Historical Ignorance



By Walter E.Williams

Commentary on America Being Led to Re-Fight its Civil War

The twenty million listeners of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program have heard Walter E. Williams because he has guest-hosted behind the golden EIB microphone.  As a syndicated columnist and author known for his classical liberal and libertarian conservative views, his writings frequently appear on Townhall.com, WND, Jewish World Review, and hundreds of newspapers throughout the United States.  Walter Williams keeps impeccable company, as his philosophy has been influenced by both Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman.

Liberals, Progressives, and Socialists are leading America to re-fight the War Between the States.  The blood of 600,000 Americans killed in war from 1861 to 1865 is insufficient to cleanse the sin of enslavement.  And it is in that context that you should find Mr. Williams comments both highly interesting and instructive:

The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war between the colonies and Great Britain. Its first article declared the 13 colonies “to be free, sovereign and independent states.” These 13 sovereign nations came together in 1787 as principals and created the federal government as their agent. Principals have always held the right to fire agents. In other words, states held a right to withdraw from the pact — secede.

During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, “A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty —in a word, secede.

On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

Both Northern Democratic and Republican Parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”

The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right?

A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask how much of the war was about slavery.

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.”

Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri.

The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism.

Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the secession of Texas from Mexico.

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue.

Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?’

 Walter E. Williams, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University.

Olddogs Comments!

Comparing the logic of this learned gentleman to that of the assholes we call our leaders it seems to me that he should construct a crew of like persons to infiltrate the congress and senate, then slowly take the rains of this runaway contagion and return America to the original Republic. This is necessary as the people have lost all control of the scumbags now sitting.

SDR Assimilation And Crushing The Banksters


EDITOR’S NOTE:  I am glad that the liberty movement is growing more and more aware of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket system and the globalist desire to use it as a bridge towards a one world currency.  I am also glad that, FINALLY, more people are discussing the reality that the globalists intend to use blockchain technology similar to Bitcoin as a mechanism for a single world monetary unit.  I have been writing about this for years, but it takes a while for these things to run their course through the alternative media.  For my personal analysis on the agenda for a SDR/blockchain based system, read my latest article on the subject entitled ‘The Globalist One World Currency Will Look A Lot Like Bitcoin’.  In the meantime, do absorb this excellent investigative essay from Rory Hall.


Brandon Smith, Founder of Alt-Market

This article was written by Rory Hall and originally published at The Daily Coin

As a lot of you know, Lynette Zang has been under fire after the interview with SGTReport about the ACChain being tied to the SDR. There have been several people to argue that she is 100% wrong and made videos showing what an SDR is, “calling the IMF”, having roundtable discussions and a variety of other attacks from former hard asset community members turned digital profiteers. The question I have is this – when was the last time a policy, bill or law was implemented then shelved and never used for it’s intended purpose? How many of these people have discussed the SDR with the Chief of the SDR or read any of the documents surrounding, not only the Original SDR but the M-SDR? I would venture to say very few or zero. SDR’s have been sitting in a basket since their inception and have not been used for their intended purpose. That, however, is changing.

What about the IMF, in June 2017 as pointed out by The Daily Economist, stating that banks should get into the cryptocurrency space as reported on Investopedia

A June 2017 staff discussion note from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) suggests that banks should consider investing in cryptocurrencies more seriously than they have in the past. According to the IMF staff team responsible for the note, including prominent economists such as Dong He, Ross Leckow, and Vikram Haksar, “rapid advances in digital technology are transforming the financial services landscape.” These members of the IMF feel that such transformations generate new opportunities for consumers as well as service providers and regulators. The ultimate message of the report seems to be one of support for cryptocurrencies, as it outlines some of the ways that the fintech industry might be able to provide solutions for consumers related to trust, security, financial services, and privacy in this area.

Boundaries are Blurring

One of the key findings of the IMF report is that “boundaries are blurring.” This means that the borders between intermediaries, service providers, and markets, previously well-defined, have become blurry with the advent of new technology related to digital currencies and cross-border payments. Along with the blurring of these boundaries, the authors of the report suggest that “barriers to entry are changing.” This does not, however, mean that barriers to entry are universally being lowered. Rather, they are being lowered in some situations but raised for others, particularly “if the emergence of large closed networks reduces opportunities for competition.” Source

There’s nothing more comforting to me than a group of banksters discussing how they are looking out for my well being and my families wealth and security. Once again, not discussing counterfeiting, currency laws or the disruption of these new currencies coming online. Simply discussing how the banksters should embrace them and get on board.

If this doesn’t give you pause, then you are too far gone to address any further. I could care less about “256 bit” this or “528 bit” that – it doesn’t matter – laws and acceptance are what matter. The oligarchs still possess the keys to the kingdom and until they are wrestled out of their hands nothing changes. If someone believes the masses are going to join forces and be labeled a “terrorist” or a “drug dealer” well, you have not been paying attention at all.

As we discussed in 2016 the SDR is coming to the table and it will fulfill its intended purpose – when that will happen is the next question. Building puzzles takes time and, it appears, another large piece of the puzzle has been put into place with the development of the ACChain.

World Bank explains further

“This is a landmark development for China’s bond market and for the SDR as an international reserve asset,” said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim. “We are very pleased to support China’s growing role in global financial markets. World Bank issuance of SDR bonds in China will support the G-20’s objective of expanding the use of SDRs and help promote the development of China’s domestic capital market. It will also increase Chinese investors’ access to foreign currencies in the domestic bond market, while opening up new opportunities for international investors seeking high-quality investment products in the country.” [emphasis added]

In 2016 China was approved to join the SDR basket of currencies and was also approved to issue the M-SDR bond valued in Renminbi. The initial offering was oversold by 2.5 times the offering – not unusual, but shows people are interested. This means the M-SDR is now out in the market place. Where does it go from here? What are China’s plans, with this M-SDR priced in Renminbi?

This was another, very strong, indication of what is on the horizon and will be unfolding. We are seeing some of the unfolding right now – it happens everyday, just some days experience bigger moves than others.

As we have reported over the past several weeks the Federal Reserve Note (FRN), a.k.a. U.S. dollar, is on life support. The changes that are currently in motion, combined with the policy changes that have been approved, will assure the FRN will no longer be the world reserve currency and this will have a direct impact on you, your family and your wealth. As was stated recently by China’s President, Xi Jingping, it is time for action and time to stop talking.

The next five weeks will mark one of the most significant transformations in the international monetary system in over 30 years. Source

Has anyone bothered to review what has been put in place over the past several years in regards to “freeing” the SDR and moving this monetary nightmare into the global monetary system? Apparently not too many, however, several people are all the sudden some kind of expert on the subject. I am not an expert on SDR’s and do not claim to be. I have, however, dedicated hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of words to research on the subject and feel comfortable in my analysis.

When I interviewed Dr. Warren Coats in 2016, Chief of the SDR, we covered some of the ground that he had been developing and discussing for several years, if not several decades, regarding the use of the SDR at the global level. Did I mention Dr. Coats was the Chief of the SDR at the IMF?

Dr. Warren Coats served on the IMF from 1976 to 2003. He became chief of the Special Drawing Rights (SDR) division in 1983 and remained until he retired. Dr. Coats has more experience with the SDR than anyone else on planet earth. He also knows a little something about currencies after working with well over twenty different countries to either strengthen their currency or develop a new currency. Dr. Coats understands gold and understands gold as money. Source

The SDR has been sitting quietly in the corner awaiting its turn in the spotlight. There will be no grand entrance as that is not how the IMF nor China wishes for this to unfold. Bring as little attention to this situation as possible and simply make it part of everyday life. Or as George Carlin said – Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

In another article we penned on this subject we noted:

As Dr. Coates describes it in Larry White’s latest article:

“I fully agree that short of a real crisis, developing and expanding the role and use of the SDR will be a gradual step by step process. The development of private SDRs, for example, requires no decisions by the IMF at all if the existing currency basket is used. This was the topic of my “Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the SDR” article.”  —-  Warren Coats

I would ask anyone that questions the SDR’s role in the new ACChain to please re-read the above underlined statement. It may have some bearing on the current arguments that the IMF has not approved the SDR to be used with the ACChain. M-SDR’s are that “private SDR” Dr. Coats references above.

This is part of the overall scheme, as was stated by the World Bank – China is being used, as was the original intent, to bring SDR’s to the citizens and have them folded into the current monetary system with little fanfare and no one really paying attention. By doing so, the current monetary system can be circumvented with almost zero noticeable change to the system.

As the IMF recently stated as one of the goals of de-cashing the nations was to create scenarios where no one even questions what is happening because they do not realize what is happening and they awaken one morning and the cash is all gone. This new system will assist in making that happen – right under your nose.

Who’s excited about the cryptocurrency market? “WOW. I just became a gazillionaire with my shiny new Unicorn fiat cryptocurrency, based-on-faith, backed-by-nothing digital blips on a screen. WoooHoooo” I haven’t heard anything like that recently, have you? “Precious metals suck and I have lost soooooo much money on gold and silver.” Haven’t heard anything like that either, have you? I would argue this is part of the assimilation process, part of the enslavement process to suck more funds out of precious metals and into the new system of enslavement instead of a real system that has been proven to break the backs of the banking cabal throughout all of history.  Since when did a “new currency” break the backs of the banking cabal? Gold, and only gold, has proven to have the fortitude to create real change and crush the banksters.

As we learned in a recent interview conducted by SGTReport, Brad Peters, Sr. Software Engineer, Intel, clearly shows the SDR as part of the code within the ACChain. No it does not show any ties to the IMF, which is not a requirement, but it clearly shows the SDR, which is the real issue that Lynette Zang was bringing to the table during the SGTReport interview just a day prior to the conversation with Brad Peters. jsnip4 also made a video in an attempt to dispel what Ms. Zang had stated. jsnip4, Joe, “called the IMF” to ask about this ACChain and the IMF explained to him they knew nothing about it. Well, why would they when it is not necessary to have the IMF approve the use of the SDR in this manner? Did anyone bother to even think the SDR in the code of the ACChain is tied to the M-SDR bond issued by China and can be freely issued by China? It would appear not.

The conversation continues and I still know that gold is part of the current monetary system and will be part of the future monetary system. What role it will play is yet unknown, but as I have stated time and again, China is not acquiring tons of gold to create more jewelry or produce more coins. The Belt and Road Initiative is not planning on having gold as payment across the “heartland” because they trust nations to do the right thing with their currency. Gold is money and everything else – EVERYTHING ELSE – is credit.

Olddogs Comments!

I pity those who remain unaware of the monetary transformation and wish they would get their selves together and start researching. This eventually will result in totalitarianism never before experienced.

Justification for Study: Living the American dream on borrowed time


By Olddog

Before I was fully retired, like most people, my focus was on supporting my family. There was not much time in that endeavor to think about much else, and again I believe most working class people experience about the same thing. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part I found that people just did not realize they were living the American dream on borrowed time. In fact, many are still unaware of their loss of freedoms, and God given rights. Many more are somewhat aware, but unconcerned due to a false sense of security. After all, this is America, right?

Due to having a natural sense of individualism, I have always been a non-conformist, and once I had the time, I set out to discover why so many people just went along with whatever they were told. Many years later that objective had been subdivided into hundreds of subjects, and I found that I had a higher sense of how people the world over are manipulated from cradle to grave, and for the most part, with their consent.

To make a long story short, many Americans have been influenced from an early age to have a high degree of emotional patriotism that makes them unwilling to face the true history of American politics’. Let’s face it, who wants to know something bad about a loved one? Who wants to admit they have been beguiled from childhood? They have become unwilling to let go of a myth, because to do so, hurts so much.

American exceptionalism is the result of this false sense of value, and trying to change some ones mind that really believes whatever America does is right, is nearly impossible, UNLESS, some person or event convinces them the time has come to have an open mind, and really study both sides of the compulsion to surrender our National Sovereignty to a Global Community.

Once that commitment has been reached and sufficient study has been accomplished, there arises the inevitable crisis of having to ask ones-self; now what the hell do we do? I’ve been there, and done that, and then had to search for the most plausible solution. When I found it, I then had to readjust my child-hood patriotism to a more sensible loyalty to the principles of freedom instead of a tyrannical monolithic nationalism.

There is no getting around it, our present United States Government is out of control, and we have no means of changing it. Assuming your loyalty is to the America we were taught to love and die for, there is only one peaceable way to save it, and that is by going back to the very beginning, and reclaiming individual State Sovereignty, and redesigning a new confederation of States that clearly elucidate the agreements.

If this sounds impossible, it has been done before, and is a lot better than having no say so in the formation of a global government at all. This is where we’re headed, whether you want to believe it or not. You have everything to gain by studying the material I send out, and everything to lose by refusing to be open-minded.

Without a controllable government, we will be slaves to people we have never heard of, and there will be no way to recover our freedom, because the whole world will be against us. Our own government already is, and you can see how hard it is to get them to listen.

Olddogs Comments!

Dear Friends, much has been learned since I wrote the above article and in this present day in history it takes a serious reader to understand how the whole world has been brain washed by the constant lies that have surrounded us from birth. You simply cannot waste your brain on entertainment in all its forms, because it will convince you that there is no truth.

For your own sake you must learn to think by discussing or dealing with matters in a thoughtful or thought-provoking way, as opposed to a superficial or merely entertaining manner. This is the only way you can shed the lies you have been indoctrinated with all your lives. The truth is out there if you will only look for it.

The incomprehensible atrocities we have been exposed to must stop before they reach the power to implement the final selection of who lives or dies. As it has been for a hundred years, there is no real freedom in this corrupt world.

The evil cartel who is responsible for these degenerate acts is composed of hundreds of filthy rich people who have set up the Queen of England, the Pope, and the International Bankers as their front men, and they have no intention of letting the worlds people live free from their control, so they must shrink the worlds population before they do lose control. It’s that damn simple, if you can see what is right before your eyes.

So if you want a catastrophic world war just sit on your ass and wait for the end. A reconstruction of freedom is now possible due to the works of several people who have advanced comprehension of history and governments of the past, but only if the people will participate and due their own studying.

Anna Von Reitz has done the leg work and many more have helped to produce instructions on recovering ones human identity and  all one has to do is learn how to file documents proving your natural identity as a living free human being, not subject to their corporate statutes, and then participate in constructing a government for the people that is really run by the people.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) Proposes Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) to Crush Rise of Cryptocurrencies



By Richard Kastelein

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently pushed out a staff discussion note called “Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations” which provides a wealth of detail in how the organisation takes view on the current rise of cryptocurrencies.

The IMF paper focusses largely on the role DLT can play in cross-border payments and ends on the role that the organisation feels they can play on a global scale to coordinate and regulate digital assets, largely, it appears, by supporting the role of central banks in their quest for creating their own CBDCs and assisting in designing the future regulatory environment.

In other words, push current private cryptocurrencies into a subservient role and let central banks take control:

“The introduction and potential proliferation of private virtual currencies might, in one view, threaten to erode the demand for central bank money and the transmission mechanism of monetary policy. A CBDC may forestall such private virtual currencies or relegate them to a secondary role in the payments system. This threat is not imminent given the current transactions domain and limitations of existing private virtual currencies and their likely medium-term growth. Stability and safety considerations connected to this proliferation may, however, be relevant in the medium run but could presumably be dealt with by other measures.”

The key findings include the following:

  • Boundaries are blurring among intermediaries, markets, and new service providers.
  • Barriers to entry are changing, being lowered in some cases but increased in others, especially if the emergence of large closed networks reduces opportunities for competition.
  • Trust remains essential, even as there is less reliance on traditional financial intermediaries, and more on networks and new types of service providers.
  • Technologies may improve cross-border payments, including by offering better and cheaper
    services, and lowering the cost of compliance with anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulation.

The international organisation also calls for  jurisdictions to revise rules governing ownership and contractual rights and obligations when it comes to digital assets.

“DLT records the transfer of ownership of “digital tokens,” which are essentially units in a ledger. They can either have intrinsic value themselves (an “intrinsic token” like Bitcoin), or be digital representations of a physical or digital asset that exists outside the ledger (an “asset-based token” representing an interest in another asset such as securities). The legal status of a digital token, and the legal effect of its transfer are not clear. For example, would the transfer of an asset-backed token (e.g., representing a security) on a ledger transfer legal ownership of the security or would registration outside the ledger (e.g., in a corporate share registry) still be required? Jurisdictions are trying to develop answers to these questions but country practice varies. The resolution of these questions is crucial for the economy to function and will require more thought by policymakers.”

The IMF paper notes that:

” …in their current form, virtual currencies are not likely to be adequate stores of value given the volatility in their exchange rates to fiat money. This same volatility would undermine hub-and-spoke networks, as two “foreign exchange rate” conversions are needed: when the token is acquired, and when it is sold. Even if the virtual currency is held for very short periods, the transaction involves foreign exchange rate risk. FX risk could potentially be hedged, although costs could then rival those of correspondent bank transfers.”

The paper adds a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) might resolve the coordination problem over new virtual currencies, and could lead to even more technological innovation. But adds that it might allow the central bank to retain control of monetary policy effectiveness, in case privately-issued virtual currencies started to gain significant ground.

A DLT-based CBDC could also be more secure and resilient than current settlement systems which are exposed to single point of failure risk. Finally, by facilitating small value payments, it could boost the adoption and efficiency of the new, decentralized, service economy. However, CBDCs raise multiple potential costs and risks, such as managing the platform and its integrity, resolving scalability, and dealing with issues of privacy.

Olddogs comments!

One must have poop for brains if they think the central bankers will give up control of MONEY.




Simon Black [admin@sovereignman.com]

Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

A few weeks ago the Board of Trustees of Social Security sent a formal letter to the United States Senate and House of Representatives to issue a dire warning: Social Security is running out of money.

Given that tens of millions of Americans depend on this public pension program as their sole source of retirement income, you’d think this would have been front page news…

… and that every newspaper in the country would have reprinted this ominous projection out of a basic journalistic duty to keep the public informed about an issue that will affect nearly everyone.

But that didn’t happen.

The story was hardly picked up.

It’s astonishing how little attention this issue receives considering it will end up being one of the biggest financial crises in US history.

That’s not hyperbole either– the numbers are very clear.

The US government itself calculates that the long-term Social Security shortfall exceeds $46 TRILLION.

In other words, in order to be able to pay the benefits they’ve promised, Social Security needs a $46 trillion bailout.

Fat chance.

That amount is over TWICE the national debt, and nearly THREE times the size of the entire US economy.

Moreover, it’s nearly SIXTY times the size of the bailout that the banking system received back in 2008.

So this is a pretty big deal.

More importantly, even though the Social Security Trustees acknowledge that the fund is running out of money, their projections are still wildly optimistic.

In order to build their long-term financial models, Social Security’s administrators have to make certain assumptions about the future.

What will interest rates be in the future?
What will the population growth rate be?
How high (or low) will inflation be?

These variables can dramatically impact the outcome for Social Security.

For example, Social Security assumes that productivity growth in the US economy will average between 1.7% and 2% per year.

This is an important assumption: the faster US productivity grows, the faster the economy will grow. And this ultimately means more tax revenue (and more income) for the program.

But -actual- US productivity growth is WAY below their assumption.

Over the past ten years productivity growth has been about 25% below their expectations.

And in 2016 US productivity growth was actually NEGATIVE.

Here’s another one: Social Security is hoping for a fertility rate in the US of 2.2 children per woman.

This is important, because a higher population growth means more people entering the work force and paying in to the Social Security system.

But the actual fertility rate is nearly 20% lower than what they project.

And if course, the most important assumption for Social Security is interest rates.

100% of Social Security’s investment income is from their ownership of US government bonds.

So if interest rates are high, the program makes more money. If interest rates are low, the program doesn’t make money.

Where are interest rates now? Very low!

In fact, interest rates are still near the lowest levels they’ve been in US history.

Social Security hopes that ‘real’ interest rates, i.e. inflation-adjusted interest rates, will be at least 3.2%.

This means that they need interest rates to be 3.2% ABOVE the rate of inflation.

This is where their projections are WAY OFF… because real interest rates in the US are actually negative.

The 12-month US government bond currently yields 1.2%. Yet the official inflation rate in the Land of the Free is 1.7%.

In other words, the interest rate is LOWER than inflation, i.e. the ‘real’ interest rate is MINUS 0.5%.

Social Security is depending on +3.2%.

So their assumptions are totally wrong.

And it’s not just Social Security either.

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston Collage, US public pension funds at the state and local level are also underfunded by an average of 67.9%.

Additionally, most pension funds target an investment return of between 7.5% to 8% in order to stay solvent.

Yet in 2015 the average pension fund’s investment return was just 3.2%. And last year a pitiful 0.6%.

This is a nationwide problem. Social Security is running out of money. State and local pension funds are running out of money.

And even still their assumptions are wildly optimistic. So the problem is much worse than their already dismal forecasts.

Understandably everyone is preoccupied right now with whether or not World War III breaks out in Guam.

(I would respectfully admit that this is one of those times I am grateful to be living on a farm in the southern hemisphere.)

But long-term, these pension shortfalls are truly going to create an epic financial and social crisis.

It’s a ticking time bomb, and one with so much certainty that we can practically circle a date on a calendar for when it will hit.

There are solutions.

Waiting on politicians to fix the problem is not one of them.

The government does not have a spare $45 trillion lying around to re-fund Social Security.

So anyone who expects to retire with comfort and dignity is going to have to take matters into their own hands and start saving now.

Consider options like SEP IRAs and 401(k) plans that have MUCH higher contribution limits, as well as self-directed structures which give you greater influence over how your retirement savings are invested.

These flexible structures also allow investments in alternative asset classes like private equity, cashflowing royalties, secured lending, cryptocurrency, etc.

Education is also critical.

Learning how to be a better investor can increase your investment returns and (most importantly) reduce losses.

And increasing the long-term average investment return of your IRA or 401(k) by just 1% per year can have a PROFOUND (six figure) impact on your retirement.

These solutions make sense: there is ZERO downside in saving more money for retirement.

But it’s critical to start now. A little bit of effort and planning right now will pay enormous dividends in the future.

Until tomorrow,

Simon Black

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Neither this email nor content posted on the website SovereignMan.com is intended to provide personal tax or financial advice. Before undertaking any action described in this letter, financial or otherwise, you should discuss your options with a qualified advisor– tax accountant, financial planner, attorney, priest, IRS auditor, Bernie Madoff, etc.

Blacksmith Global Ltd.
Publisher of Sovereign Man
30 Cecil Street #19-08
Singapore, Singapore – No State 049712


by Egon von Greyerz
Fake money has created a totally uneven playing field for most ordinary people.
Money used to represent a medium of exchange that would facilitate bartering. Instead of exchanging goods or services, people would receive a piece of paper that was equal to the value of their goods or services. This was initially an honest system when for each service or goods offered there was only one bank note issued. Eventually the banker started to cheat and issued a lot more money/paper than the counter value produced in kind. And that was the beginning of money printing. It just became too tempting and convenient for governments and bankers to simply create more money since nobody would really know. So if the value of a day’s work or a pig were both say $100, the money or paper issued for this should be $100 for each. But gradually governments/banks would issue more and more paper with nothing produced in return. All banks today lend at least 10x the money deposited so for every $100 received $1,000 is leant. But the leverage can be much greater like Deutsche Bank which is leveraged nearer 50x.
The effect of this money creation is that the $100 pig will eventually cost 50x more or $5,000 for the same pig. The pig hasn’t gone up in price since there is no scarcity of pigs but the money has instead gone down in value to 1/50th. The same for a day of labour. The man who previously received $100 per day now gets $5,000 for his work. He is not working harder and the price of labour has not gone up in real terms. But the value of money has gone so he needs to work one day to buy a big which now costs $5,000. I do realise it is a very simplified explanation but in essence, it is the way the corrupt monetary system works.
And this is how governments destroy the value of money. As they mismanage the economy and can’t make ends meet, they just issue more paper which has zero real value since it just lowers the purchasing power of money.

The value of paper money has been totally decimated in the last 100 years since the creation of the Fed in 1913. The chart shows how paper money has declined in relation to “real money” which is gold. All major currencies have declined 97-99% against gold during this period. So there is only 1-3% to go until they reach ZERO. But from here to zero is another 100% fall which will be disastrous for the world and involve an economic collapse as well as hyperinflation.
In a final attempt to save the world governments will print unlimited amounts of money. This is what will make paper money totally worthless and reach zero. This is of course nothing new in history. Governments have always done it. The Roman did it and many governments since. I don’t know how many times I have quoted Voltaire in the last 17 years but it is worth repeating what he said in 1729:


The problem with money printing is not just that it destroys the value of paper money, as creating money out of thin air also creates a totally uneven playing field. To produce goods or services requires a lot of hard labour for ordinary people. But governments and bankers have the upper hand because they just need some electricity which allows them to press a button to produce money. And this money that they produce has the same value that ordinary people struggle to earn.
We are now not far from the point when the bubbles in stocks, credit and property will collapse. This will lead to a final futile attempt by governments to save the world by printing unlimited amounts of money. At that point, normal people will finally realise that the money they are holding is totally worthless. This will lead to protests, attack on government and bankers as well as social unrest.

In spite of a small move in the last few days, many holders of precious metals are getting restless. This is totally normal since we have seen a 6 year range of $150 above or below the June $1,220 bottom.

I often get the question if the paper gold manipulation will go on forever as seems to be the case since 2013. My very firm belief is that we are likely to see the end of this consolidation period right now. During the autumn of 2017, gold is likely to resume its uptrend to eventually much higher levels. That next strong uptrend in gold will also eventually break the paper gold market.
The reasons for the coming move are manifold. The risk situation in the world are more critical than ever both economically and geopolitically as I have outlined many times in my articles. Also, the supply situation physical gold is very tight. All the mine production of 3,000 tonnes are easily absorbed and no more can be produced.
In my recent audio interview with King World News I explain this in detail and that we have never seen sellers of physical gold in quantity and that bigger wealth preservation buyers are now buying again. We are likely to see many surprises in the coming months.

Egon von Greyerz
Founder and Managing Partner
Matterhorn Asset Management AG
Contact Us

The Actual Terrorists



Posted By Paul Graig Roberts

This is an article written by an Austrian, Klaus Madersbacher, who, somehow, was able to see through the heavy blanket of Amerian propaganda that suffocates the ability to think and to pereive throughout the entirety of Europe. He correctly undersands the Western destruction of Libya as a war crime. Germans were executed by the Nuremberg Tribunal for less.
Madersbacher is correct that Libya was a monstrous war crime committed by the Obama regime and Washington’s NATO puppets. However, Libya is a worse crime than the Nazis committed, as is Afghanistan, Iraq, Yeman, Somalia, and parts of Syria. The Germans never destroyed entire countries and murdered the leaderships. Life in Nazi-occupied France was not as pleasant as in unoccupied France, but it was far more pleasant than life today in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalis, Yemem, and part of Syria after America “brought democracy” to the countries.
Under the Nuremberg standard, the country (or countries) that originates war is the country that is responsible for the war crimes. The irony is that World War 2 was the responsibility of the British and French who started the war by declaring war on Germany. So under the Nuremberg standard it is Britian and France who are responsible for the war crimes.
Madersbacher believes, as I did prior to reading David Irving’s book, Nuremberg, that Robert Jackson, the chief prosecutor, succeeded in establishing the legal principle that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. In actual fact, the principle was not established. Irving points out that no other Tribunal was ever formed until the Clinton regime sent the Serbian president, Milosevic, to a tribunal that cleared Milosevic of the orchestrated charges.
Of course, as Madersbacher understands, for now Washington’s “might makes right” prevails, and no one is going to send the criminal regines of Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump if he follows their path, to a War Crimes Tribunal. But if Washington one day is militarily defeated or suffers economic collapse that makes the US dependent on foreign support, Washington’s war criminals, who exceed in number Nazi war criminals, could be finally held accountable.
As Madersbacher writes, we await a Stalingrad 2.0 that paves the way to a Nuremberg 2.0.
The actual terrorists
Klaus Madersbacher, http://www.antikrieg.com
”Sometimes I ask myself about the value of a ‘culture’ which isn´t able to provide people with sufficient mental capacity to enable them to recognize if they are lied to as impudently as it is presently done by the media. It doesn´t need to be said that these are targeting the interests of the overwhelming majority of mankind.”
I wrote this in July 2011, when three big European nations of culture and civilization together with some smaller ones under the leadership of the cultural superpower bombed peaceful Libya into ruins and systematically devastated the whole country.
This is exactly the kind of crime the Nazi leaders have been hanged for. The crime against peace, which apparently only very few seem to know that it does exist at all. The crime against peace – “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” – the International Court at Nuremberg declared.
Simply said that means, that the party which initiates a war is responsible for all crimes committed in the context of this war.
In the next two paragraphs, Madersbacher is saying, I think, that countries called democracies are excluded as war criminals because a parliament or congress acting for the people fund the war. He disagrees, correctly in my opinion, from this excuse for criminality.
It´s not like that, that killing or hurting people in war is no crime, that the destruction of houses etc. is no crime, when carried out by means of high tech war machinery by armies financed by a budget decided by a parliament.
Even if such outstanding democratic institutions as the Congress of the United States of America, her Majesties´ Parliament or the German Bundestag authorize such activities, this wouldn´t change a fart of the fact that these are crimes.
As is generally known the Nazi leaders were hanged after World War II. During the war they and most of the people in their country didn´t think that such a fate was going to come upon them.
Today things are not very different. I´m not going to puzzle over who of the present political leaders likely will end being hanged, if the presently waged wars will be followed by a new Nuremberg Tribunal. It has, however, to be taken as a fact, that all the wars waged at present constitute crimes against peace. And they won´t last forever.
Those who have initiated these wars and still are waging them seemingly still are appearing somehow honourably in the western hemisphere, where their propaganda organ is drowning out any rationality and is trumpeting hymns of praise for the criminals.
Until a Stalingrad 2.0 will pave the way to a Nuremberg 2.0 we´ll have to live with the situation, that those who oppose this lunacy will be labeled as “terrorists” while the actual terrorists are moving around freely.


Anything Goes When You Are a Cop in America


By John W. Whitehead
August 08, 2017
“There is one criminal justice system for citizens—especially black and brown ones—and another for police in the United States.”—Redditt Hudson, former St. Louis police officer.

President Trump needs to be reminded that no one is above the law, especially the police.
Unfortunately, Trump and Jeff Sessions, head of the Justice Department (much like their predecessors) appear to have few qualms about giving police the green light to kill, shoot, taser, abuse and steal from American citizens in the so-called name of law and order.

Between Trump’s pandering to the police unions and Sessions’ pandering to Trump, this constitutionally illiterate duo has opened the door to a new era of police abuses.
As senior editor Adam Serwer warns in The Atlantic, “When local governments violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens, Americans are supposed to be able to look to the federal government to protect those rights. Sessions has made clear that when it comes to police abuses, they’re now on their own. This is the principle at the heart of ‘law and order’ rhetoric: The authorities themselves are bound by neither.”
Brace yourselves: things are about to get downright ugly.

By shielding police from charges of grave misconduct while prosecuting otherwise law-abiding Americans for the most trivial “offenses,” the government has created a world in which there are two sets of laws: one set for the government and its gun-toting agents, and another set for you and me.
No matter which way you spin it, “we the people” are always on the losing end of the deal.
If you’re a cop in the American police state, you can now break the law in a myriad of ways without suffering any major, long-term consequences.

Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing—whether it’s shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people), raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports, trafficking drugs, or soliciting sex with minors—but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they get re-hired again.

For example, Oregon police officer Sean Sullivan was forced to resign after being accused of “grooming” a 10-year-old girl for a sexual relationship. A year later, Sullivan was hired on as a police chief in Kansas.
St. Louis police officer Eddie Boyd III was forced to resign after a series of incidents in which he “pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face in 2006, and in 2007 struck a child in the face with his gun or handcuffs before falsifying a police report,” he was quickly re-hired by another Missouri police department.

As The Washington Post reports: “In the District, police were told to rehire an officer who allegedly forged prosecutors’ signatures on court documents. In Texas, police had to reinstate an officer who was investigated for shooting up the truck driven by his ex-girlfriend’s new man. In Philadelphia, police were compelled to reinstate an officer despite viral video of him striking a woman in the face. In Florida, police were ordered to reinstate an officer fired for fatally shooting an unarmed man.”

Much of the “credit” for shielding these rogue cops goes to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity, police contracts that “provide a shield of protection to officers accused of misdeeds and erect barriers to residents complaining of abuse,” state and federal laws that allow police to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing, and rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats.

Whether it’s at the federal level with President Trump, Congress and the Judiciary, or at the state and local level, those deciding whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.

It’s a pretty sweet deal if you can get it, I suppose: protection from the courts, immunity from wrongdoing, paid leave while you’re under investigation, the assurance that you won’t have to spend a dime of your own money in your defense, the removal of disciplinary charges from your work file, and then the high probability that you will be rehired and returned to the streets.

It’s a chilling prospect, isn’t it?

According to the New York Times, “Some experts say thousands of law enforcement officers may have drifted from police department to police department even after having been fired, forced to resign or convicted of a crime.”

It’s happening all across the country.

This is how perverse justice in America has become.

Incredibly, while our own protections against government abuses continue to be dismantled, a growing number of states are adopting Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR)—written by police unions—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations.

Not only are officers given a 10-day “cooling-off period” during which they cannot be forced to make any statements about the incident, but when they are questioned, it must be “for a reasonable length of time, at a reasonable hour, by only one or two investigators (who must be fellow policemen), and with plenty of breaks for food and water.”

These LEOBoRs epitomize everything that is wrong with America today.
Now once in a while, police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens.

Occasionally, those officers are even sentenced for their crimes against the citizenry.
Yet in just about every case, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.

Human Rights Watch notes that taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: “once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.”
This is a recipe for disaster.
“In a democratic society,” observed Oakland police chief Sean Whent, “people have a say in how they are policed.”
Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, which means that “we the people” not only have a say in how we are policed—we are the chiefs of police.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at http://www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission