The Grand Illusion

A Political Question of Freedom

Every year all of us so called free Americans, aka the U. S. Citizen, are required to file federal income tax returns and yet, how many will file for no other reason then stark, sweat inducing  fear of the dreaded IRS agency? Personally, I would rather deal with those fabled Men-in-Black, rather than those double-talking, rude confiscation agents of federal-income inquisitions. After years of investigating this Nations infamous tax Codes, regarding individual income taxation, I came to the rather absurd, yet somber conclusion, that the mere act of earning Money is against the Law, both by principal and legal duty.

“[Making tax evasion a felony] destroys all proportion of punishment, and puts murders upon equal footing with such as are really guilty of no natural, but merely a positive offense.”
William Blackstone

“We must decriminalize the tax law. The Congress piles up more and more penalties every year to catch innocent taxpayers in its trap. The current tax system is filled with immense overkill. The system is so complicated that the IRS can put anyone in jail just for getting on their blacklist; and furthermore everyone who fills out a tax return and files it, takes the chance of criminal prosecution if the IRS decides they don’t like them. The ultimate means of political control by all totalitarian states is to have most of members of society under surveillance and in a state of illegality. Then, everyone is vulnerable to the bureaucracy that holds the power. This is the current position of the IRS.”The Anti IRS News is a publication and copyright of Bill Conklin.

From a historical perspective, one might be quite confident to conclude, that modern Money only exists to make war and taxation more convenient for the ruling elite of the ultra-powerful, lending class. The long-term twists and turns, of this countries various money and currency systems, can also be described as a diabolical war of money control, by all means necessary, to the required ends. The stealth objective of this mercantilist strategy was to literally, “corner the Market” of Money itself. Especially the control of interest rates thereby, effectively gaining authoritative control of the global economic field accordingly.

The subject of money itself across the broad swath of public interest is both logically contentious and deeply emotional by nature. A fact, which leads to extreme disparities of expectations of what Money is — as opposed to what it actually does. People agree they want something that is Money, but they cannot always agree on what it is before or after its subjective material possession. This failure to communicate what money actually means to people, with very divergent views on the matter, often leads to violent confrontations, when such psychological expectations are found to be hollow, empty promises.

The very nature of how modern money is created, is so mystified by arcane explanations on one hand, while reduced to industrial formula of ponderous nomenclature on the other, that the mechanical productions involved are quite divorced from the actual results. The simplicity of the printing press dollar, once input into the system, soon becomes incomprehensibly transformed by these rather complicated, social-political-economic processes of increasing real world legal complexity.

The literal power of money can be described as a political function of its direct influence. How this high powered federal ‘money’ comes into the economy at large also describes what the silent war has always been about— controlling the purposeful choices of money in action. The study of economics does seem quite biased in favor of core critical areas, while regulating to the deep, back-field those awkward “Normative Questions” which nobody seriously cares to address, on the academic stage, without the fear of seeming less than, an academic,  hard-core physical scientist. Why certain classes get more wealth and it subsequent control, more so than any another class of people, is avoided, unless such questions are wrapped in political jargon, which by its nature, is also blatantly unscientific.

“An economist must be a “mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher, in some degree.” So, promisingly, begins the sixth edition of “Macroeconomics” by Greg Mankiw, a key reading for my introductory economics class at the University of Edinburgh (and still a key reading six years on). Unfortunately, the book, like the course that prescribed it, delivered on only one of those claims: to be a mathematician. What began as eloquent and logical graphs and formulas quickly spiraled out of control and I soon found myself reading that “economics is not only a social science, it is a genuine science. Like the physical sciences” and that financial crises can be predicted by using the following formula:

I was not persuaded. The over-reliance on mathematical modeling and its subsequent abstraction, together with a near-disdainful attitude toward other social sciences, left me feeling entirely disillusioned with economics in the U. K. So much so that I decided to leave the university and study abroad at Sciences Po in Paris, which took a broader approach to the field of economics.

One enduring feature, also noticeable among economic policymakers, is the use of abstract language that defies logic. “Negative growth” and “growsterity” are, therefore, considered serious terms despite their internal contradictions.

The financial crisis offered a golden opportunity for university economists to question the utility of supposedly models that failed to predict an economic earthquake. For most professors, however, a fervent attachment to their discipline and the mathematical models within it means that the financial crisis is still perceived as just another inconvenient anomaly. Clearly, the financial crisis cannot be easily contained and neither can its study be confined within the walls of economics departments. Negative contagion in the financial markets could turn into positive academic contagion. Issues cannot be quarantined today, if ever they could be.” What I Didn’t Learn in Econ 101— Mona Chalabi HTTP://www.nytimes.Com

The deeper conflicts of social perceptions of what money is supposed to do, as opposed to how it really functions, also defines why its expectations never seem to achieve the usually agreed upon greater good. Money is basically created for the necessary objectives of its use. Money, when used as an industrial-strength weapon of economic control, is as deadly, as any other tool, made to kill. The language of business is rife with such expressions, such as, “we made a killing” along with many other euphemisms, so deployed, to the objectives of destroying the competition.

The corruption of the Market is the direct result of the entrenched crony system which best controls the key areas of money production and circulation by the whiffs of nuance.

 “In the end, though, the conviction of a few bit players seems like far too puny a punishment, given that the bid rigging exposed in Carollo involved an entrenched system that affected major bond issues in every state in the nation. You find yourself thinking, America’s biggest banks ripped off the entire country, virtually every day, for more than a decade! A truly commensurate penalty would be something like televised stonings of the top 10 executives of every guilty bank, or maybe the forcible resettlement of every banker and broker in Lower Manhattan to some uninhabited Andean wasteland… anything to address the systemic nature of the crime.

No such luck. Instead of anything resembling real censure, a few young executives got spanked, while the offending banks got off with slap-on-the-wrist fines and were allowed to retain their pre-eminent positions in the municipal bond market. Last year, the two leading recipients of public bond business, clocking in with more than $35 billion in bond issues apiece, were Chase and Bank of America – who combined had just paid more than $365 million in fines for their role in the mass bid rigging. Get busted for welfare fraud even once in America, and good luck getting so much as a food stamp ever again. Get caught rigging interest rates in 50 states, and the government goes right on handing you billions of dollars in public contracts. Read more: 20120620#ixzz1zPLf79vr

When money, under the control of criminal bankers, operates on the national economy as a negative function, the false expectations of what money represents [Normative Questions] are themselves in deep conflict with actual economic results. This destructive component of money-interest manipulations, as used to control economic activity, also gives potent force to interest-rate coercion [usury] both to control economic expectations, and to favor the monied classes over all the rest.

 The war of money uses many types of influence, as a method of political control, which as a method to control economic trends has deep historical roots. Thus, it is quite important to understand such “roots” to explain why the working class keeps losing the actual battle.

The long term historical manipulations of the Nations physical stocks of money was a core component of the over-all scheming, as evidenced by the down-turns, such negative powers unleashed on the nations people, but especially so on small business ventures, farmers and wage workers. The London banking syndicate wanted the unfettered creation of contract money expressly in their full control and exclusive channel of profit.

The change to a single gold standard in the U. S. was pushed by such demands, by those wanting to control Americas economic powers. There was no other reason to demonetize silver in favor of a single, biased gold standard. The actual national economic problems were largely produced by ruthless manipulations of currency, both demand and circulation, with a syndicated, concerted effort.

“In a great speech, Wendell Phillips, illustrates the means by which the money power absorbed the wealth of the country, by juggling with the currency.   He said: – “In other words, it was the currency, which, rightly arranged, opened a nation’s well springs, found work for willing hands to do, and filled them with a just return, while honest capital, daily larger and more secure, ministered to a glad prosperity. Or it was currency, wickedly and selfishly juggled, that made merchants bankrupt and starved labor into discontent and slavery, while capital added house to house and field to field, and gathered into its miserly hands all the wealth left in a reined land.”

The first question, therefore, in an industrial nation is, where ought control of the currency to rest? In whose hands can this almost omnipotent power be trusted? Every writer of political economy, from Aristotle to Adam Smith, allows that a change in the currency alters the price of every ounce and yard of merchandise and every foot of land. Whom can we trust with this despotism? At present the banks and the money kings wield this power. They own the yard-stick, and can make it longer or shorter, as they please. They own every pound weight, and can make it heavier or lighter as they choose. This explains the riddle, so mysterious to common people, that those who trade in money always grow rich, even while those who trade in other things go into bankruptcy.”

“On the 3d of February, 1886, Hon. R. Q. Mills, of Texas, in the heat of righteous indignation eloquently arraigned that unlimited avarice that was continually besieging Congress to enhance the value of bonds and securities at the expense of the producers. He said: – “But in all the wild, reckless, and remorseless brutalities that have marked the footprints of resistless power there is some extenuating circumstance that mitigates the severity of the punishment due the crime. Some have been the product of the fierce passions of war, some have some from the antipathy that separate alien races, some from the superstitions of opposing religions.

“But the crime that is now sought to be perpetrated on more than fifty millions of people comes neither from the camp of a conqueror, the hand of a foreigner, nor the altar of an idolater. But it comes from those in whose veins runs the blood of the common ancestry, who were born under the same skies, speak the same language, reared in the same institutions, and nurtured in the principles of the same religions faith. It comes from the cold, phlegmatic marble heart of avarice,- avarice that seeks to paralyze labor [with] the burden of debt, and fill the land with destitution and suffering to gratify the lust for gold,- avarice surrounded by every comfort that wealth can command, and rich enough to satisfy every want save that which refuses to be satisfied without the suffocation and strangulation of all the labor of the land. With a forehead that refuses to be ashamed, it demands of Congress an act that will paralyze all the forces of action, shut out labor from all employment, increase the burden of debts and taxation, and send desolation and suffering to all the homes of the poor.” The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert.

People were rightfully scared when they realized their savings could indeed simply vanish, however, the solutions which were eventually put into place, only solved the perceptions of the problems, while in the elite, corporate back-rooms another purpose was already planned. The culmination of this longer, private plan reached the next pivotal point when FDR literally made owning gold itself against the law  (In 1933, Executive Order 6102 made it a criminal offense for a U. S. citizens to own, or trade gold, anywhere in the world, with exceptions for some jewelry and collector’s coins) thus, the [tangible] lawfully Coined money was to be replaced with a forced monopoly of wholly, synthetic dollars. And the Law became an orphan of political purpose.

The primary reason for the National action was said to be due to gold hoarding, but this absurd excuse was so paper thin it had to be wrapped in a thick coating of dire threats. The actual reasons for the economic conditions being suffered were directly born from the criminal manipulations of the Nations money issuance and circulation by the federal reserve banks. This period was really the culmination of round two of the longer battle.

A reasonable observation is that nothing has changed from those days to this one; only the sophistication necessary as used(computers, regulations, laws etc.) and the numbers in play(trillions). Money is still an obligation of Trust. When a Nation loses said personal Trust between banks and people, nothing remains of the confidence, except the negative debt functions of the promises held. What best describes the driving force behind ‘money creation’ since 1933 is evidenced by the never-ending, war/defense spending cycles.

