it has important drawbacks. First, it can help facilitate activity in the underground (tax-evading) and illegal economy. Second, its existence creates the artifact of the zero bound on the nominal interest rate.” -- Kenneth Rogoff (from the intro to his paper The Costs and Benefits to Phasing Out Paper Currency)
In other words, cash (not money) is the source of all evil and must be destroyed because governments can’t trace its every movement, and it represents a limiting factor on central banks’ ability to continue their insane negative-interest-rate experiment.
2. “This cost has to be seen against the cost that the anonymity of currency presents to society. Even though hard evidence is hard to come by, it is very likely that the underground economy and the criminal community are among the heaviest users of currency. This, I believe, is the hidden intent behind all the excited talk about banning cash: to do away with the personal anonymity it offers.”
-- Citigroup‘s Chief Economist Willem Buiter
3. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, France‘s finance minister Michel Sapin started scare-mongering by blaming the attacks on the assailants’ ability to buy dangerous things with cash. Shortly thereafter he announced the implementation of capital controls that included a €1,000 cap on cash payments, down from €3,000. He claimed that such radical measures were necessary to “fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy.”
4. In his article: “The Great Advantage of a Cashless World,” Guillermo de la Dehesa,a Spanish economist, and current international advisor to Banco Santander and of course -- Goldman Sachs, writes: “Without cash, we would live in a much safer, less violent world with enhanced social cohesion, since the major incentive fueling all illegal activity [i.e. cash]… would disappear.”
Dehesa also lamented that political authorities in all countries were incapable of taking this “transcendental step” to build a “safer and fairer world, in which there will be a reduced need for public and private policing and fewer wars, terrorist attacks, and burglaries, and drugs could only be bought legally.” With this deliberately misleading claim, he ludicrously elevated cash (rather than sound money) as a major cause of war and a laundry list of other evils.”
In fact, the opposite is true. The enormous scale of wars over the past century have only been made possible by the existence of fiat money. An economy based on sound money, could never afford to wage war on the scale we have seen over the past 100 years, because no country could then simply print money as debt – thereby conscripting the future labor of all of its citizens to pay for it. Dehesa’s comment reveals either a completely perverse understanding of economics, or a deliberate obfuscation of the truth – in order to usher in such a corrupt system.
5. Economist and former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, enthusiastically opined on a recent CBS news interview: “There will be a time – I don’t know when, I can’t give you a date – when physical money is just going to cease to exist.”
6. “Everyone thinks cash is so simple and so easy and so fast and so secure. It’s NONE of those things. It’s really expensive to move it, store it, secure it, inspect it, shred it, redesign it, re-supply it, and round and round we go!” --- David Wolman, author of The End of Money, in an interview with CBS on why he believes that cash is so impractical (not to mention unhygienic, or as he puts it “pretty gross”).
7. In the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s 2015 annual letter: “The technologies are all in place; it’s just a question of getting us to use them so we can all benefit from a crimeless, privacy-free world. What better place to conduct a massive social experiment than sub-Saharan Africa, where NGOs and GOs (Government Organizations) are working hand-in-hand with banks and telecom companies to replace cash with mobile money alternatives?
The letter goes on to explain: “Because there is strong demand for banking among the poor, and because the poor can in fact be a profitable customer base, entrepreneurs in developing countries are doing exciting work – some of which will “trickle up” to developed countries over time.”
What the Foundation doesn’t mention is that it is heavily invested in many of Africa’s mobile-money initiatives and in 2010 teamed up with the World Bank to “improve financial data collection” among Africa’s poor. One also wonders how much Microsoft will one day profit from the Foundation’s front-line role in getting a piece of every transaction from the abject poor and destitute of these third-world countries. Every time an impoverished African woman manages to scrape up enough electronic credits to buy her baby a bottle of milk, Bill Gates will happily “earn” a 2% commission on her transaction – as will a few other parasites from government and international banking.
8. Citi -- a big player in the African arena -- recently launched a partnership with USAID aimed at accelerating mobile money adoption in developing countries. From their joint press release:
Expanding the adoption of mobile financial solutions is a critical economic development strategy with the potential to drive growth and increase financial access and security for the developing world’s poor population. The effort seeks to strengthen alternatives to a cash-based system that is inefficient, costly, and prone to corruption. [Anything that allows individuals to conduct transactions without the parasites in government or banks being able to cut themselves in on the action – is considered “corrupt”]
The move to a cashless society is clearly the end-game of the ruling class. The political and financial elites are now starting to put out all kinds of propaganda to try and lure the unwitting public to get on board with that agenda. They make false claims suggesting that large denomination bills are only used in criminal enterprise like the drug trade (ignoring the fact that crime data completely contradicts this assertion).
As a result of technological advances and generational priorities, unless the hardworking people—not just of America, but of the entire world—actively object and lobby their politicians with a vocal rejection of this concept—cash’s days are numbered. The move to a cashless society is clearly the end-game of the ruling class. Don Quijones, editor of “Wolf St.” writes: “there is a whole world of difference between a natural death and euthanasia. It is now clear that an extremely powerful, albeit loose, alliance of governments, banks, central banks, large corporations, and NGOs are determined to pull the plug on cash — not for our benefit, but for theirs.”
As Quijones warned in his article: We Are Sleepwalking Towards a Cashless Society, “we (or at least the vast majority of people in the vast majority of countries) are willing to entrust government and financial institutions – organizations that have already betrayed just about every possible notion of trust – with complete control over our every single daily transaction. And all for the sake of a few minor gains in convenience. The price we pay will be what remains of our individual freedom and privacy. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.
He went on to state correctly, yet ominously: “by far the biggest risk posed by digital alternatives to cash such as mobile money is the potential for massive concentration of financial power and the abuses and conflicts of interest that would almost certainly ensue. Naturally it goes without saying that most of the institutions that will rule the digital money space will be the very same institutions — institutions like HSBC — that have already broken pretty much every rule in the financial service rule book. They have manipulated virtually every market in existence; they have commodified and financialized pretty much every natural resource of value on this planet; and in the wake of the financial crisis which they almost single-handedly caused, they have extorted billions of dollars from the pockets of their own customers and trillions from hard-up taxpayers.”
By the end of 2012, only about 8% of the total money supply existed as physical paper and coin. The recent years of “quantitative easing,” most of which was electronic money creation, has reduced this proportion even further. The looming danger to individual property rights is not just alarming for Americans, but for every industrialized nation on Earth.
Governments and huge corporations have several things in common: they want to know everything you do, they want to take your labor and pay you little or nothing for it. They ultimately want to take everything you have ever worked for and saved and turn you into a rent-paying wage slave with no savings and no assets.
Data is power. When money is only data – whoever controls the server – controls you and your life.
Technologies for collecting, mining, and using data are now so cheap that even the totally impoverished nation of Somalia has turned into the model of just this sort of cashless society.
The goal of the global banking aristocracy and their corrupt partners in various governments around the world – is to turn every nation on Earth, into a slave-state modelled on present-day Somalia—which has become their beta-test for global cashless debt slavery.
The greatest risk posed by a purely digital money system will be the massive concentration of financial power that will be wielded by the cancerous partnership between the government and The Federal Reserve. The abuses and conflicts of interest that will certainly ensue will make the housing bubble and consequent “financial crisis” seem like an irrelevant speed bump.
The Hidden Agenda of Davos — 2016
Each year, there is an annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Leaders in business, government, and media attend to discuss the big economic issues of the day. Several contrarian economists have alleged that 2016’s event, which took place from January 17th to the 20th, included a secret meeting which took place during the conference behind the scenes.
Immediately after the conference, there was a massive push to accelerate the elimination of cash, starting with high-denomination currency notes. A flood of articles from The New York Times, The Economist, Zero Hedge, and other publications mentioned this. A few days after the Davos Forum, the head of the Japanese central bank implemented negative interest rates for the first time in history. This was after he repeatedly denied that he would ever implement negative rates. Perhaps something said during Davos influenced his decision. After the conference, the CEOs of Deutsche Bank and Norway’s largest bank both called for the elimination of cash. Bloomberg published a piece called "Bring on the Cashless Future." Financial Times published a similar article. Shortly afterward, Harvard University published a paper espousing the need to eliminate high-value paper currencies, like the $100 bill and the €500 note. All of these events took place within the 6 weeks following the Davos meeting putting negative interest rates and the war on cash into overdrive.
Here in the US, the Fed has printed trillions of dollars and has run out of policy tools with which to continue propping up their phony fiat money system. Interest rates are zero and soon will have to go negative in an effort to continue artificially stimulating the consumption economy. This will be impossible without banning cash. To go cashless, the Fed will have to come up with a new “currency.” It will be an electronic currency or “Fed-coin” whose purpose will be to trap all savings in the banking system. It will be the ultimate wealth confiscation and control tool.
Moving to the Cashless society will be a turning point in Global history, the unintended consequences of which will be devastating to the middle class, and worse—will be irreversible.
What Is the Link Between Negative Interest Rates and The War on Cash?
With negative interest rates, most people will take their money out of the bank and put it under a mattress rather than suffer having to pay a penalty or a tax on saving money. The economic central planners know this, and have therefore accelerated their war on cash, along with the spread of negative interest rates around the world.
I’ve already pointed out that there is not a large volume of actual paper cash residing in banks. Since fractional reserve lending has allowed banks to loan the same money to hundreds of different borrowers, most of the “money” exists as digital bytes on a computer. If people start pulling paper money out of the banks en masse, it won't take much to collapse the entire system. They want to impose the cashless society onto the people before most realize and understand the realities of this situation and start a run on the banks before they are ready. Implementing it will take time, so their solution is to make accessing cash increasingly more difficult, and in some cases, illegal. In France, for example, it’s now illegal to do cash transactions over €1,000 without documenting it properly. That keeps cash in the banking systems. That makes the banks happy because if you are prohibited from withdrawing your cash, there can’t be a bank run.
The cashless society is the IRS's dream come true: total knowledge of, and control over, the finances of every single American.
— Former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul
Fellow citizens—the war on cash is a war against you—against your very freedom. Unless you reject this push toward the cashless society with every fiber of your being — you’d better Pucker Up — because The Worst is Yet to Come — courtesy of the criminals you have embraced as your “leaders.” Accepting such a system is tantamount to deliberately relegating your children and all future generations, to inescapable servitude, bound and subjugated to the sociopaths you have allowed to take-over your government and banking institutions.
Economic activity among humanity involves consumption of resources. It is the overconsumption of resources, and the overproduction of waste that leads to environmental destruction. Therefore, humans must of their own volition live, act, and transact, within their means. They must not be coerced into overconsumption.
However, we are a complex society of specialization. For example, we have farmers specialized in dairy production and mechanical experts specialized in manufacturing agricultural machinery. The two need each other. Neither can do the work of the other and both produce far more of their respective products than each needs as an individual for himself and his family. They are therefore able to trade the excess they produce in return for that which they need. Therefore, a balance of trade is required among all of humanity in order to provide sustainability within a complex society of specialization. Otherwise, we would be relegated to return to a hunter-gatherer status as a means to attain sustainability.
Furthermore, in order to deal with one another on a basis of ethics, morality and fairness (without the use of force or coercion) humans must be able to trade economically through a medium of exchange that represents a fair and equivalent value in all respective transactions. The use of barter for voluntary exchange is moral and fair. Barter may be used at any time by mutual agreement of the parties involved, but it is not practical as a means of transacting among the larger society for numerous obvious reasons. As I pointed out in the example of the dairy farmer and tractor manufacturer, the use of money as a medium of exchange in any fair and just economic transaction requires it to be sound money.
It is a basic fact of economics, that when the money itself can spoil (just as milk or any perishable commodity can), it must be spent more quickly in order to exchange it for other economic value—before it loses it purchasing power. Examples of "spoilage" in money include - inflation, and deliberate devaluation of the currency. These are features solely of FIAT money - and are a consequence of deficit and "stimulus" spending by the government. "Stimulus" comes from the Keynesian theory that frivolous government spending - on anything - especially when it's unproductive - will lead to economic "growth." But their version of "growth" - is growth in consumption (we will revisit this idea again later). This leads directly to overconsumption. A sound money system (precious metal standard) prevents any actor in the economy from deficit spending - since you cannot simply print more money to cover your debt - which is why governments HATE sound money. But such a system FORCES every actor in the economy - especially governments - to live within their means.
It follows then that the basis of environmental sustainability is the use of sound money, while the basis for unsustainability and overconsumption is the opposite—the use of unsound or fiat money.
It has been shown that the main purpose of sound or honest money is to provide all three properties required of money: 1) medium of exchange; 2) unit of account; and 3) a sustainable store of value. Fiat, on the other hand, cannot serve as a reliable store of value, and only serves as a medium of exchange. Fiat has features however, which enable it to be used for other purposes – purposes for which sound money cannot be used. One of these is fiat’s ability to be used to distort demand among the members of society. The ability to create an infinite amount of money leads to the illusion of infinite resources and therefore generates infinite (perpetually increasing) demand. This enables a continual expansion of consumption—an unsustainable condition in nature. It also enables the creator of that money (when issued as debt with interest) to target specific markets for increases in consumption, while ignoring other market sectors (in order to pervert the natural forces of supply and demand among the larger society). This allows them to create market-specific bubbles (inflations) at their political whim. Politicians use this as a ruse to lay claim that they are shepherding a growing economy, which is a fallacy—growth in consumption is not real economic growth because it is unsustainable.
When something has been consumed … it is gone. To grow this kind of economy requires consuming more, and more, and more … forever. Fiat can be used to coerce (or more accurately to delude) the population into believing that through debt expansion they have the ability to consume more than they would otherwise. This drives people across all of society to make economic transactions they would not otherwise have made with sound money – which cannot be created out of thin air. Fiat money expansion encourages people to over-consume, while sound money’s stability encourages people to be frugal, to save, and to only spend their money judiciously. Fiat money is the fundamental basis for an unsustainable economic model. Sound money is the opposite.
Overconsumption is the basis for environmental unsustainability. When people over-consume, they also over-pollute.
These facts lead to a singular conclusion. For a free, fair, and just society to live sustainably within Earth’s finite environment, we must base our economic model on a system of exchange that inherently demands self-discipline—one that requires all members of society, especially those with political power – to live within their means. To have one part of humanity empowered with the ability to impose their will on another part of humanity opens the door to corruption and abuse of power. Sound money is self-regulating. It precludes the abuse of political power by an arbitrary body authorized to create money from nothing. Sound money cannot be inflated to artificially expand demand and therefore overconsumption. It cannot be used by one part of humanity to manipulate the purchasing decisions of another part of humanity. By its very nature, sound money imparts fiscal discipline across the entire economy and it precludes over-consumptive behavior by every individual, group, institution, and unaccountable government. Fiat on the other hand provides exactly the opposite – a medium of exchange that can be manipulated and used by one part of humanity to profit from the unbridled consumption carried out by another part of humanity. It leads to incalculable cost in terms of unsustainable depletion of our natural resources, and generation of waste and pollution in excess of nature’s ability to process it.
The basis of natural law which demands the exclusive use of sound money among our society—as a means to protect the integrity of all transactions and the sustainability of our resources—was given by the original United States Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 guaranteed our nation a system of sound money based on the gold and silver standard. The US Constitution, in terms of its original meaning and intent, was the first (and remains the only) governing document ever drafted which provides this economic recipe for humanity to coexist peacefully, sustainably, fairly, ethically, and in accordance with the laws of nature. Indeed, the framers wrote voluminously about their intent to base The Constitution upon Natural Law. This was discussed extensively by their intellectual and philosophical mentors such as Adam Smith and John Locke, and goes all the way back to the Magna Carte. It was the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the sixteenth amendment that acted to subvert this basic principle. Their sole purpose was to create an economic model whose moral basis is diametrically opposed to the Constitution’s original intent. Their intent was to enable our currently unsustainable system of consumption-based illusory growth through fiat money—solely for the benefit of the money printers. It is they who are destroying this planet as any parasite that slowly consumes its host, until nothing is left but a bleached skeleton laying on a barren desert.
Is this what "we the people" wish for this once-great country?
Make no mistake about it. Environmentalism is a political movement--nothing more. Politics is the use of force and coercion by one group of men over another. Conservationism on the other hand, is the basis for acting to preserve our environment and natural world for posterity, and for future generations—not the basis for political power, prestige, or personal gain. We have seen how this country’s politicians almost universally declare themselves as environmentalists, while at the same time they consistently act to preserve our corrupt fiat monetary system whose main purpose is to enable overconsumption (fiscal stimulus and deficit spending).
Political environmentalists are therefore the worst kind of hypocrites.
Our fiat monetary model is based on Marxism and on the Keynesian notion of digging holes in the ground in order to fill them in again, as a means to create jobs and economic growth. It enables endless foreign interventionism, wars, debt expansion, mal-investment, all of which lead directly to the over-use and destruction of our natural resources. This does not enable the creation of sustainable economic value and it is absolutely incompatible with a policy of conservationism. Fiat money can simply be re-printed if it is lost, mal-invested, or misspent. Money that you can print out of thin air can be spent frivolously, without a judicious discipline in its employment as capital. It is therefore the basis of a society bent on over-consuming until we are left with an over-polluted, unsustainable, unlivable planet covered with trash dumps, bomb craters, and other useless holes in the ground—courtesy of John Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx.
Fiat money is the system we are currently living under.
Economic activity is not the same as economic growth. Real growth—sustainable value creation—comes from investment, savings, and creating real lasting value for all of humanity. The basis for this is a system of money that has shelf-life, and for which the risk of loss is real. That kind of money demands that it is employed judiciously in terms of investment in production because if it is mal-invested … it is wasted, along with the resources which were consumed in order to mine for, and mint it into existence. This is the main distinction which escapes the understanding of most people. Marxist (and Keynesian) FIAT money that today's central banks can create in the trillions - with nothing more than a keystroke on a computer - has no intrinsic value - for obvious reasons. The idea that creating it and then injecting it into the economy to "stimulate" demand that didn't before exist - is an absurd perversion of the economy. An asset-based money on the other hand - such as gold or silver coin - can only come into being when REAL - already existing economic demand requires that new money be created. And then, the only way to create it - is to trade labor in the act of mining for and then minting those coins. This is what gives sound money its intrinsic value. Labor has already been traded in the act of its creation - giving it intrinsic value. It is why that kind of money is called "honest" money, or "sound" money—the system the US Government abandoned in 1913 - in direct violation of the US Constitution.
Most politicians label themselves as "environmentalists," while at the same time supporting and defending our Unconstitutional economic model - as a means to expand their power - through deficit spending. Environmentalists are out to enrich themselves, by co-opting the otherwise virtuous and honorable movement of conservationism--mainly to gain political power. In case you haven't yet figured it out - the political class - all of whom call themselves "environmentalists," are in fact hypocrites, liars, thieves, and degenerates.
True conservationists are out to protect Mother-Earth. Doing so requires a devotion to TRUTH. When one misrepresents the problems of our society as being the opposite of their true nature, the wrong solutions to those problems will ALWAYS be applied. Environmentalists are after political power. They are hypocrites whose actions are as destructive to our environment as any rampantly polluting industrial chemical company - perhaps more-so; for they steadfastly support the very economic model that enables such institutions and encourages their irresponsible largess. True conservationists could achieve their ends far more effectively and quickly by pushing for a restoration of sound money—the precious-metal standard—as our monetary system. This therefore requires a restoration of The United States Constitution in terms of its original meaning and intent. These are the true bases for a sustainable and prosperous standard of living for all of mankind, while preserving and protecting our natural environment.
In fact, restoring the Constitution, and our system of sound money are the only chance humanity has to save this planet from environmental annihilation.
And Time is Running Out.