The proposal to tie US defense spending to GDP may be rhetorically and politically compelling, but budget experts and national security analysts should not be fooled. At least six substantive critiques can be made of the proposal’s methodology, analytical coherence, and usefulness for defense strategizing and budgeting. First, using GDP to compare current defense spending to historical spending is misleading because GDP increased substantially over the last several decades. America’s GDP is more than six times greater today than it was in 1950 in inflation-adjusted terms. Arguing that defense spending is historically low as a percentage of GDP, and therefore should be increased, is like a landlord arguing that because a tenant received a much-deserved pay raise, their rent also should be increased. If the United States devoted 37 percent of its GDP to defense today, as it did during World War II, then defense spending in today’s dollars would be approximately $5 trillion.

This level of spending is clearly unnecessary, but it highlights the shortcomings of historical comparisons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Cindy Williams has argued that questions about how much the United States needs to spend on defense “cannot be answered by looking at [the defense budget’s] size relative to the economy. Rather, it makes sense to compare this year’s spending with the size of past budgets in dollar terms.” Comparing current spending to historical budgets in inflation-adjusted terms yields the real bottom line: US defense spending increased markedly under the Bush Administration and is now at its highest level since World War II.

If US GDP continues its long-term upward trajectory, as it has done in remarkable fashion since the end of World War II, then tying defense spending to GDP basically amounts to using overall wealth creation to justify ever-larger defense budgets. If the American economy doubles in size, should American taxpayers be required to double the Pentagon’s budget as well? Should future generations spend three times more on defense just because they are three times wealthier? The answer is a resounding “no.”

Suggesting that defense spending should be pegged at four percent of GDP is one thing; finding a way to pay for such a massive commitment against competing needs for mandatory and non-defense discretionary spending is something else entirely. Tying defense expenditures to GDP—which under an ever-expanding economy is a prescription for an ever-increasing defense budget—leaves only three choices given present budgetary restrictions: cut spending, raise taxes, or increase the deficit.” Tying US Defense Spending to GDP: Bad Logic, Bad Policy © 2008 Travis Sharp HTTP:// pdf

The assumption that the economy will continue ever-expanding in positive growth is a bit optimistic considering current world-wide economic conditions. What is lost in the background of the military budgets themselves, is the wealth-Creation of the Nation, which has been long since effectively controlled critical core components of the economy to such an extant, that the military-industrial-complex can politically dictate terms in every sector it dominates.

The cycles of dependencies, created by preferential policies, reinforce social-political business relationships, which go well beyond the numbers themselves. Behind the scenes it is always influence that is the real power being bought and sold. When money influence is doing one macro-economic job and currency is just fuel for the micro-economic engine, it is easy to confuse the purpose of both as if one.

Contractual debt money serves well the purposes of corporations, as debt based currency allows wages to be paid on an inflation cycle, which diminishes real value/worth invisibly. This negative quality of inflation, as a stealth tax on all economic activities, receives considerable attention, but nothing changes where it really counts— national tax laws, from monetary rule changes to fiscal policies—which together have created the problems so suffered.

The purposeful infliction of economic disparities, while demanding political conformity, keeps the status quo from becoming actually threatened by serious changes to the powers themselves. Creating money is a power and it is no understatement to say, that which controls the creation of money, controls everything it touches, or produces, one way or another.

This creationary ‘money power’ never actually belonged exclusively to Congress, only the Authority of its safe-guarding and to regulate the Coin of its use. The productivities of a Nations People, creates the Trust, from which the real truth of money springs. Congress, has no implied moral or lawful authority, to control that which it does not create, or Lawful right to give-away the enumerated responsibilities so en-trusted. When people lost private, creationary control of their Money, they also lost the corresponding freedom of its private use. A central bank operates as a quasi-private corporation with only superficial, governmental control.

Going back to time when the Federal Reserve Bank was launched:

…Congress reacted to the assault by adopting an amendment put forth by an Ohio Republican, Simon Fess. It declared, as Glass put it, that nothing in the bill should be construed as a repeal of the law “providing a gold parity for all forms of money.” It was only against that assurance in law that the Federal Reserve Act actually made it through the House. Why Mr. Bernanke leaves this history out of his lecture one can but surmise.

He also leaves out the fact that under the Federal Reserve System the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value. Nor does he mention the sheer drama of the collapse of the dollar on his watch. A bit of value has flowed back into it in recent weeks, but it is still below a 1,600th of an ounce of gold.” Bernanke 101 Editorial of The New York Sun | March 21, 2012 http://www.nysun. com/editorials/bernanke-101/87752/

A logical prophecy of the future from the past:

“The end of democracy and defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of the lending institutions and moneyed incorporation’s. The Bank of the United States is one of the most deadly hostilities existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. The system of banking is a blot left in all our Constitutions, which if not covered will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity is but swindling futurity.”  Thomas Jefferson

The kernel of the state monopoly of credit issue: “Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.” — Fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto, 1848 Karl Marx

A bold assertion of truth from one who knew: “Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear. And, they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of the bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money, and control credit.” Sir Josiah Stamp, former president Bank of England.

An observation of the war currency, fiat-money, fractional lending system:

The U. S. of A. has all the characteristics set in place that have led to the collapse of every other fiat currency money in history. We are currently at war, and the financing of this war is extremely inflationary.

In fact, if you look back at our history, since 1914, the U. S has engaged in 16 military conflicts. We have been involved in some form of violent international accord in 44 of the past 93 years. The overwhelming majority of military conflicts result in monetary inflation.

The U. S. has a debt similar to that of Wiemar Germany. Although the reasons for the debt are completely different, it appears that this Mount Everest of IOU’s is going to be impossible to pay back. I guess the U. S. could just print 10 one-trillion dollar bills and hand them out, but the implications of such actions are obvious. We are currently increasing the supply of dollars at a rate of 13% per annum. This over-issuance of a currency has been the leading indicator of a currency on the brink. So what’s in the future for the dollar? Some, myself included, might say that the dollar has already failed. It has lost over 92% of its value since its initial issuance in 1913. 

After the revaluation in 1934, the dollar dropped another 41%. In my opinion, it already is toilet paper money, but for the above-mentioned characteristics, which are alarmingly similar to the circumstances that led up to the eventual collapse of the dollar’s toilet paper predecessors, I believe that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg of the dollar’s inevitable path toward becoming toilet paper money.” Nick Jones HTTP://whiskeyandgunpowder. com/toilet-paper-money/

When America, abruptly changed from a gold standard to only debt-based, fiat-paper-dollars, the result was an absurdity of contrary, descriptive values of Money. If gold, was no longer any good as Money, conversely, Money was too good to be gold. What was good as Money in that instant?

With a magic wand called demonetization, specie Money ceased to be… then with a magic whoosh debt-paper became the superior, synthetic money. Yet, the debt of the former, simply remained the same. This despotic power to re-declare what is to be lawful money, is by practice, also a power to destroy all actions of Trust dependent on the former quality. There is a potent fallacy in action here [demonetization improves what is better Money for the few by destroying the money already in use for the many] that does not receive much attention, due to the political forces such a decision must encompass.

The Trust in Money requires agreements well beyond the four basic functions themselves. If the central banks did not agree to this action [demonetization] they would be forced to fight against such an action. If they agree to the action it must mean they are going to profit from the action. Or else, every bank caught in the duplicity of the action is immediately insolvent.

Demonetization, is an act of economic warfare, which harms those least able to defend themselves against such coercions. Abruptly changing the meaning of Money, without the consent of the People, is by its practice also an action of political treason. The Constitution does not empower Congress, or the President, to void at Will the Peoples money just to enrich the privileged classes, bond-holders and speculators.

So what really was this new ‘synthetic dollar’ without gold or silver, as a defining intrinsic quality, as measured? If a dollar of paper debt, was always superior to a dollar weight of coined precious metals, to be used as money, why was dollars of paper not established, as the standard of the “measure of money” thus, the standard of the  ‘unit of account’  from day one?

Origin of the Dollar in the US—During the late 18th century in America, the word dollar simply referred to the 371.25 grains of pure silver of the Spanish milled dollar coins. Our founding fathers did not arbitrarily decide to fix the exchange rate of our first dollars to silver.

Rather, “dollar” was the term for a universally understood standard of measure. The Coinage Act of 1792, establishing a Mint and regulating the coins of the United States, used this already universally accepted definition to officially designate a dollar (as referring to a measure of 371 4/16th grains of pure silver) as the monetary unit of the US:

• Section 9: “DOLLARS – each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.”

Signed into law by President George Washington, the Coinage Act of 1792 established the dollar as the monetary unit of the United States of America.” The US Dollar — A History of Counterfeit Money, Morality, and Meaning July 01, 2010 by Jason Riddle. HTTP:// /the_us_dollar__a_history_of_counterfeit_ money_morality_and_meaning. pdf

In 1790 during congressional consideration of Alexander Hamilton’s proposal to pay the national debt with usury based obligation placed upon the citizens, congressman James Jackson, after lengthy reflection on the devastation similar plans had imposed on European countries and cities, included the following observation to Congress:

 “Let us take warning by the errors of Europe, and guard against the introduction of a system followed by calamities so universal… The funding of the debt will occasion enormous taxes for the payment of the interest… (such a system) must hereafter settle upon our posterity a burden which they can neither bear nor relieve themselves from. Ref. ANNALS OF CONGRESS , Vol. 1, 1790, pp. 1141-2.

AUGUST 19, 1877: In a speech made by the Secretary of Treasury John Sherman, he said: “There is a large class of people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should be printed: “This is a dollar,” and be made a legal tender. I regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries, but whose life has been brief, and which have shared the fate of other popular delusions. The Supreme Court only maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise to pay a dollar by a divided court, and on the ground that it was issued in the nature of a forced loan, to be redeemed upon the payment of a real dollar; that is, so many grains of silver or gold. 

I therefore dismiss such wild theories, and speak only to those who are willing to assume, as an axiom, that gold and silver or coined money, have been proven by all human experience to be the best possible standards of value, and that paper money is simply a promise to pay such coined money, and should be made and kept equal to coined money, by being convertible on demand.

Immediately following the visit of these bankers to Washington, a circular was issued by the London bankers, and distributed by one Mr. Hazard, who was their representative in this country at that time.

The contents of this famous circular are as follows: –

Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and chattel slavery destroyed. This I and my European friends are in favor of; for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborer, while the European plan, led on by England, is capital control of labor by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. The debt, that capitalists will see is to be made out of the war, most be used as a measure to control the volume of money. To accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make his recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback (as it is called) to circulate as money any length of time, for we cannot control it. The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert

The severe problems associated with using [borrowed] paper as money, as opposed to Nationally issued Coin, or even sovereign paper-based currency, were well known even before the present Constitution was ever signed. So why did Congress in 1913 and 1933 simply ignore the historical record?

How exactly did the giving of a quasi-monopoly, to a thinly-disguised central bank, solve the known historical issues?

What scientific proof was actually established prior to the sudden change of the rules themselves?

The use of political fiat to change the rules of the time honored “promise to pay’ does not explain why Money had suddenly become too good to be ‘silver’ or ‘gold’ coin. The obtuse claim that hoarders were to blame for the London caused, international problems, only begs the question of what U. S. Law was being broken by the general public at large?

 Since when was owning too much, or too little of lawful money an act against the law?  What economic law was this explicitly? If people no longer trusted banks to safely store their gold, or any other money holdings, what law were they breaking to protect themselves from losing their private, personal property? What law even required people to use a bank for any reason period? Does money actually need a bank to be useful in private economic activity? If banks cannot be trusted, or even required, to safe-keep the material possessions of their depositors, why use them at all?

The strange notion that people must use banks, which are so easily bankrupted by government policies, more so… then say hold-ups, begs the question of why better safe-guards were not already in place. People have an absolute right not to do business with any institution, which deceives them, or cheats them, of their rightful property.

Governments, which cheat their superior citizens, by disingenuous lawful manipulations, consciously void their authority in the same instant, thus, become no better than criminals engaged in similar operations. To say otherwise, means theft by government manipulations is the norm and is to be expected, especially in regards to money.

Only money has this peculiar quality that it is supposed to make more money for somebody else and usually while in a bank. Historically, there is considerable proof to the contrary of what modern banking advocates claim in regards to gold or paper money. Money can be something other than coin or paper and still be very dependable to the functions four.

Meanwhile, England was faced with the problem of what to use for money when the country was short of gold. The coinage system was commodity-based. It assumed that “money” was something having value in itself (gold or silver), which was bartered or traded for goods or services of equal value. But according to Stephen Zarlenga, who has traced the origins and history of money in his revealing compendium The Lost Science of Money, the use of coins as money did not originate with merchants trading in the marketplace. The first known coins were issued by governments; and their value was the value stamped on them, not the price at which the metal traded. Zarlenga quotes Aristotle, who said:

Money exists not by nature but by law. [It acts] as a measure [that] makes goods commensurate and equates them. . . . There must then be a unit, and that fixed by agreement.

Money was a mere fiat of the law. Fiat means “let it be done” in Latin. “Fiat money” is money that is legal tender by government decree. It is simply a “tally,” something representing units of value that can be traded in the market, a receipt for goods or services that can legally be tendered for other goods or services.

In Mandarin China, where paper money was invented in the ninth century, this sort of fiat currency funded a long and prosperous empire. Fiat money was also used successfully in medieval England, but in England it was made of wood. The English tally system originated with King Henry I, son of William the Conqueror, who took the throne in 1100 A. D. The printing press had not yet been invented, and taxes were paid directly with goods produced by the land. Under King Henry’s innovative system, payment was recorded with a piece of wood that had been notched and split in half. One half was kept by the government and the other by the recipient. To confirm payment, the two halves were matched to make sure they “tallied.”

Since no stick splits in an even manner, and since the notches tallying the sums were cut right through both pieces of wood, the method was virtually foolproof against forgery. The tally system has been called the earliest form of bookkeeping. According to historian M. T. Clanchy in From Memory to Written Record, England 1066- 1307: “Tallies were . . . a sophisticated and practical record of numbers. They were more convenient to keep and store than parchments, less complex to make, and no easier to forge.”

Only a few hundred tallies survive, Clanchy writes, but millions were made. Tallies were used by the government not only as receipts for the payment of taxes but to pay soldiers for their service, farmers for their wheat, and laborers for their labor. At tax time, the treasurer accepted the tallies in payment of taxes.

By the thirteenth century, the financial market for tallies was sufficiently sophisticated that they could be bought, sold, or discounted. Tallies were used by individuals and institutions to register debts,record fines, collect rents, and enter payments for services rendered. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII gave them the force of a national currency when he ordered that tallies must be used to evidence the payment of taxes. That meant everyone had to have them.

In War Cycles, Peace Cycles, Richard Hoskins writes that by the end of the seventeenth century, about 14 million pounds’ worth of tally-money was in circulation. Zarlenga cites a historian named Spufford, who said that English coinage had never exceeded half a million pounds up to that time. The tally system was thus not a minor monetary experiment, as some commentators have suggested. During most of the Middle Ages, tallies may have made up the bulk of the English money supply. The tally system was in use for more than five centuries before the usury bankers’ gold-based paper banknotes took root, helping to fund a long era of leisure and abundance that flowered into the Renaissance.” Ellen Hodgson Brown, J. D. The Web of Debt HTTP:// php

When FDR hatched the no-ownership of gold plan, he was clearly acting on behalf of those who used their ‘money power’ influence to achieve their goals, while safely hiding behind the facades of the financial bureaucracy. So how did the confiscation of all gold coin, and the very outlawing of gold ownership itself, punish only the ‘guilty as charged’ hoarders?

Was the entire population of the United States, guilty as charged, thus punished fairly?

None of this skulduggery was possible, unless, the very meaning of money was once again changing to accomplish a much different goal. A goal which had no lawful course of action. So a disingenuous claim had to do the job instead. A fake problem solved by a radical change to the very meaning of money, a former quality to be forcibly replaced by a contractual creation of industrial strength, debt currency. Corporate fiat currency was also the cheapest path to carry out the business of war. The powers of war profiteering were to decide the purpose of money, but the fuller accepted meaning of Money was a still a problem for those seeking total control of the economy. Thus, the purposeful meaning of what kind of money was being used, had to change, no matter how absurd the process, or the result.

This abrupt change to the accepted meaning of money, was no different than claiming that a horse, when outlawed by political decree, is no longer a horse. If the President had outlawed owning horses, how many people would have willingly sent their horses to the treasury at a fire-sale price to be locked up in Fort Knox?

If this very notion strikes one as absurd, then why was outlawing the private ownership of an already lawful measure of a  ‘Dollar of silver or gold’ any less absurd?

Paper currency is not an intrinsic substance unto itself and does not compete with gold, or silver, in regards to material uses such as electronics, dental fillings, jewelry etc. If gold, no longer had any purposeful intrinsic value, besides being used as money, why was the solution itself a concocted contradiction of the assertion?

The whole purpose of the public operation was a deliberate, under-handed criminal scheme, which actually prevented genuine democratic choices, in order to facilitate a strictly, private financial purpose. Where is the democracy in one man deciding, over an entire Sovereign People, that taking their private property was the best choice they never actually agreed upon? How exactly was the hoarding problem solved by locking up the confiscated gold then and ever since in Fort Knox? Or so it is claimed, that the gold is actually still there, which seems rather doubtful.

 Since when does removing a choice by political fraud improve freedom of choice? The criminal usurpation of the money power was anti-democratic, but it was swathed in the patriotic obligations of virtue to hide its real deceit. Despite the official proclamations to the contrary, gold was apparently still quite valuable and so was silver. The windfall made by selling the confiscated gold(at a higher price) soon thereafter, speaks volumes of the actual intended purpose. This also begs the question of how a barbaric lump of metal demanded a higher sell price, after being declared worthless as money, but only after it was removed from both public and private citizen ownership.

If gold has no value good enough to be Money, why was it too valuable for ordinary people to own? This absurdity asks one to swallow the contrary notion that bad money, is inherently more valuable then good money. Gold is no longer good enough to be money so by all means give the government what you have right now or else? How strange the demand also defeats private control of that essential freedom of choice. Contracts were also settled in gold. This also begs the question of what happened to the absolute Right, to enter, or carry out private Contracts free of government intrusion and manipulations of money terms?

The Federal Government knew that it was unconstitutional, and politically impossible, to try and “call in” (i.e. confiscate) the gold coinage, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1933. Roosevelt himself said that he was going to confiscate gold whether the Supreme Court judged it Constitutional or not. The Court, however, complied and found the action Constitutional, even thought it characterized the unilateral voiding of the gold clauses in private contracts and United States securities as “immoral.” Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. HTTP://

The Constitution, was grounded on this very Principle of the Peoples unalienable Rights of property. The government simply repudiated its gold contracts, as if they meant nothing at all, while also destroying every private gold contract just the same. If gold had lost all of its virtues as money, as a positive quality of free-choice, why then were not the holders of said contracts previously demanding action? Didn’t they know gold was no longer going to be good as money, before FDR’s absurd actions?

If people thought money was too good to be gold then that is their choice and they are free to choose another form of Money, to settle debts or contracts. To say otherwise cancels the essential element of freedom of said choice. Are people not free enough to choose, or even own, their choice of money? The absurdity of an elected official claiming, contrary to the very deepest principles of the Constitution, people cannot choose to own gold, or silver for their qualities of money, or any other purpose so defined, is political Tyranny, thinly disguised as ignorant, economic policy. Neither of which are proper enumerated powers of Congress.

In a Negative Market Monopoly the choice of money currency is held in a state of ransom. A false shortage of currency circulation creates an immediate imbalance between production and consumption. The production was fine and good, but there was a regressive halt to the consumption of the markets already produced goods. To wit, a depression started and gained furious negative power. Sort of like a cyclone. The negative inversion of normal market conditions sucked the life right out of the peoples economy.

Now it did not help the matter that the banking system itself, then as now, is also so full of scientific loop-holes that if depicted graphically it would indeed look very much like Swiss cheese. Banking fundamentals are notoriously absent of any actual physics to govern their internal and external fiscal policy operations. Successful political manipulations of monetary matters, on the National level, also requires a separation of fiscal and policy functions, in order to mask the hidden personal financial relationships working behind the scenes. This is where secrecy provides a buffer between actual purposes and public propaganda in order to keep the real powers well insulated from any lawful public scrutiny. The federal reserve system served this function well with stupendous success. Congress, intended this separation to give themselves an air of distance, a plausible denial ability to fool the masses.

OWNERSHIP OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE Most Americans, if they know anything at all about the Federal Reserve, believe it is an agency of the United States Government. This article charts the true nature of the “National Bank.” Chart 1 Source: ** Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence ** – –

Published 1976 Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschild’s and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stock-holdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York.

The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914.

These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.

George Bush presided over a minor change in the Federal Reserve Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002. The American Congress failed again to deal with the Federal Reserve. Bush managed to keep all discussion and changes confined to some reporting requirements for financial institutions. Bush knows very well who he serves, and he really serves his master well. It’s amazing how few grasped the significance of Alan Greenspan being knighted by the Queen of England! Greenspan was knighted on September 26, 2002. An obvious reward for preventing any real discussion, or change, of the Federal Reserve during the Sarbanes-Oxley Act debates. Had an American President been knighted, serious questions would have arisen. It was so each easier to reward her manager, Alan! Do you still believe that Alan Greenspan has the power of Dearth Vader? He is only a little man, faithfully serving his queen.

The British Crown, or the British monarchy is the owner of the Federal Reserve. This is their real secret. The strategy of the Federal Reserve is their other secret. Again, it is right of front of us, but no one sees the obvious. The strategy of the Federal Reserve is to accumulate all the wealth through the very slow, but effective, technique of currency debasement. The monarchs of old used to shave or clip the coins as they passed through their treasuries. Now the process is more sanitary (no more clipping and scraping all those dirty coins). John Maynard Keynes clearly stated that at there is no more effective method of destroying a society than through currency debasement.” The Federal Reserve – Its Origins, History & Current Strategy By: Wayne N. Krautkramer

No matter how well the deal was arranged the critical fact is the Constitution, did not grant Congress, or the president, the Right to give away the issuance of money to a foreign or domestic banking syndicate, yet it was done and rather covertly, which is proof of another kind of crime altogether. The criminal manipulations of what money is and what it does, in regards to National needs, did not start with the inception of the federal reserve board exclusively:

In consequence of the further demands of the national banks, Congress, on the 20th of June, 1874, amended the National Banking Act, which permitted these banks to withdraw the bonds deposited by them to secure the circulation of bank notes, and deposit, in lien thereof as security, the non-interest-bearing notes issued by the Government.

Prior to the passage of this amendment, United States bonds had risen to a premium in consequence of the various acts of Congress culminating in the Credit Strengthening Act, and, therefore, this act was adopted by Congress to enable the banks to withdraw the bonds deposited by them, and make a large profit by selling them for the premium, many of which had been originally purchased for less than sixty cents on the dollar.

The operation of the amendment effectually contracted the legal tender currency of the country, for the substitution of United States notes and treasury notes in lieu of the bonds, diminished the volume of legal tender currency afloat to an extent equal to the bonds so withdrawn.

During this period, the national banking money power began to advance the argument that the character and, volume of money should be determined, not by the legislative power of the nation, but by what was called the “Business interests of the country.” It sought to educate the people to accept the doctrine, that it was dangerous to permit congress “To interfere with the dearest interests of the country,” and that the solution of the money question must be settled by the national bankers, who assumed to hold the key to all monetary science. The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert.

What was actually outlawed by FDR, was a key principle underlying the Peoples unalienable Right of private, property ownership and the individual choices so involved. The people have a natural Right to own and use what-ever form of debt-free Money they so choose, which by all consideration, has no further obligations once settled.

Did the people back then really not understand the difference between debt-free, sovereign-coin (tangible) and debt-paper borrowed into circulation with contractual obligations, coupled with compounded interest? Not likely. What citizens owned absolutely, as private property, had no further obligation, political or contractual. The political demand to surrender private property Rights does not change the value of gold, only the means of ownership, of said agreed value. People were tricked into exchanging Sovereign ownership Rights, for merely renting the former Money, they once as a Nation owned outright.

Calling the new artificially produced currency, as good as gold, demonstrates the duplicity of how meaning itself was encouraged to hide the crime in plain sight. The unalienable sovereign rights of property ownership became the equivalent of window dressing. As they would like people to believe today.

People then, as now, tend to ignore the fact Money has multiple meanings, as defined by its use. By slight of hand, the government slyly changed the meaning of one form of Money, by outlawing any competing ‘non contractual’ meaning, thereby, leaving only one ready to be monopolized.

In the really old days, people might have defined this duplicity, of rightful ownership of money, as a Swindle. Today, the buying and selling of money is a multi-trillion dollar business. People today do seem to question why paper debt-dollars were artificially given par value with gold, as a political demand, without any genuine lawful foundation and without democratic, much less scientific considerations, by any measure of weights or scales.

[The transition of one standard to another allowed many Note types to circulate, but debt-dollars eventually displaced everything else including treasury Notes completely]

The deeper loss was the Trust function between people. Money to be good requires a tangible quality of Trust and responsibility to the unity People share from its use.

The specie Coin, was a lawfully defined, “Measured Quantity of Substance” which by said uniformity, was trusted as Money across the Nation. The physical properties of gold or silver was not the money per se as Money is not the coin, or the paper. Coin gave explicit meaning to a Promise to pay, backed by a “tangible uniform measure” which was lawfully defined, thus to be used with confidence, anywhere and anytime in America as money.

To tender an offer… of a Note or Bill… to exchange paper… take a check… all of these terms and phrases are promises of money not the Money itself. Money, by strict definitions, simply does not exist by the whim of presidents, or congress, and funny enough, not by the banks as well. Money is not an element composed of molecular substances intrinsic to itself. Money simply has no primal form, hence, the ambiguity of determining what it is not by what it does by agreements alone.

The very reason why Money can be metal, or paper, or any other token, such as a tally stick, is because it is neither fixed, or limited, to a specific physical definition. The intangible quality of what is “perceived as money” allows the transference of the subjective mental symbol to the objective function of its use. Every token used as an exchange, people might choose, has to have meaning within the subject of the Money Function. So long as meaning is objective to the purpose, as defined by its use, token money will work just fine as required. If not, it is no different than selling only the picture of say, an ice-cream cone which cannot be consumed, as opposed to one which is consumed. Do people really buy fancy pictures of ice-cream cones just to look at them on a hot day? Selling an “image” of the thing is clearly not the thing itself. Try drinking a picture of a glass of water. There are well defined limits to what is real and what is merely a sign of the real. When it comes to money it is easier to hide meanings in contractual illusions of Signs ($) than when dealing in strict physical terms.

When such explicit meanings, are placed in direct contrast, the FRN is no more a metal dollar, than a coin is made of paper. When paper has no redemption value the inequality is quite apparent. Gold as a substance, can still be sold as something of tangible-intrinsic worth, of possible greater value, than the original face value of the gold coin. Paper has no such material value. The higher value functions of gold is the why behind the never-ending schemes of its theft. The covert manipulations play on both sides of the value difference, which are quite profitable when such sums involve an entire Nations volume of moving wealth. The flow of a Nations money is not unlike a river bound up in artificial canals, in order to pool its resources, as a method of maximum extraction of both its Capital functions, and the rent of the currencies, derived from its uses and purpose.

When money is simply manufactured like shoes one size does not fit all needs. Money, unlike shoes, has a multidimensional meaning. Where a dimension describes a specific physical measure, money also describes “measures” both physical and non-physical, when coupled with complex demands of claims and promises, revolving around issues of trust. Time, when coupled with such extra measures of money meaning produces complex, multidimensional, qualitative value-unit measures. Money can be quite abstract while remaining quite functional, both as a store of value, exchange units and as a Capital resource. An abstract meaning of shoes will not keep the feet warm on a cold winter morning. Money at some point has to be realized in order to become real.

Thus, to be severed from the intangible to the tangible was the defining quality of gaining Income from passive sources.

Producing money from interest-bearing activity, can be thought of as cells in engineered matrices. The aggregate payments/sums move through elaborate monetary channels which pool in even larger Meta-Cells, yielding interest-profit, of a concentration of income-value quite beyond lower-level economic functions of one-dimensional meanings of money. All of these operations are dependent on elaborate layerings of debt. Without such massive pools or bundles of debt, driving these higher-order wealth producing ‘debt-interest-matrices’ there would be no profitable reason to interfere with the Sovereign-Authority of Nations to issue their own money. The whole of the game is to derive higher concentrations of interest-profit from massive aggregates of national and personal debt.

Understanding these issues helps explain why such critical aspects of money operations are clouded by confusing, legal jargon of financial techno-speak. Bury the simplicity in complex math, itself embedded in dense, legalized language and the result is purposeful intent to conceal motives. This also explains why the banks themselves had to be controlled in defiance of the Peoples first holder rights. This is the political crux of contentions. These syndicate [central] banks, under private control, had to be given a superior Right of first Obligations, in addition to the exclusive monopoly over the issue of the currency itself. This control is a necessity to the operations of money by debt extraction. Without this specific function (money created as a debt contract) to limit the meaning of money only to this form, there can be no perfected interest demanded upon its loaning.

The deeper meaning of Money had to be stripped of its multidimensional qualities, to retard its Public usefulness and evolution, thereby, leaving only a highly controlled, one-dimensional, banking/ corporate dominated purpose of use. This singular absurd meaning that ‘money is debt’ has nearly destroyed every economy such a system operates upon.

Despite the denials of the big guns on Main-Street, the other factors of meaning are still possible and it is the absence of these deeper, money Principles, which are causing the bigger defects, now systemic, across the entire economic paradigm. Contrary to implied perceptions gross material meanings of money are the least valuable, as used in the system. This is also quite purposeful. The never-ending war machine needs the lowest corresponding value functions of labor and currencies, or war itself becomes too expensive to wage.

Money, as a function, of the perception of ‘positive values’ cannot be just a negative of debt. By this observation, Debt is no good as Money, because Money is too good, to be only a negative demand of debt. When money is constricted to only its lowest function of meaning, the unrealized potential of its lost, higher purpose is far greater than the numerical values themselves.

Money by this meaning is only as good, as the purpose, for which it is created to serve. People need to change their perception of meaning to solve the destitution’s created by one-dimensional meanings of money.

War economics produces bad money on purpose. The cheaper the currency—the bigger the debts, thus, the bigger the profits in world-wide warfare. A giant, war machine needs an even bigger banking machine.

FR Note currency is just the fuel for the military-industrial engine to work its production forces, as needed, to the goals so defined. Would placing tanks, planes and nukes on the war currency make the notes more valuable? If meanings as used [iconic] were placed on money, as graphics on the bills, how does the perception of the icon change the value of pieces of paper? Money can be regarded as good or evil by purpose and use. What happens to value when perceptions are purposely occulted?

The battle for the control of money by perceptions is also part of this war and it is an old one:

Many eminent public men are of the opinion that his[Grant] administration of civil affairs did not tend to the enhancement of his fame. A summary of the war legislation, in so far as it relates to the finances of the Government, exhibits these remarkable facts as to the existence of a remorseless money power:

First, Congress at the demand of the bullion brokers and gold gamblers of New York City and Boston, purposely depreciated the currency issued by the government by striking out its legal tender qualities, by refusing to receive its own money in payment of its taxes. It was high priced gold for the bond holder, and depreciated greenbacks for the patriotic soldier who offered up his life for his country.

Second, the passage of the national banking law, by which the government delegated its highest sovereign power – that of issuing money – to private corporations for private gain, resulting in a privileged class of capitalists, whose interests were wholly antagonistic to the welfare of the United States, thereby making a permanent creditor and debtor class, one the master, the other the servant.

Third, an alliance, offensive and defensive, of the national banking money power and the manufacturers, whose combined interests have dominated the legislation of Congress, by which the banks have practically secured a monopoly of the medium of exchange, and by which the manufacturers have secured a high protective tariff for their immediate benefit, and at the same time flooded their mills and factories with cheap foreign labor.

Fourth, the passage of laws, the effect of which was to enormously increase the untaxed wealth of a privileged class, who extort heavy tribute from the productive energy of the American people.

Fifth, The creation of a money power, foretold by Andrew Jackson, whose unlimited greed has appropriated to its own use the greatest portion of the wealth of the United States.

Sixth, A matured plan to perpetuate the public debt of the United States for the purpose of holding the people in subjection to the money power.

Seventh, An enormously extravagant administration of the Federal Government, as a part of the plan to fix a permanent debt on the nation.

Eighth, Senator Sherman, during all this period, was the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, and he was the influential agent of the money power who shaped and molded that legislation, upon which was reared that imperial combination of moneyed influence which, to a very large extent, rules the press, the pulpit, the legislative bodies, and the courts of the country.

In view of the various financial measures enacted by Congress from 1865, to the passage of the Resumption Act of 1875, all of which tended to greatly appreciate stocks and bonds, and to divest the Government of its undoubted power to issue full legal tender United States notes, or greenbacks, the following significant extract from the most influential journal of Great Britain, the London Times, is hereby subjoined.

In 1865 the Times editorially stated: –

If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American republic during the late war in that country should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its money without cost.

It will have all the money that is necessary to carry on its trade and commerce.

It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized nations of the world. The brain and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That Government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on this globe.” The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert

The remarkable book written by Mr. Walbert, gives some great insights into the motivations behind the manipulations of the money power in order to Prohibit the issue of interest-free currency. The purpose is laid bare right there in the “London Times” and that was the war America actually lost as a Nation. The result of this war was a confusion of deeper, money related Principles, which are still in serious conflict to this day, due to why, and to whom, the true money power interests actually serve. To that end the British central bank has long been hard at work.

{The British had a long track record of using the London Bank Rate (that is, the re-discount rate of the Bank of England) for financial and economic warfare against the United States. The periodic panics of the nineteenth century were more often than not caused by deliberate British sabotage:

* In the Panic of 1837, the stage had been set for depression by outgoing President Andrew Jackson’s and Secretary of the Treasury Roger Taney’s abolition of the Second Bank of the United States, by their cultivation of the state “pet” banks, by their imbecilic Specie Circular of 1836, which demanded gold payment to the federal government for the purchase of public lands, and by their improvident distribution of the Treasury surplus to the states. London’s ultimate weapon turned out to be the Bank of England bank rate.

With all the American defenses sabotaged, the Bank of England sharply raised its discount rates, sucking gold specie and hot money liquidity back across the Atlantic, while British merchants and trading houses cut off their lines of credit to their American customers. In the resulting chaos, not just private banks and businesses went bankrupt, but also the states of Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan, which repudiated their debts, permanently impairing US credit in the world. Internal improvements came to a halt, and the drift towards secession and civil war became more pronounced.

      • The Panic of 1873 resulted from a British-directed effort to ruin the banking house of Jay Cooke and Company, which had served Lincoln and his successors as a quasi-governmental agency for the marketing of United States Treasury securities and railroad bonds during and after the Civil War. The Cooke insolvency had been preceded by a massive dumping of US stocks and bonds in London and the rest of Europe. This was London’s way of shutting down the Civil War boom that Lincoln’s *dirigist and protectionist policies had made possible. Instead, a long US depression followed. [*French- Of or pertaining to dirigisme— Any economy in which the government exerts a strong directive influence, often with substantial, but not all, of the characteristics of a centrally planned economy.]

* The Panic of 1893 was prepared by the 1890 “Baring panic” in London, caused by the insolvency of Barings Bank, the same one which went bankrupt and was sold off in the spring of 1995. In the resulting depression, the US Treasury surplus was reduced to almost nothing, and a budget deficit loomed. Using this situation as a pretext, British speculators drove the exchange rate of the dollar down to the point where owners of gold began exporting their gold to London.

Treasury gold stocks dipped below $100,000,000, and then kept falling to $68,000,000; US national bankruptcy threatened. In response to this crisis, subversive President Grover Cleveland gave control of the US public debt to the New York banking houses of Morgan and Belmont, themselves British agents of influence. Cleveland “sold out to Wall Street” by selling US gold bonds to Morgan and Belmont at reduced prices, with the taxpayers picking up the tab; Morgan and Belmont promised to “use their influence” in London to prevent further British bear raids against the US dollar and gold stocks. All of this caused another long depression.

–The economics profession is totally bankrupt today, with every Nobel Prize winner in economics with the sole exception of Maurice Allais qualifying for commitment to a psychiatric institution. One of the reasons for the depravity of the economists is that their assigned task has always been one of mystification, especially the job of covering up the simple and brutal fact that American depressions have generally been caused by Bank of England and City of London bankers. All the mystical mumbo-jumbo of curves, cycles, and epicycles a la Schumpeter has always had the purpose of camouflaging the fact that the Bank of England bank rate was the nineteenth century’s closest equivalent to the hydrogen bomb.

–The panic of 1929 is a prime example of a financial collapse which was not prevented by the Federal Reserve. In fact, the 1920′ s speculative bubble and subsequent crash of 1929 was directly caused by Federal Reserve policies. Those policies in turn had been dictated by the world of British finance, which had been decisive in shaping the Federal Reserve to begin with.

–On Sunday, September 20, 1931, the British government issued its statements announcing its decision to “suspend for the time being” the clause of the Gold Standard Act of 1925 requiring the Bank of England to sell gold at the fixed price. All the other elements of the official British mythology were also present.

     “His Majesty’s Government have no reason to believe that the present difficulties are due to any substantial extent to the export of capital by British nationals. Undoubtedly the bulk of withdrawals has been for foreign accounts.”

–The bloody wogs, as we see, were once again the root of the problem. Furthermore:

     “His Majesty’s Government have arrived at their decision with the greatest reluctance. But during the last few days international markets have become demoralized and have been liquidating their sterling assets regardless of their intrinsic worth. In the circumstances there was no alternative but to protect the financial position of this country by the only means at our disposal.” As we have seen, there were other means.

–Finally, there was the obligatory stiff upper lip: “The ultimate resources of this country are enormous and there is no doubt that the present exchange difficulties will prove only temporary.” [New York Times, September 21, 1931]

The worldwide shock was severe. In the words of Jackson E. Reynolds, then President of the First National Bank of New York, “when England went off gold it was like the end of the world.”

1. The events leading to the Great Depression are all related to British economic warfare against the rest of the world, which mainly took the form of the attempt to restore a London-centered world monetary system incorporating the gold standard.

The efforts of the British oligarchy in this regard were carried out by a clique of international central bankers dominated by Lord Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, assisted by his tools Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and Hjalmar Schacht of the German Reichsbank. This British-controlled gold standard proved to be a straightjacket for world economic development, somewhat along the lines of the deflationary Maastricht “convergence criteria” of the late 1990’s.

2. The New York stock exchange speculation of the Coolidge-Hoover era was not a spontaneous phenomenon, but was rather deliberately encouraged by Norman and Strong under the pretext of relieving pressure on the overvalued British pound sterling after its gold convertibility had been restored in 1925.

In practice, the pro- speculation policies of the US Federal Reserve were promoted by Montagu Norman and his satellites for the express purpose of fomenting a Bubble Economy in the United States, just as later central bankers fostered a Bubble Economy in Japan after 1986.

When this Wall Street Bubble had reached gargantuan proportions in the autumn of 1929, Montagu Norman sharply cut the British bank rate, repatriating British hot money, and pulling the rug out from under the Wall Street speculators, thus deliberately and consciously imploding the US markets. This caused a violent depression in the United States and some other countries, with the collapse of financial markets and the contraction of production and employment. In 1929, Norman engineered a collapse by puncturing the bubble.

3. This depression was rendered far more severe and, most importantly, permanent, by the British default on gold payment in September, 1931. This British default, including all details of its timing and modalities, and also the subsequent British gambit of competitive devaluations, were deliberate measures of economic warfare on the part of the Bank of England.

   British actions amounted to the deliberate destruction of the pound sterling system, which was the only world monetary system in existence at that time. The collapse of world trade became irreversible. With deliberate prompting from the British, currency blocs emerged, with the clear implication that currency blocs like the German Reichsmark and the Japanese yen would soon have to go to war to obtain the oil and other natural resources that orderly world trade could no longer provide. In 1931, Norman engineered a disintegration by detonating the gold backing of the pound sterling.

   In the event, the impact of the British gold default of Sept. 21, 1931 on the United States banking system was nothing short of catastrophic. Within six weeks, the United States was drained of about $700,000,000 worth of gold. “The rush from abroad to convert dollar balances into gold frightened American depositors, and they began to withdraw currency from their banks.” [Kennedy, p. 30] Bank withdrawals were $400,000,000 during these same six weeks [Mitchell, p. 128]. By November, “almost half a billion dollars had gone into hiding,” – meaning hoarding, with individuals putting their cash in a safety deposit box, mattress, or old sock. [Kennedy, p. 30]

* The Federal Reserve System was first of all one of the principal guilty parties in the Coolidge-Hoover speculative bubble, and in the Crash of 1929. Under the leadership of Benjamin Strong (himself subjected to the hypnotic powers of Lord Montagu Norman), the Federal Reserve System provided the cheap credit which stoked the fiery furnaces of speculation.

    The Fed did nothing to restrain speculation, but only covered its own posteriors somewhat with a mild ‘obiter dictum’ in the spring of 1929 — of which some observers were reminded when Alan Greenspan issued his “irrational exuberance” comment of December, 1996. The Fed virtually disowned all banks that were not members of its own system, and was unable to do anything to help the larger banks that were members.

     The Fed refused to recommend that Hoover declare a nationwide bank holiday until March 2 – very late in the day. The Fed attempted at every turn to duck its responsibilities, trying to shunt them off on the flailing Hoover – as in the Fed’s 1932 refusal to declare a state of emergency to permit Fed loans to non-bank institutions. Under Eugene Meyer, the father of Katherine Meyer Graham of today’s Washington Post, the Federal Reserve System displayed an inertia that was the practical equivalent of sabotage.

    This abysmal record contrasts most vividly with the extravagant claims of pro-Fed lobbyists cited above: that the Fed would make panics and bank failures impossible, that depressions no longer need be feared, and so forth. Private central banking as exemplified by the Fed was an accomplice in both collapse and disintegration.” BRITISH FINANCIAL WARFARE: 1929; 1931- 33 By Webster G. Tarpley HTTP://www.venusproject. net/ethics_in_action/Against_Oligarchy.HTML}

The potentially, violent contradictions of Money by meanings, in light of Rights of issuance, is the deeper problem political tricks still cannot solve. If gold, or silver coin, was no longer good enough to be real money, why is a substitution of the Coin[which was simply claimed to be no good] any better using the same criteria?

What is the real consequence of using only contractual, corporation based, debt dollars? Well, that nearly $16 trillion pile of debt is a demand on future money yet to be created by yet more debt. A serious problem for the working taxpayers of today and tomorrow is perpetual profit for the creditor lenders. Clearly, there is no balance between opposite functions of money creation in such a one-sided arrangement. Especially, when a primary pillar of the opposite function was deliberately removed from acting on the other.

To deny people their unalienable Right of Money creation, by their Rightful agent [Congress] and to freely choose how the ‘Promise to Pay’ is achieved [sovereign choices] are the missing parts, of that opposite function of why Money can Exist at all. People create money as naturally as they create ideas and perform productive works. When people are free to use money, as they choose, they make better choices for their own well being. To deny People, this fundamental right of choice, is just slavery without the iron chains. The power to create or enforce financial slavery is not an enumerated power of Congress. The failure of Congress to defend this critical Right is a criminal act whose long-term consequences have destroyed the honesty of this nations money.

The rapid increase in the production of silver in the United States meant the financial liberation of the people from the money power of the East. The prospects for an enormous supply of silver from the western mines threatened the supremacy of New York City and London as the money markets of the world.

The owner of silver could take his bullion to the mint, have it coined into standard silver dollars of full legal tender debt, paying power, receive them after their mintage, and transact business by their means; he was not under the necessity, when in need of money, to make application to a national bank for a loan of its circulating notes, whose sole credit rested on the solvency of the United States. He was not compelled to pay toll to the national banks for the use of their debts as money.

The national banking money power could not control the silver dollar, as long as the law authorized its free coinage, and consequently, a gigantic conspiracy was formed in London and New York City to demonetize silver.

This great money power whose almost absolute control of the currency was surely driving all business to a credit basis, deliberately planned the destruction of that precious metal whose value has been far more stable than that of gold.”

“To illustrate the immense power of the Bank of England over the people of Great Britain, we quote from a report made by the Chamber of Commerce of the city of Manchester, England, in 1859, which says: –

“Although it scarcely comes within the scope of their present object, the board will add a reflection upon the subject of the undue privileges assumed by the Bank of England. That such a power over the property and even over the lives of the people of this country can be allowed to exist is one of the phenomena of our civilization. That their directors, twenty-six in number, can in secret session, without the consent of their constituents, decide the value of all property, is to be regarded as one of the greatest crimes against modern civilization.”

In the face of this indictment against the Bank of England, Mr. Sherman appropriated its plan as the model of his scheme – the national banking act of February 25, 1863.

After the demonetization of silver in 1873, the most disastrous panic ever known in history up to that time, swept over this country, tens of thousands of failures occurred, entailing losses of hundreds of millions of dollars of capital.  The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W.  Walbert.

The gold standard was forced upon the country to remove silver, but all along it was really about freedom of choice. Money is a choice looking for resolution both of a selling/buying instance, but also as a quality of a word as given, thus promised. The government broke its word not the people unto themselves. Or people [in those days] would have been demanding a different choice of currency, or mediums of exchange, to escape their own private Contracts. If the people had changed their minds about money, then Gold or Silver would have lost all money value long before the government took any action. This public change of perception never happened.

In the present time when Money was further reduced to a single electronic function of its commerce sign, choice itself was once again narrowed considerably. Is a can of peas priced in a dollar of real money, or just a number whose affixed sign of money, of which the sign($) allows the assumption to be regarded as fact?

If the measure of the synthetic dollar, as a function of fiat money value, is defective in meaning, then all prices based on the ‘electronic value function’ measured by the synthetic dollar are defective as well. What happens when money actually ceases to be any kind of money? The Sign($) becomes the money and abstract numbers rule the values of worth. Can an electron of money be viewed under a microscope? The in-tangible properties of money defy physical meanings. The very reason why money, can and does cease to exist, is due to its quasi-reality of an idea made real.

In 1965 Congress passed the “Coinage Act of 1965” completely debasing the Constitutional Coin (gold & silver i. e. Dollar). (See: 18 U. S. C.A. 331 & 332, U. S. vs. Marigold, 50 U. S. 560, 13 L. Ed. 257). At the signing of the Coinage Act on July 23, 1965, then President Lyndon B. Johnson stated in his Press Release that:

“When I have signed this bill before me, we will have made the first fundamental change in our coinage in 173 years. The Coinage Act of 1965 supersedes the Act of 1792. And that Act had the title: An Act Establishing a Mint and Regulating the Coinage of the United States….”

“Now I will sign this bill to make the first change in our coinage system since the 18th Century. To those members of Congress, who are here on this historic occasion, I want to assure you that in making this change from the 18th Century we have no idea of returning to it.”

A printed dollar, having no redemption function, essentially defeats the primary purpose of physical coin money, which is to extinguish debt. Imagine, the reaction of people, if every FRN they received in any payment was red with a negative ($)number and the words “Debt Dollar” across the face. This would be the truth of the debt-dollars contractual origination and would leave no doubt of its true negative function.

 Now imagine the anger people would feel going to the bank(depositing a paycheck) and receiving an immediate federal interest-fee charge, equal to 96 percent of the check-amount itself. Then, to add insult to injury, the account balance was also charged a daily debt, value-use fee. People would no doubt be furious that they were now contractually obligated to pay rent on the dollars saved, in addition to losing purchasing value, due to the inflation removed from their checks, as deposited. As absurd as this example sounds it is the essence of the modern, debt money system in conjunction with the income tax system. Both of these systems are operating as grinding wheels upon the people. The systems callus disregard for the legitimate needs of people is a considerable negative force when used as a weapon of financial control. The system of control is so inter-woven into the tapestries of the economy it is very much a web of tyranny upon all caught in its obligations of debt.

When debugging complex systems, it can be useful to ask, “What’s missing?”. Especially when looking at the available monitoring information, which tells you not only what the designers of the system thought it was important to know, but also by omission, what wasn’t. Critical real-time systems, we’re talking Nuclear Power plants and their ilk, are monitored fairly closely, but if the right information isn’t provided to the operator, then that won’t necessarily help all that much.

In this sense, it’s quite interesting that Economics doesn’t seem to have a definition of what money is, in any satisfactory, scientific sense. Rather it seems to have various descriptions of what money does. The “Money is a matter of functions four, a medium, a measure,a standard, a store.” doggerel that is found in some textbooks and on Wikipedia is the perfect illustration of this. This is not a definition of what money is, it’s simply a list of the things money is used for. This confusion can also be found in the various measures used to quantify the total amount of money in the Economy, which are variously M0, M1, M2, and depending on which country you’re in M3 or M4.

Interestingly, and perhaps damningly in the context of the current credit crisis, no single, monitored central bank measure appears to completely capture the information that is of most interest today – which is what is the total quantity of money that commercial banks and reserve based savings institutions are allowed to create loans against.” All the M’s—February 10th, 2010 Copyright © 2009-2012 Distributed Economics

The limit on any system is usually the carrying capacity of the system itself. The primary constraint on the amount of lending has to be the carrying capacity of those who do the borrowing. The question of how much money is sitting in the lenders magic box might simply be none at all. The reason there is no measure is because there is nothing in that box to measure.

The trick is the creditor is not lending physical money, only its contractual abstraction on paper. The global system reached near criticality some time ago, as evidenced, by the on-going crisis which is world-wide, but unequal in severity. The ‘blizzards of bluffs’ whirling through the official media channels paints an absurdity in plain site. Those institutions which created the problem [i. e. banks that are too big to fail] will never have any interest in solving the actual problems, a situation which only benefits them while the problems remain unsolved. Banks, had to be too big, in order to profit from being no good. The cascading debt problems with the current system logically can be traced back to the inconsistencies of using debt notes in parallel with electronic credits were in which neither provides a natural constraint upon the other.

The fiction that debt notes can forever sustain a real economy is the root of the madness. The electronic equivalent of the debt note has reached the next stage of evolution without any positive science to elucidate the actual negative functions. Systems do evolve, for better or worse, as more energy and time is introduced into the system itself. The dynamic flow of this concentration of material to energy as electrons of dollars becomes more machine time efficient to accelerate the expansion of the system itself. The concentration and subsequent merging of this synergy of energy/electrons/dollars demands even more exterior energy inputs [human labors to tax] to keep the pooled credit/debt system moving in the desired direction of economic activity which further produces interest-profits. Everything else is simply ignored as the system aggregates profit demand as a giant one-way sucking action on economies.

To understand what is actually occurring requires taking a much different multidimensional view of the system itself. The use of credit/debt/dollars/electrons in massive computer driven networks has significantly altered the time functions normally encountered while using paper/storage/transfer based on natural rhythms which also included transportation and subsequent processing functions to maintain order in the system.

With very powerful computer systems to perform ever higher load capacity (the amount of data that can be simultaneously rendered from all sectors of the economic activity in meaningful work) conjoined in addition to a significant reduction in lag time between so many inputs and outputs involving the trans-matrixing of financial/personal/business data over networks, the traditional constraints which limited the expression of this economic matrix in classic time measures no longer apply.

No longer is there a timely period between critical movements of credit, debt, savings and deposit transactions in measured intervals of linear data-mapping. Super-fast and instantaneous now describe these complex movements of data in multidimensional matrix modes–simply meaning the paperwork is now electronic as is the check, the dispersal of funds, payment of bills, plus the complex programs built into electronic systems themselves to handle the work, transmitting all required data etc. and thus placing every element on the same level of time-integration which in a positive sense is very efficient. Significantly, more specific work can be done with such massive data-pools and this too is adding to the inherent system complexity. The scale of operation rises ever upwards thus, drawing into itself ever greater amounts of information to be Matrixed.

This matrix-flow may even be acting upon itself in classical terms of self-organization. Shades of viral like behavior may have already alerted the top-level managers that the meta-system is no longer obeying the rules, many would like to believe actually governs the behavior of such complex inter-twining, supra-order-systems. The desirable movements of the meta-system becomes harder to control by classical operations on the slower sub-systems. Chaos eventually begins to pop up in unexpected places, leading to event ripples in the systems were none have ever been before.

The external design of the system ceases to explain the internal variations. Nothing works the way it is supposed to work as modeled. The resulting confusion demonstrates itself in absurd market conditions that have never been seen before or at least assumed to be possible. When the classical indicators relied upon cease to have any relevance to what the market is doing, the standard measures of cause and effect to produce balance has lost meaning as well.

The logical absurdities will continue to spike even as the system continues to perform in ever more amazing capacity and duration. Almost as if the system is so robust that it does not matter what the market is actually doing, as it is the system that is now dominating the market, not the people fulfilling their economic activities. The system is defining critical conditions in terms progressive to its needs not the people themselves thus, the system is wagging the market and the people for system only benefits.

The meta-systems will continue onwards in directions not favorable to the people who need the system to manage not control the desired balances of economic activities. This can be seen as a spiral type of flow which increases pressures(Tensions) in system defined Time– geared to internal events not constrained by external realities— the grain does not grow in two seconds and go to market instantly — traffic does not go faster with more cars and trucks fighting for a single lane– the internal operations simply become superior time events and go way beyond the external limits of slower scales of natural economic time.

This difference of time tensions is another source of imbalances, as there is no realistic manner to make external activity keep pace. The external world simply does not move at electronic warp speed. The internal system continually speeds ahead and loses critical relational balances to natural rhythms that a computer driven, artificial system finds to be a hindrance. In addition, electronic money allows excessive inflation to hide in places not normally possible. Many might suspect the derivative markets hide the massive debt-inflation-cancer eating away at the real flesh of the already weakened economic bone.

Having changed the meaning of money, from tangible to intangible, an absurd consequence was set loose on the world. Money, by such electronic, credit and debt fictions, cannot be anything, but a one-dimensional reflective fiction of itself. If money is only a fiction, despite the convenient forms [currency-credit-cards] takes from one hand to another, then all actions of money are also a fiction as well. The dilemma of this ‘painted corner of fictions’ cannot be solved by the same tired reasons from which said fictions were created. The astute, who are always looking for better answers, know this to be true.

Something called Money cannot begin as [nothing] IS money. Money is created from a potential of positive tension not JUST negative tension. Something called money can also begin as private, positive potential, therefore, positive credit does not automatically belong exclusively to governments, or their cronies using privileged pet monopolies of banking functions. People naturally create positive money potential in a multitude of purposes and varieties of creative expressions not limited by business needs alone. However, there is no system to operate independently of the credit-banking-monopolies currently entrenched.

This fabricated, private monopoly credit/debt system is run by people, who are clearly quite trapped by its corrupted rules, and seem to be increasingly unable to resolve the resulting entrenched fiscal disparities, created by such rules, without revealing the gross, ugly truths, which have been carefully hidden behind bold assertions of promoting public good.

This private monopoly system was never designed to give, or promote, financial equality among the people of the world. This system of private monopoly debt money is like an ax to the good side of public choice. The monopoly of debt-money creation mocks sovereign democracy and every Principle upon which the Republic stands. How can this be for the good of the Public? When a monopoly of debt money creation is creating Harm, by its draconian inflictions of never-ending debt-dollars, then the system has to become evil, as there is no good from its use. Interestingly enough, Evil is not an enumerated power of Congress.

So what happens when money, stops working as money, because it is no longer good, but evil?

When debt derived profit expectations, exceed the realities of the functions four, Debt dollars themselves, are no longer any good as money. Money is too good to be just evil in purpose. Within the functions of money, both credit and debt have to be produced in equal measures, if the system is going to find equivalence, of such purposes, especially, in the social equation of good. Bad money makes evil choices look good.

Another problem arises when the system does not create enough positive credit to the degree necessary for all negative debt to be extinguished. Money has to include both cycle functions in equal measures or money quickly becomes defective as used. The system in place has relied on the same gimmicks and hoodwinks, behind its musty facade for so long, the details of its defective nature are now lost in a fuzzy corner of cob-webs and dust. Debt is a seriously flawed motivation for money creation, but it is perfect for controlling people and thus, entire systems were built up, on and around social needs, under such controls.

The system, was built around the absolute need to control people, in a very narrow and demeaning manner. This is why the system so entrenched proverbially sucks. It is meant to hurt people not help them. The purposeful infliction of Harm, knowing full well the suffering it causes, and to continue doing such Harm, is the defining quality of Evil. So why are ‘We the People’ suffering under such an Evil system of money control and creation?

History tells us this is the same old story with shiny new controls:

This colossal robbery of the nation, and consequently of the people, was planned and matured by the national banking money power. It is true that the idea of this system of banking had its origin in England, and it is also a fact that the scheme of legislating increased value into the bonded debt was suggested by the influential bankers of London.

Each one of the series of enactments which legally confiscated billions of property of the tax-payers, and which handed it over to a few individuals, was placed upon the statute-boots under the false and misleading plea of maintaining the “Credit of the nation untarnished.”

That distinguished historian, Prof. J. C. Ridpath, eloquently described the legislative process by which the value of the public debt was vastly increased. He said: –

“It is the hardship of war that brings debt upon the country which engages in it. In our own case we piled up a debt mountain-wise. The prodigious pile reached the clouds. In any old nation there would have remained no hope at all of paying it. It would simply have been laid upon posterity as an everlasting tax. The principal question, however, with Congress and with the people of the United States, was how they should measure and manage this debt. Gold and silver had disappeared. Paper money prevailed and abounded. The premium on coin arose to almost two hundred per cent. The dollar of the law and the contract became a paper dollar, which, as measured by the standard of gold, was, for a considerable period, worth less than fifty cents.

But what was the equity of this situation? One class of statesmen, backed up and instigated by the creditor classes, held that the dollar was always the gold and silver dollar. Practically this was not so. Theoretically and even constitutionally it was probably so. For many years together the dollar of the law and the contract was, to all intents and purposes, a dollar of paper. During the same period the modicum of gold and silver remaining in the country – though it was stamped and branded with the names of coins – was really merchandise. At length the bottom was reached – or the top, as the case may be – and the readjustment became necessary.

Then came on the warfare between the advocates of the so-called ‘honest dollar’ and the paper dollar with which, and on the basis of which, the business of the country had been so long transacted. The advocates of high payment took the ‘honest dollar’ as their catch-word, and, to make a long narrative brief, they won with it, and by a series of legislative enactments, entailing the greatest hardships on the producing interests of the country, succeeded in twisting up, turn by turn, the standard unit in the financial mill, until the so-called resumption of specie payment was annually, after fourteen years from Appomattox, effected.

Thus the value of the national debt was augmented from year to year as rapidly as it was paid away. As fast as payment was made the value of the dollar in which it was expressed was increased. To the debtor class all this was the labor of Sisyphus. The toiler laboriously rolled the stone to the top of the hill; but ever, when near the crest, it got away with him and returned with thundering and the roar of bankruptcy to the bottom. To the present day the process has been kept up, and, notwithstanding the multiplied billions upon billions which the American people have paid in principal and interest upon that patriotic war debt, which expressed their devotion and sacrifice, it is the truth of history, that the debt itself, is at the present time, worth virtually as much to the holders as it was when it reached its nominal maximum – in August, 1865.”

“In his effort to convey an adequate idea of the nature of that legislation, which had plundered the American people of billions of dollars, this renowned scholar and writer had recourse to the sublime imagery of Homer. Prof. Ridpath demonstrates that the public debt was not decreased at all, although billions had been applied to its payment Not only is this true of the public debt, but the same process of depreciating the value of property has likewise enhanced the value of private debts.

The amount of property that has been transferred from debtors to creditors, as a necessary result of the enormous appreciation of money brought about by contraction of its volume, is beyond computation.”  The Coming Battle Copyright 1899 By M. W. Walbert.

Those who keep the system going are dependent on the owners of the system for their privileges of rank, or money status, and are not likely to bite the hands that feed them. The system thrives on this master to servant control and the corruptions which allow the money power to bind the bureaucratic to the enforcement, right along with the required social hierarchies, to facilitate all necessary organizations, which are also strictly bound to the system rules.

There is considerable effort to keep these important control functions under the dominate social pecking order to quell any attempts to change the system itself. The closer one steps to the real powers the more evident the status of its protectors becomes within the system itself. The entire apparatus was engineered with controlling the people by debt as its main function. This system offers no relief from its control, or the demands, it places upon people, caught in its vise-grip of debt obligations.

The single greatest weakness of the debt system of money creation is the fact without borrowers the system grinds to a halt. To keep the wheels-a-turning new and inventive means had to be implemented to induce people to accept continuous borrowing as normal and fun. Credit cards filled a gap between what people need and what they earn. Within limits this extra spending lifts economic activities and improves choices where no other solutions are available. The down-side is when wages remain stagnant the ability to keep up with the increases of debt servicing can become quite impossible for even the most responsible of account holders. The debt masters always looking for the next big score are well ahead of this down-curve as well.

The shuffling of debt (asset-backed securities) from one hand to another in significant measures begs the question of why investors seek out such risky ventures when there are far better investments. Or so it is assumed. What ever happened to Capital investments as the long-term choice of success? Selling more debt on a market over-saturated with debt seems like a recipe for disaster. Unless, of course that is the actual purpose. The selling of the accounts of credit cards doesn’t seem to raise any concerns of its legalities. This practice while not defined as illegal seems to ride the edge, just the same.

Today, 20 percent to 50 percent of credit card accounts for the major issuers may be sold into special trusts set up by the credit card banks—Credit cardholders never realize the bank has sold their accounts. Once this happens, nothing appears differently to cardholders. If they call customer service, they are treated exactly the same as if they were account holders of the original issuing bank. However, their monthly payments are funneled to the trust rather than the bank and used to make principal and interest payments to investors.

Banks bundle or pool together millions of credit card accounts. The money owed by these cardholders is an asset that would normally sit on the bank’s balance sheet as a receivable. Instead of waiting years for those cardholders to repay the money in monthly installments, the bank sells those credit card IOU’s to securitized trusts, which sell an interest in the future credit card receivables to large institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, other banks and insurance companies). By Connie Prater Read more: HTTP://www.creditcards. com/credit-card-news/how-credit-card-securities-work-1282.php

The real question is who goes to jail if the system confidence box is empty? The greatest insider secret: there was no money at all. The borrower, by the act of spending is the only one actually creating economic activity aka credit of anything real. A credit corporation can create a billion dollar credit account, but until it is lent that credit means absolutely nothing. Otherwise, why lend anything if you already have it all?

Why are credit card corporations wasting their time with dead-beat consumers if they can create unlimited credit money to buy anything they want? Why not buy all the best income producing assets on the market? If credit card corporations are not creating money— free to spend— then how do they lend or sell something they do not possess— free to lend? Without an account holder spending something how does a security sold on that account pay anything?

Only by spending debt/credit does the cycle turn. A charge card proves money does not need to exist physically to be spent. So why assume that it does? Why assume the Credit corp has money flowing through the computer main-frames into or out of special, electronic-memory vaults? Signing the tender/receipt slip was the promise to pay. Technically, the moment the signed slip was accepted the payment of the merchandise or service was completed. The deeper secret is: People do not need Banks to do this simple function of credit transactions. Banks do not create this power they simply endeavor its usefulness, to their own profit.

People create Credit naturally, but there is no System to communicate this function free of the debt system itself. When money cannot be freely communicated by credit, token forms or metal coins, the restriction impedes progress and social innovations. This gray area of credit/debt is quite dis-functional and is a negative measure of the Lost Potential of money. The loss of access to credit earning potential is quite significant, as millions without jobs can bitterly attest.

A completely separate contract arrangement operates at the top of the exchange game, which gambles on the perceived assumption, something called electronic money actually exists. This is quite the farce of the modern, electronic based, single or dual book account operations, and yet it is never questioned, or even acknowledged, in most credit contracts. Where on the credit contract did the card account holder agree to sell a private debt obligation, held as a Security, on behalf of the credit card corporation?

What did the credit corp actually lend if it has no money at all?

Nothing, but electrons of credits, to exchange, with electrons of debt. If credit corporations had to actually lend real, physical money how many would be out-of-business in a heart-beat?

How can this debt creation be considered valid when there is no real physical money creation, much less exchanged?

What ever happened to the Consideration of value as the basis for a valid contract? What is a valid risk in an electronic environment wholly virtual by design and use?

This is the problem with money abstractions where only the Sign($) is defining a meaning of money. There is no physical money in these electronic, debit/credit systems, just account demands, predicated on timed-debt contracts. Interestingly enough, this credit time function never works on behalf of people, especially on large-scale, credit value-units. If such a value-unit was in place [in the opposite sense of the asset-debt-pool-bundle-Bond/securities] from way back when, People today would not be privately borrowing at interest their [national currency] already owned, publicly on a national level of money assets. You do not need borrow what you already possess as an asset of positive worth. Only to decide how it is to be used.

When all forms of credit/debt is simply a function of data-entry there is no opposite constraint to balance the powers of money between the Lending Class and those dependent [only by political fiat] upon them for money. Thus, an abstraction of contractual money can be lent well beyond any physical ability to earn.

People have to earn money in a time-value constraint, by most standards, while credit is just instantly created out of a promise to pay, with paper/ink, or electrons on a screen. If Bob cannot earn money three times faster next week then today, to match the rising compound-interest, the time constraint puts Bob at a serious disadvantage to a machine driven system that can create unlimited, debt time-values with no regard to physical reality. If credit cards were outlawed like specie coin how much economic activity would come to an immediate stop? The logical result: it would be quite substantial.

Are credit cards simply functioning as the difference between stagnant wages and the loss of purchasing power of those same earnings?

The debt divide is a result of the growing income gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else. The top 5% saw their share of total income rise to 34% in 2007, up from 22% in 1983. This excludes capital gains, which pump up the income of the rich even more since they are more likely to invest.

The wealthy had so much extra money lying around that they channeled it back into the financial system, making more credit available to the rest of the nation.

“Rich people have more money to play with and there are only so many Armani suits they can buy. So they can lend money back to the majority,” said Michael Kumhof, deputy division chief at the IMF who co-authored the report. Other Americans “are trying to maintain standards of living.”

As their wages dropped, some Americans were forced to take on more debt just to stay in place, according to Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under President Clinton who has written about income inequality.

With credit easier to come by, they financed their spending by taking out home equity loans or refinancing their houses. They also took out more auto and student loans and ran up their credit card balances.”

If wages, were properly proportioned to real-total inflation, credit usage might very well be so limited, as to be unprofitable. If purchasing power had increased in the same proportions of inflation, less money is needed to perform the same amount of credit work and debt clearing. People would borrow only when absolutely necessary with a much greater equality of control.

Instead, the opposite problem has diminished the worth of a dollar while increasing the cost of its time-value-use. This value-worth shrinkage produces the absurd condition of rising wages actually buying less goods, while taxed on a higher income scale, as if inflation was indeed spendable, as positive gain. This discrepancy of real-value invalidates any measurement of income and yet, the injustice is barely questioned.

The number is not the money and neither is the Sign($). If Credit was actually money why the need for a dollar of metal, or paper? If money was only private credit why do people need a central bank at all? Does any bank really make credit any more physically real? What is actually stopping people from using something which only they can create?

The System is designed to exclude origination’s of credit not of its own controlled creation. This bizarre factor of human psychology[not to believe in self-credit] which is easily manipulated by bankers, has resulted in a massive fraud of perplexing consequences. How do people, get back such massive losses of credit, they themselves do not actually believe to be real?

If credit is not real enough to be money, debt as its exact opposite is no good as money either.

The potential to create meaning of Money for the good of the society is unlimited. So long as the purpose, that such money must serve is real— so is the money as it is spent. When the social function of Money no longer serves the People, for which it is Created, the Equivalence of Trust is broken. So what really is Money when separated from its transient use dependent upon its exchange?

Reduced to its most primal element: Money is simply [psychology] in Tension. Thus, it is a creature of the Human mind and nothing else.

One only has to describe the psychological Tension between a man and wife over money to know the truth of the power within that Tension. One is acting on the other at all times. Which is why people worry about [money] both by its gain and its loss. The need, the want, the desire, the love, or greed for money, all describe a psychological state, not an element, out of the ground, much less, a credit entry on a screen, or a book. Without the needs for living what is money?

Money is intangible potential without Mind to give it reason, structure and purpose. But it is the emotional tension bound in its expectations [good or bad] which makes it tangible and real. The functions of credit/debt/money equivalence is in the revolving, multidimensional quality of Money. A literal shifting from the in-material back to the material, to serve the diverse meanings of Money, which in turn places money purpose into productive results. Money needs resolution of its Tensions to balance the Equations of its multidimensional meanings in Reality.

For many the very act of spending money is the unwinding of the tension built up in perception of the reward for working. The need of working to create money also describes the expectation of its use. The expending of this Money Tension drives the economy not the exchange of currency itself. People spend money for many reasons and to feel good is a very strong motivation behind the choices themselves. Emotions drive spending habits not just obligations of debts alone. Madison Avenue, would never had existed, if all money decisions, or choices, were strictly analytical.

Whatever impairs this Money Tension Function in natural action, is usually artificial by inducement. All inducements act upon the psychology of the “consumer” to prop up demand. Demand is a market tension looking for relief. When Money became an artificial substitution of intrinsic substance, the meaning of money abruptly shifted in complete favor of only debt-based lending Banks. Any other type of Bank which might operate by completely different rules of credit creation was simply put out of business.

Debt-based Banks quite successfully use a variety of contractual, debt induced time-values, to produce one-way significant flows of interest-driven profits back to themselves and the profiteers beholden of the lending class. The Tension Function between work and earned money is significantly impaired by this ‘debt is the only money’ allowed system. The forced relationships as imposed [creditor/debtor] creates hardships where none naturally existed. It is unnatural, to be afforded no relief, from earning only debt money. It is absurd for people to be unable to find work in a system that technically speaking, can never run out of paper money, or its electronic equivalent.

The system actually ran out of those who can borrow the increasing burden of its insane, over-priced, contractual debt. By this absurdity Debt is now too valuable to be money. Will the President confiscate all debt just as gold was taken for the same purpose? Can debt be hoarded in a Fort Knox and held in perpetual confiscation? Or is gold still quietly sitting at the top of the debt pyramid? When debt is indeed too bad to be money the final criticality of the system built upon its forced creation will be quite interesting.

Since there is no means of gaining equality with the powers of debt creation, society must suffer endless anxiety and pain from tax extractions, especially of the income variety. This is direct political punishment for using debt as IF it was as good as money. The punishing agents of income inquisition are operating through Congress, as if it was a stage puppet. When the crime is debt there is only the punishment of taxes and debt-induced-interest working in coercion.

This crime in progress against working people is well hidden by the abstractions of contractual, mathematical fictions only possible, by removing real constraints, born of tangible, debt-free money. Free circulation, of non-interest monies, is the missing function of constraint, against borrowing debt into circulation, as fictional money. Since this removal of debt-free money was accomplished by fascist, privately driven political authority, strictly motivated by private fiscal enrichment, it is both a political and personal crime against the People. Where is the Justice for this crime?

An industrial war economy required a war currency. America, was and still is, stuck with the industrial-war-complex dollar, borrowed into existence, by debt creation, on private terms. Congress, has no enumerated authority, to declare war on the People, to whom it was created to serve. To say otherwise is an absurdity of basic law. Treason, interestingly enough, is still punishable by death.

[“Question: Do you mean that banks, in buying Government securities, do not lend out their customers deposits? That they create the money they use to buy the securities?

Answer: (by Secretary Anderson): That is correct. Banks are different from other lending institutions. When a savings and loan association, an insurance company, or a credit union makes a loan, it lends the very dollar that its customers have previously paid in. But when a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’ s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower. “

(We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon.” Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.)]

For a country based on freedom of commerce choices, to outlaw gold and silver credit functions, both as a store-house of money, and as a ‘free of debt’ currency, was rather diabolical. In addition, this action was quite anti-Constitutional as well. To even assert that precious metals can be unlawful for sovereign people to own is patently absurd. The bold absurdity of telling people they no longer had the unalienable Right to freely contract in precious metals, make deposits of them into a bank, thus receive a time-value gain from their holdings, was denied and yet; while simultaneously the federal reserve banks were able to secure the same gold and silver as bullion, for private gain.

The President, had no more Authority, to outlaw owning a precious metal, then he had to outlaw land, copper, milk or any other commodity, or element. Congress, has no such enumerated Authority to subvert law and the Constitution cannot be outlawed against itself. The people of those days, were lied to by their public servants, while facing threatening fines and imprisonment for lawfully owning Constitutional coin money. One must conclude America lost its rational mind, right along with the courage of its conscience, in one fell swoop. Did America cross over into the Twilight Zone and become anti-America by result?

The government not only outlawed owning metal substance of coin, by a direct assault on private property; this action also outlawed the Right to create money(credit/debt) outside of the box of controlled, quasi-government issuance. The mind is the only place Money Tension exists— so apparently, that perception had to be outlawed as well. So the absurdity is that the most honest meaning of money was also outlawed by consequence. Therefore, the public mass-mind was trapped in a false assertion of what money means.

If Americans, as a class of citizens of the Union of States, were no longer allowed to own their specific, tangible, lawful private property of money, then Americans had to have become de facto slaves to the central Bank, now lording over the gold, thanks to FDR’s absurd actions. If not for him no such forced liquidation of private held gold was possible. Even worse no such liquidation was ever necessary. Paper and gold/silver do not compete on material grounds. The ruse derived of patriotic duty worked however, and America has never been the same since.

Today in anti-America, earning debt instruments, born of contractual obligations, is politically asserted as ‘income’ and Americans are courting ruin and prison IF they dare say no to the Tyranny of the “claim” attached to the actual laws governing the federal Income Tax. Many try and many fail to fight the tyranny in Courts, even with a jury. How in the hell did it get so bad a man has to be a wage-slave to the federal government, or face going to prison for demanding Truth, much less Justice?

Well, so many people believe that the federal/state income tax is as fair, as any other form of contractual extortion for a good cause, so why complain at all. Only bad people hate the freedom to pay capitation taxes on their ‘slave-wage-incomes’ and they deserve to be punished for claiming they are sovereign, non-federal, citizens of a Union state. When the Law becomes nothing more then the Instrument of Tyranny, then there is only anti-law, operating on people, no longer living in freedom. If there is still a glimmer of hope that People can once again own their Money, free and clear of Contractual Usury, devoid of financial debt-tyranny, maybe some insights into the deeper “Political Questions” behind the facade will help clarify why it is still possible to be free at all.

“I believe banking institutions are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.” “If Americans ever allow banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless” – Thomas Jefferson

“Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal – that there is no human relation between master and slave.” – Leo Tolstoy, Famous Russian writer.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”- Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banks can in fact inflate, mint and un-mint the modern ledger-entry currency.” – Major L L B Angus.

“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled.” – John Kenneth Galbraith, former professor of economics at Harvard University (1975)

“The problem is not capitalism. It’s monopoly capitalism.”—Alex Jones

“The New York Fed is one of the linchpin crime syndicate hubs. Timothy Geithner comes out of that crime syndicate.”—Max Keiser

“This is a collapse of empire. One thing that is an ingredient of all collapses of empire is an absence of justice. There is no justice. There is no (accountability) for the 1%, and therefore, there is no justice at all.”— Stacy Herbert.

“For many, the American dream became a nightmare long ago. It’s little wonder that Americans are afraid and angry.”—Michael Fumento

“In essence, the present creation of money, out of nothing by the banking system, is similar – I do not hesitate to say it in order to make people clearly realize what is at stake here – to the creation of money by counterfeiters, so rightly condemned by law.” Maurice Allais

“…there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” The Federalist # 47, Madison.

Edward Mandell House said this to Woodrow Wilson:

[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a charge-back for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer being unable to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”


“Our father, who art in England; Rothschild’s be thy name, thy financial kingdom come in tho United States as it is in England. Give us this day our bonds in gold, but not silver; give us plenty of laboring man’s votes to keep monopoly in power and their friends in office. We know, father, that we have done many things that were wrong; we have robbed tho honest poor, and brought distress to many a door; we know it was wrong to refund the bonds and make them payable in coin; We know it was wrong to demonetize silver; We know it was wrong to water all our railroad stocks; but thou knowest we made money by that.

Now, our father thou knowest we are above politics.

It is the same to us, whether the Republicans or Democrats rule, for thou knowest we are able to sway all political jobs in our favor. Lend us not into the way of strikers, but deliver us from insane Knights of Labor. Thus shall we have the kingdom, bonds, interest, power and gold till the republic shall end-Amen.”

While the Lieborgate scandal gathers steam not so much because of people’s comprehension of just what is at stake here (nothing less than the fair value of $350 trillion in interest-rate sensitive products as explained in February), but simply courtesy of several very vivid emails which mention expensive bottles of champagne, once again proving that when it comes to interacting with the outside world, banks see nothing but rows of clueless Muppet’s until caught red-handed (at which point they use big words, and speak confidently), the BBC’s Robert Peston brings an unexpected actor into the fray: the English Central Bank and specifically Paul Tucker, the man who, unless Goldman’s-cum-Canada’s Mark Carney or Goldman’s Jim O’Neill step up, will replace Mervyn King as head of the BOE.

From the BBC:

In making false submissions about their borrowing costs, managers at Barclays believed they were operating under an instruction from Paul Tucker, deputy governor of the Bank of England, I have learned.

This belief was fostered after a telephone conversation in the autumn of 2008 between Mr Tucker and Bob Diamond, who at the time ran Barclays’ investment bank, Barclays Capital, and is today chief executive of Barclays.

The heart of the matter is that in 2008, at the height of the credit crunch, the perception of banks’ financial strength was linked to how much they had to pay to borrow. Barclays managers were very worried that the appearance of the bank paying more to borrow than other banks was damaging confidence in its health.

So Barclays so-called “submitters”, the managers who gave borrowing data to the British Bankers Association’s Libor-setting committees, consistently told these committees that Barclays was paying a lower interest rate to borrow than was actually the case.

And what is striking is that after their conversation took place, senior Barclays’ management on October 29 2008 gave an explicit instruction to reduce Libor submissions.


Up next chapter -2 –

“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

 -Mark Twain



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: