EU to ban cars from cities by 2050



The Telegraph

EU to ban cars from cities by 2050

Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU masterplan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU’s list to cut climate change emissions is a target of “zero” for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU’s future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.

“That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”

The Association of British Drivers rejected the proposal to ban cars as economically disastrous and as a “crazy” restriction on mobility.

“I suggest that he goes and finds himself a space in the local mental asylum,” said Hugh Bladon, a spokesman for the BDA.

“If he wants to bring everywhere to a grinding halt and to plunge us into a new dark age, he is on the right track. We have to keep things moving. The man is off his rocker.”

Mr Kallas has denied that the EU plan to cut car use by half over the next 20 years, before a total ban in 2050, will limit personal mobility or reduce Europe’s economic competitiveness.

“Curbing mobility is not an option, neither is business as usual. We can break the transport system’s dependence on oil without sacrificing its efficiency and compromising mobility. It can be win-win,” he claimed.

Christopher Monckton, Ukip’s transport spokesman said: “The EU must be living in an alternate reality, where they can spend trillions and ban people from their cars.

“This sort of greenwashing grandstanding adds nothing and merely highlights their grandiose ambitions.”



Is Soros’s One World Currency a Leftist Plot?


The Daily Bell

Is Soros’s One World Currency a Leftist Plot?

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 – by  Staff Report

Two years ago, George Soros (left) said he wanted to reorganize the entire global economic system. In two short weeks, he is going to start – and no one seems to have noticed. On April 8, a group he’s funded with $50 million is holding a major economic conference and Soros’s goal for such an event is to “establish new international rules” and “reform the currency system.” It’s all according to a plan laid out in a Nov. 4, 2009, Soros op-ed calling for “a grand bargain that rearranges the entire financial order.” – Media Research Center/Wall Street Journal

Dominant Social Theme: Soros, up to his old tricks. This leftist billionaire should just go home.

Free-Market Analysis: We’d realized last week (tipped off by a considerate feedbacker) just what George Soros was up to; but before we had a chance to write about it the Wall Street Journal blew the story open last night by picking up a Media Research Center article by Dan Gainor entitled “Unreported Soros Event Aims to Remake Entire Global Economy.” We can safely say that Soros’ planned new Bretton Woods Conference to build a new world currency, starting April 8, is unreported no more.

HOW it is reported however is a bit odd in our view. The article (excerpted above) is written with a conservative slant that makes it seem as if what George Soros has in mind is somehow a leftist attack on the American dollar. Nothing could be further from the truth but this is in fact the way that free-market reporting is increasingly offered in mainstream media. It is a kind of dominant social theme: “These socialists are undermining American values and traditions and must be stopped.” Here’s more on the Media Research Center itself from the Center’s own website:

The mission of the Media Research Center, “America’s Media Watchdog,” is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).

The problem with reporting on Soros from a left-wing angle is that Soros is not really “left wing” at all. He’s an internationalist banker who wishes to create a one-world government (and currency). This sentiment is shared by other internationalist bankers that some might characterize as “right wing” or even “free-market oriented.” It has little to do with “empowering workers” or creating socialist communitarianism.

The labels don’t really matter. Soros may have a more statist and activist approach than some other billionaires, but this is a matter of degree not principle. So we would argue such labels like “leftist” distort what is really occurring and confuse people about how globalist plans are being implemented, and why. It’s useful to analyze the article to see how this bias works.

The article begins by quoting literature explaining that Soros is bringing together “more than 200 academic, business and government policy thought leaders’ to repeat the famed 1944 Bretton Woods gathering that helped create the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.” Soros, the article claims, “wants a new ‘multilateral system,’ or an economic system where America isn’t so dominant.” The article also points out that Soros has been at this for a while, and that a 2009 editorial advocated “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII international financial architecture.” Speakers include:

• Paul Volcker [who] is chairman of President Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. He wrote the forward for Soros’s best-known book, ‘The Alchemy of Finance’ and praised Soros as “an enormously successful speculator” who wrote “with insight and passion” about the problems of globalization.

• Economist Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute and longtime recipient of Soros charity cash. Sachs received $50 million from Soros for the U.N. Millennium Project, which he also directs. Sachs is world-renown for his liberal economics. In 2009, for example, he complained about low U.S. taxes, saying the “U.S. will have to raise taxes in order to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education, and relief for the poor.”

• Soros friend Joseph E. Stiglitz, a former senior vice president and chief economist for the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner in Economics. Stiglitz shares similar views to Soros and has criticized free-market economists whom he calls “free market fundamentalists.” Naturally, he’s on the INET board and is a contributor to Project Syndicate.

Have no doubt about it, the article tells us, “This is a Soros event from top to bottom.” Really? Paul Volcker’s entire career has revolved around service not to Soros but to one of the 20th century’s leading elitists, David Rockefeller, who surely helped place his protégé (Volcker) at the pinnacle of the American banking establishment when Volcker served as Federal Reserve Chairman in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

More recently Volcker headed up a UN Investigative task force that basically absolved the world body of very much wrongdoing in the so-called oil-for-food scandal. How did Volcker end up running the UN investigation? We would venture a guess that it has to do with his continuing ties to the Rockefellers and David Rockefeller in particular. David Rockefeller is very old now and travels in a wheel chair, but he was recently spotted in Chile and there seems no doubt that while the body is failing the mind still remains willing. At one point in his career Volcker served as Rockefeller’s personal assistant.

It is simply perverse to try to build Soros up into some sort of Machiavellian puppet master orchestrating a new world order – and implying that Volcker is part of his coterie. Soros made a lot of money as an international speculator and seems to have a psychological need to continue to raise his profile on the world’s largest economic and political stages. But the one-world conspiracy goes back at least 100 years in its modern incarnation and probably longer. Soros hasn’t been alive that long. He’s a Johnny-Come-Lately relatively speaking.

The article also tries to attribute the IMF-led effort to create a global currency using its SDRs to Soros. Gainor writes, “When Soros called for a new Bretton Woods in 2009, he wanted it to ‘reconstitute the International Monetary Fund,’ and while he’s at it, restructure the United Nations, too, boosting China and other countries at our expense.” But in fact, these are all positions that the IMF has taken independently; and positions that have been discussed at great length by the G20. Soros is formally affiliated with neither group.

The article argues that Soros, as a committed leftist, is dedicated to undercutting America’s power in the world in favor of multilateralism. “Soros emphasized that [his monetary concept] needs to be a global solution, making America one among many. ‘The rising powers must be present at the creation of this new system in order to ensure that they will be active supporters.’ … That’s what this conference is all about – changing the global economy and the United States to make them acceptable to George Soros.”

In fact, nothing that Soros is trying to accomplish is any different than what the IMF is trying to obtain as well and very publicly. A few months ago the IMF produced a substantial white paper explaining how SDRs could evolve into a true world currency with a global bond market, etc. Last year American Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made news by endorsing the idea of such a global currency and indicated that America was willing to play a role in advancing such an effort.

Sure Soros has a role to play in this monetary drama. But the Anglo-American elite operating mostly out of the one-square-mile City of London is evidently and obviously behind this currency evolution. The IMF, Soros, Geithner – even nation-states like China – are instrumentalities not initiators.

The Hegelian Dialectic so beloved of the elite is getting a full workout. Soros is the designated leftist; Murdoch’s media group will provide the “right wing” objections. The Gainor article itself, ironically, is part of the process of dialectical polarization. When the public is sufficiently convinced that there is a large controversy going on between various elite visionaries, there will be a sudden rapprochement – perhaps at Soros’s new Bretton Woods conference.

At some point the two sides will likely enter into a “compromise.” The compromise will not be anything large, but it will be a true “first step.” Soros will pronounce himself satisfied that SDRs are on their way to becoming a real global currency. Those on the other side, perhaps standing with Murdoch, will announce that they too are satisfied. While the rudiments of a world currency have truly been laid, they will point out if they hadn’t fought against Soros’ plans that the damage could have been much worse.

A true world currency could have commenced, they will point out. We managed to stop it and preserve the God-given freedoms of the United States to produce its own currency regardless of international meddlers. But they will neglect to explain that their participation in the process has actually granted the process the legitimacy it needs. This is how the dialectic works. Those on both sides are constantly dissatisfied and even angry. Yet the process is intended to grind on nonetheless until it reaches the goal that the elites have designated.

Conclusion: We would venture to propose that the Gainor article has gone a long way to establishing a nascent dialectic and that therefore the elites may be serious now about creating a one-world currency via SDRs with the IMF as a “super” central bank. Ironically, by attacking such proposals so vehemently and linking them (untruthfully) to Soros alone, the article is laying the groundwork for the very agenda it claims to oppose.



HUMANITY ITSELF: the globalist’s “pastsy”


AntiCorruption Society

Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and AntiCorruptionSociety acknowledged

HUMANITY ITSELF: the globalist’s “pastsy”

by AL Whitney (C) copyright 2011


Here is a quote from the infamous 1991 Club of Rome report “The First Global Revolution”.

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [1]

This one paragraph is so polluted with garbage, there isn’t anything in it worth recycling. But if you take it apart you can identify not only the worthless junk that has been heaped into it, but the globalist corporate responsibility behind each one. In other words, the Club of Rome was well educated in Corporate-Speak aka perception management or as Ed Bernays perfected it – propaganda.

Obviously the Club of Rome represents the Global-Elite Scum of the Earth (GESE) who decided to define ”a common enemy against whom we[?] can unite” that would motivate folks all around the globe to participate in their so-called ”Global Revolution”. The Club of Rome however, didn’t mention that the GESE had already cast their announcement of their Global Revolution in stone in Georgia in 1980: Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. It is also important to note that Henry Kissinger (Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 1973 – gag me with a spoon) is considered a member of the Club of Rome. Here is an extremely important quote of Kissinger’s that reveals the club’s true agenda: “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” Translation: the “Global Revolution” they seek is global governance by the GESE.

The Club of Rome Junk

The first reality to wrap our heads around is that the ‘consumer society’, which requires so many resources to maintain, did not evolve. It was carefully constructed by the industrialists and the Robber Barons for a) profit and b) control. [2] They concluded that if the people had too much time on their hands to think, they’d actually object to the corporate profiteering slavery system that was being built up around them.  So, advertising and the media (including films) was used to create consumerism. Their goal was to get We the People preoccupied with the purchase of ‘stuff’ so We the People would work hard to get it.  The people were ‘socially engineered’ to transition from citizens to customers. Later the term ’consumer’ replaced ‘customer’ thus laying the blame on the public for the vast amount of resources the international corporations were consuming to generate profits for themselves. This strategy was done so subtly that most people were barely aware of it.


While the Club of Rome PR folks accurately defined pollution as a global problem, they refused to name those responsible for the lion’s share of pollution across the planet: corporations and the military – not HUMANITY ITSELF! Do we all remember the Super-Fund sites in the US? Who created these toxic dumps? HUMANITY ITSELF or the GESE’s oil cartel’s petro-chemical industry? Who is at fault? Depleted Uranium munitions (radioactive waste), that are currently destroying countries like Iraq, are not being disseminated by HUMANITY ITSELF, but by the GESE’s war profiteering machine.  HUMANITY ITSELF did not decide to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq, the GESE did.  HUMANITY ITSELF did not create Depleted Uranium ammunition. The industrial-military complex of the GESE did. And while we are subsidizing ‘Green Energy’, the big dirty power conglomerates are receiving money and growing more powerful while new clean energy industries are dying on the vine.  Four minute interview with environmental reporter Yoichi Shimatsu

Global Warming

As science has already proven that CO2 rises approximately 400 years AFTER global temperatures, the entire global warming argument is not only bad science but is a farce. [3] If indeed the planet is suffering from global warming (not global cooling) it again is not the fault of – HUMANITY ITSELF! The vast quantities of petroleum burned for transportation was a result of the oil cartel buying up the streetcars lines and bankrupting them. This tactic forced the population to purchase cars as their primary means of transportation. This change occurred as a result of the greed of the oil cartel, not – HUMANITY ITSELF! Many people today would prefer not to own a car. Survey’s have indicated that American’s WANT transportation alternatives to the automobile.  Yet, where are our streetcars and trains??? HUMANITY ITSELF is actually being held hostage by the oil cartel. Let’s not forget Who Killed the Electric Car.  Hint: it was not HUMANITY ITSELF!

Water Shortages

If the GESE are so concerned with water shortages and the environment, why does the International Panel on Climate Change promote biofuels? Corn ethanol alone takes 4-5 gallons of water for each gallon of fuel produced. And where is the moratorium on gulf courses and swimming pools? And lastly why is the company who devised a fabulous water reclamation system being prohibited from selling it?


In the 70′s agriculture was transformed in the US to ‘commodity production’.  Earl Butz, Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture, established a new farming paradigm telling farmers to “Get Big or Get Out”.  Big agriculture corporations essentially started taking over farming in the US.  Local food systems that had long been able to feed the population were decimated and INC the BEAST took control of food production for the global market place. Then when the government, at the behest of global corporate giants like Archer Daniels Midland, decided to subsidize and promote the worthless fuel corn ethanol, corn which had previously been grown to feed people and animals was diverted into fuel. HUMANITY ITSELF did not make that decision. A select group of unscrupulous politicians who received abundant campaign contributions from big agricultural corporations made that decision. Consequently famine and starvation increased.


Let’s not forget the GESE agreed on a plan to control/limit the population via genocide at their first Bilderberg meeting in 1954. This plan was revealed in a ‘Technical Manual’ dated 1979. [4] Their stated goals were not protecting the planet or its natural systems. Their stated concern at the time was not even overpopulation, but was insuring their own ’supremacy’. If the GESE wanted to impact overpopulation, they have known for many years how to do it: improving the lives and education of the general population.  Instead however, they are doing the exact opposite.


All of the reasons given by the Club of Rome to describe HUMANITY ITSELF as our common enemy are faulty. HUMANITY ITSELF however does have a common enemy they can unite against. It is the ‘doom machine’, INC the BEAST, and the globalists who not only have constructed it but are profiting from it daily. A different business model is possible.

[1] The Green Agenda of the Club of Rome

[2] Documentary: Human Resources

[3] Global Warming and Scientific Fraud

[4] Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars


INC the (Nuclear Power) Beast

The Corporation



Naming Names: Your Real Government


Activist Post
This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European’s way of life.

When the “left” is carrying the torch for two “Neo-Con” wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD’s, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.

What’s wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.

The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.


International Crisis Group

Background: While the International Crisis Group (ICG) claims to be “committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict,” the reality is that they are committed to offering solutions crafted well in advance to problems they themselves have created in order to perpetuate their own corporate agenda.

Nowhere can this be better illustrated than in Thailand and more recently in Egypt. ICG member Kenneth Adelman had been backing Thailand’s Prime Minster Thaksin Shinwatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser who was was literally standing in front of the CFR in NYC on the eve of his ousting from power in a 2006 military coup. Since 2006, Thaksin’s meddling in Thailand has been propped up by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, Belfer Center adviser Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and now Robert Amsterdam’s Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globalist Chatham House.

With Thailand now mired in political turmoil led by Thaksin Shinwatra and his “red shirt” color revolution, the ICG is ready with “solutions” in hand. These solutions generally involve tying the Thai government’s hands with arguments that stopping Thaksin’s subversive activities amounts to human rights abuses, in hopes of allowing the globalist-backed revolution to swell beyond control.

The unrest in Egypt, of course, was led entirely by ICG member Mohamed ElBaradei and his US State Department recruited, funded, and supported April 6 Youth Movement coordinated by Google’s Wael Ghonim. While the unrest was portrayed as being spontaneous, fueled by the earlier Tunisian uprising, ICG’s ElBaradei, Ghonim, and their youth movement had been in Egypt since 2010 assembling their “National Front for Change” and laying the groundwork for the January 25th 2011 uprising.

ICG’s George Soros would then go on to fund Egyptian NGOs working to rewrite the Egyptian constitution after front-man ElBaradei succeeded in removing Hosni Mubarak. This Soros-funded constitution and the resulting servile stooge government it would create represents the ICG “resolving” the crisis their own ElBaradei helped create.

Notable ICG Board Members:

George Soros
Kenneth Adelman
Samuel Berger
Wesley Clark
Mohamed ElBaradei
Carla Hills

Notable ICG Advisers:

Richard Armitage
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Stanley Fischer
Shimon Peres
Surin Pitsuwan
Fidel V. Ramos

Notable ICG Foundation & Corporate Supporters:

Carnegie Corporation of New York
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Morgan Stanley
Deutsche Bank Group
Soros Fund Management LLC
McKinsey & Company

Brookings Institute


Background: Within the library of the Brookings Institute you will find the blueprints for nearly every conflict the West has been involved with in recent memory. What’s more is that while the public seems to think these crises spring up like wildfires, those following the Brookings’ corporate funded studies and publications see these crises coming years in advance. These are premeditated, meticulously planned conflicts that are triggered to usher in premeditated, meticulously planned solutions to advance Brookings’ corporate supporters, who are numerous.

The ongoing operations against Iran, including US-backed color revolutions, US-trained and backed terrorists inside Iran, and crippling sanctions were all spelled out in excruciating detail in the Brookings Institute report, “Which Path to Persia?” The more recent UN Security Council resolution 1973 regarding Libya uncannily resembles Kenneth Pollack’s March 9, 2011 Brookings report titled “The Real Military Options in Libya.”

Notable Brookings Board Members:

Dominic Barton: McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Alan R. Batkin: Eton Park Capital Management
Richard C. Blum: Blum Capital Partners, LP
Abby Joseph Cohen: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Suzanne Nora Johnson: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Richard A. Kimball Jr.: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tracy R. Wolstencroft: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Paul Desmarais Jr.: Power Corporation of Canada
Kenneth M. Duberstein: The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Benjamin R. Jacobs: The JBG Companies
Nemir Kirdar: Investcorp
Klaus Kleinfeld: Alcoa, Inc.
Philip H. Knight: Nike, Inc.
David M. Rubenstein: Co-Founder of The Carlyle Group
Sheryl K. Sandberg: Facebook
Larry D. Thompson: PepsiCo, Inc.
Michael L. Tipsord: State Farm Insurance Companies
Andrew H. Tisch: Loews Corporation

Some Brookings Experts:
(click on names to see a list of recent writings.)

Kenneth Pollack
Daniel L. Byman
Martin Indyk
Suzanne Maloney
Michael E. O’Hanlon
Bruce Riedel
Shadi Hamid

Notable Brookings Foundation & Corporate Support:

Foundations & Governments

Ford Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Government of the United Arab Emirates
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Banking & Finance

Bank of America
Goldman Sachs
H&R Block
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Jacob Rothschild
Nathaniel Rothschild
Standard Chartered Bank
Temasek Holdings Limited
Visa Inc.

Big Oil

Exxon Mobil Corporation
Shell Oil Company

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

General Dynamics Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Siemens Corporation
The Boeing Company
General Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Raytheon Co.
Hitachi, Ltd.

Telecommunications & Technology

Google Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Panasonic Corporation
Verizon Communications
Xerox Corporation

Media & Perception Management

McKinsey & Company, Inc.
News Corporation (Fox News)

Consumer Goods & Pharmaceutical

PepsiCo, Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company

Council on Foreign Relations


Background & Notable Membership: A better question would be, who isn’t in the Council on Foreign Relations? Nearly every self-serving career politician, their advisers, and those populating the boards of the Fortune 500 are CFR members. Many of the books, magazine articles, and newspaper columns we read are written by CFR members, along with reports, similar to Brookings Institute that dictate, verbatim, the legislation that ends up before the West’s lawmakers.

A good sampling of the most active wings of the CFR can be illustrated best in last year’s “Ground Zero Mosque” hoax, where CFR members from both America’s political right and left feigned a heated debate over New York City’s so-called Cordoba House near the 3 felled World Trade Center buildings. In reality, the Cordoba House was established by fellow CFR member Feisal Abdul Rauf, who in turn was funded by CFR financing arms including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, chaired by 9/11 Commission head Thomas Kean, and various Rockefeller foundations.

Notable CFR Corporate Support:

Banking & Finance

Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co
American Express
Barclays Capital
Morgan Stanley
Blackstone Group L.P.
Deutsche Bank AG
New York Life International, Inc.
Prudential Financial
Standard & Poor’s
Rothschild North America, Inc.
Visa Inc.
Soros Fund Management
Standard Chartered Bank
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Veritas Capital LLC
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Moody’s Investors Service

Big Oil

Chevron Corporation
Exxon Mobil Corporation
BP p.l.c.
Shell Oil Company
Hess Corporation
ConocoPhillips Company
Marathon Oil Company
Aramco Services Company

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

Lockheed Martin Corporation
Airbus Americas, Inc.
Boeing Company,
DynCorp International
General Electric Company
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
BASF Corporation
Alcoa, Inc.

Public Relations, Lobbyists & Legal Firms

McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Omnicom Group Inc.
BGR Group

Corporate Media & Publishing

Economist Intelligence Unit
News Corporation (Fox News)
Thomson Reuters
Time Warner Inc.
McGraw-Hill Companies

Consumer Goods

Nike, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company
PepsiCo, Inc.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
De Beers

Telecommunications & Technology

Google, Inc.
IBM Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Sony Corporation of America
Xerox Corporation
Verizon Communications

Pharmaceutical Industry

Merck & Co., Inc.
Pfizer Inc.


The Chatham House

Background & Membership: The UK’s Chatham House, like the CFR and the Brookings Institute in America, has an extensive membership and is involved in coordinated planning, perception management, and the execution of its corporate membership’s collective agenda.

Individual members populating its “senior panel of advisers” consist of the founders, CEOs, and chairmen of the Chatham House’s corporate membership. Chatham’s “experts” are generally plucked from the world of academia and their “recent publications” are generally used internally as well as published throughout Chatham’s extensive list of member media corporations, as well as industry journals and medical journals. That Chatham House “experts” are submitting entries to medical journals is particularly alarming considering GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are both Chatham House corporate members.

No better example of this incredible conflict of interest can be given than the current Thai “red” color revolution being led by Chatham House’s Amsterdam & Peroff with consistent support lent by other corporate members including the Economist, the Telegraph and the BBC.

In one case, the Telegraph printed, “Thai protests – analysis by Dr Gareth Price and Rosheen Kabraji,” within which Price and Kabraji make a shameless attempt at defending the Western-backed, Maoist themed, violent protests. While the Telegraph mentioned that Price and Kabraji were both analysts for the Chatham House, they failed to tell readers that the Telegraph itself retains a corporate membership within the Chatham House as does the Thai protest leader’s lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam and his Amsterdam & Peroff lobbying firm.

Notable Chatham House Major Corporate Members:
Amsterdam & Peroff
Coca-Cola Great Britain
Goldman Sachs International
HSBC Holdings plc
Lockheed Martin UK
Merck & Co Inc
Mitsubishi Corporation
Morgan Stanley
Royal Bank of Scotland
Saudi Petroleum Overseas Ltd
Standard Bank London Limited
Standard Chartered Bank
Thomson Reuter
United States of America Embassy
Vodafone Group

Notable Chatham House Standard Corporate Members:

Amnesty International
Boeing UK
CBS News
Daily Mail and General Trust plc
De Beers Group Services UK Ltd
G3 Good Governance Group
Hess Ltd
Lloyd’s of London
McGraw-Hill Companies
Prudential plc
Telegraph Media Group
Times Newspapers Ltd
World Bank Group

Notable Chatham House Corporate Partners:

British Petroleum
Chevron Ltd
Deutsche Bank
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Royal Dutch Shell
Toshiba Corporation
Total Holdings UK Ltd
Unilever plc


These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.

To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office, in whatever country, the guns, the oil, the wealth and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands. Nothing vindicates this poorly hidden reality better than a “liberal” Nobel Peace Prize wearing president, dutifully towing forward a myriad of “Neo-Con” wars, while starting yet another war in Libya.

Likewise, no matter how bloody your revolution is, if the above equation remains unchanged, and the corporate bottom lines left unscathed, nothing but the most superficial changes will have been made, and as is the case in Egypt with International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei worming his way into power, things may become substantially worse.

The real revolution will commence when we identify the above equation as the true brokers of power and when we begin systematically removing our dependence on them, and their influence on us from our daily lives. The global corporate-financier oligarchy needs us, we do not need them, independence from them is the key to our freedom.

For more information on alternative economics, getting self-sufficient and moving on without the parasitic, incompetent, globalist oligarchs:

The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Alternative Economics

Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report.



The Most evil of Men


A. H. Krieg

Many years ago two men named Lord Milner KG, GCB, GCMG, PC, (1854-1925), and Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) separately set about to change the world as it then existed. While they went about their tasks in differing ways, the desired end result was their utopian vision of an Anglo-American cabal ruling the entire world in a Fabian socialist state. This much at least is not arguable. Milner set about by funding and founding, the Round Table, Milner’s Kindergarten, and establishing RIIA, the Royal Institute on International Affairs that would some time later spawn the CFR in NYC that then in turn spawned the Trilateral Commission. Rhodes, was active by funding the Fabians, i.e. Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford University, whose primary function is to take young men and convert them into Fabian Socialists and departing this world leaving behind over 30 trusts, for funding anti-societal causes. The direct result of these actions was the founding of the British Labor Party and in America the progressive (socialist) Democrat party.

In the 20th and 21st century Milner and Rhodes have been replaced by Gyoergy Schwarz alias George Soros. Like most prominent Ashkenazi Khazars of Hungary he changed his name. This may well have something to do with his and his father’s part time occupation during WWII in which Gyoergy and his father were active employees of the Nazi SS who on a commission basis ratted out Jews for internment in labor camps. Gyoergy said of this; “It was the best time of my life”.

This man has a CV that will make the average man’s hair stand on end. On Sept 16, ’92 (Black Wednesday) Soros’s Open Society Foundation and Open Society Institute (501 (c) (3)) US tax except) causes Soros’s controlled finacial organization, The Soros Fund Management LLC to short the British pound by $ 10 billion. Then in ’97 he expanded his Ponzigoniff actions by shorting the Thai baht and the Malaysian ringgit causing ASEAN, GDP to fall by $9.2 billion in ‘97 and then $218.2 billion in the following year. Total loss to the ASEAN nations was 31.7% of value. Millions of people around the world have suffered finacial loss, loss of pensions, and loss of savings, at the hands of this evil megalomaniac. Why are these things done? Because Gyoergy then puts on his white hat rides into the scene to (“[I’m] here to save your economy”) and buys up everything in sight at 68 cents on the dollar.  He is now playing with the dollar and America. Open Society Foundation has plowed $ 8 billion into social programs to alter our Republic into the socialist democracy that Gyoergy envisions. Considering that this man is an immigrant to our nation and is hell bent on destroying it, one becomes indignant that the powers to be in Sodom have not deported him. The fact that there is hardly a nation in the world that would welcome him, and that includes his homeland of Hungary, should not surprise!

On April 8, we are informed, Soros is sponsoring an economic conference to as Gyoergy says, “establish new international rules and reform the currency system”. I can only assume that means to get rid of the dollar as the world reserve currency and replace it with something of his invention. The event we are told will bring together more than 200 academics, business and government policy thought leaders. Well, we had one of those in 1944; it was called the Bretton Woods Conference in New Hampshire’s White Mountains, with the participation of 730 delegates from 44 nations. That meeting resulted in the adoption of the now totally failed fiat money system that Lord Keynes the Fabian Socialist sold to the world as Keynesian economics. We will now get Schwartz economics, which will in all likelihood be even worse, if that’s possible. The amount of mammon Gyoergy has sunk into this conference is unbelievable $ 50 million, a full two thirds of the speakers are socially, financially or politically tied to Soros. Then the man himself states, “ The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communists but the capitalist threat”.

Not a heartbeat after his op-ed in the NY Times in which he stated, “a new Bretton Woods conference, like the one that established the post-WWII International financial architecture”. Fascinating the Fabian Socialist Keynes has been obliterated from the entire Soros commentary. But the meeting went on; The Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) met at the Mount Washington Resort in New Hampshire’s White Mountains the exact same place where the meeting of 1944 took place. Not long before that the INET met in Budapest’s Central European University after CEU got a $206 million grant from Soros. The primary idea is the people like Paul Volcker, Jeffrey Sachs of the $50 million funded by Soros, U.N. Millennium Project, Joseph E. Stiglitz formerly with the World Bank Rob Johnson, and Gordon Brown among others, will produce a great deal of “high quality, breakthrough thinking”. 79 speakers are listed as of this date but 200 are to attend. Soros also funds the Open Society Institute that is the parent of Project Syndicates the largest source of original op-ed commentary in over 456 news sources in 150 nations.

Sorry but academics and politicians are not at the cusp of breakthrough anything, it is exactly this sort of fools that gave us the 1944 convergence and its horrific consequences. Gradually we are then introduced into the agenda by INET board member Robert Skidelsky (I’m beginning to wonder why the meeting is held in Christian New Hampshire it seems to me that an NY reformed synagogue would be more appropriate) that informs us “ [that] currency issues and tensions between the US and China are renewing calls for a global finacial overhaul”. Just speculation here: is there a possibility that Soros has found a willing and able ally to bring down our economy?

In 2009 Soros in a widely circulated (By Project Syndicates) Op-Ed enlightened us yet again with his brilliance; “another stark choice [is] between two fundamentally different forms of organization: International Capitalism (free world) and State Capitalism (communist world). The he informs, “We need a global sheriff” probably Gyoergy Schwarz in his bloated mind.

It becomes absolutely demonic when we learn from various sources that Gyoergy want to restructure and re issue a new global currency, reconstitute the IMF, restructure the UN, Change the UN Security Council, and that he has a established relationship with The Chinese Academy of Social Science, Chinas banking Regulatory Commission, and the director of the Center on U.S. China Relations. Yes sir, he has a new ally, America’s greatest adversary.

I hope you see where all this is going. This is simply an expansion of the Free Trade scenario, which is at the heart of free market and Western economic demise. Multinationalists like Soros don’t really care about anyone but themselves and their inordinate appetite for power and mammon. This Ashkenazi bastard does not deserve to live in our country and I make that pronouncement as an immigrant. He should be deported and his assets confiscated to pay down the national debt!

Dr. Krieg’s new book coming this summer “Rendezvous with the New World Order” $25 to preorder to



A Crucial Constitutional Fact


The Daily Bell

03 19 11

Dr. Tibor Machan

In my efforts to defend the free society and its basic principles, the idea of natural individual human rights, I run across the objection – advanced by both conservatives and “liberals” – that once a constitution has been accepted, it overrides those principles. Putting it differently, while perhaps human beings do have the basic rights to life, liberty, property and so forth in, as it is called, the state of nature – that is, prior to the formation of a community with a legal foundation – once that state is given up and a community is formed, they no longer have those basic rights. Instead, they have delegated to government or the legal system the authority to limit the previous freedoms they enjoyed. So instead of the constitution limiting the legal authorities or government, it supposedly limits the rights and liberties of the citizenry.

There is some plausibility in this since in the case of contracts when people enter into them they often bind themselves to obligations and responsibilities they didn’t previously have – e.g., when they marry or lease an apartment. So perhaps the constitution is that kind of a document, through which people commit themselves to abide by rules, even serve rulers, they would be free to ignore prior to entering civil society. This certainly is one rationale being advanced in opposition to libertarians who hold that what the constitution achieves, if properly conceived and instituted, is to establish the protection and elaboration of the rights of the citizenry, something they arguably lacked outside civil society.

Yet even in the admittedly murky case of the U.S. Constitution and the founding of the republic, there is evidence any lay person, let alone legal expert, can detect pointing to the libertarian interpretation that a proper constitution does not give away but attempts to secure individual rights. First of all the Declaration of Independence makes it clear what the American founders set out to do with their efforts to institute a government via the U.S. Constitution. The precise road to the establishment of free government may well be complicated but once one realizes that at heart government is supposed to secure the rights laid out in the body of the Declaration, there is little reasonable doubt that the ensuring setting up of a constitutional government wasn’t meat to abolish individual rights, quite the contrary. Government was meant to give security to those rights in light of the plain fact that without a legal system and its competent administration, the rights the individual have would be at the mercy of anyone bent upon violating them. Yes, people do have those rights in the state of nature or prior to entering civil society but their security would be dependent entirely on how well individuals are able to defend themselves, without the benefit of a specialized body of men and women who could be counted upon to provide the expertise needed to make those right as secure as humanly possible.

If one then looks at the U.S. Constitution itself, there are other clues to reading it along libertarian lines. The Bill of Rights not only mentions several of the rights that are to be safeguarded by the legal system but makes explicit reference to non-enumerated rights, ones the citizenry retains even if they are not mentioned in the document. This, it would appear, makes it clear, unambiguous, that leaving the state of nature does not imply at all giving up the basic, natural, individual human rights all human beings have.

The point of joining civil society as far as the American system is concerned isn’t, then, to give up but to secure the basic and all the derivative rights human beings have. Those who argue otherwise aren’t on solid ground. That much is pretty clear, so they must reinterpret the American founding to shore up their case for American statism.  Yet some of the most influential legal scholars advance this untenable position – namely that the law in the American tradition aims to limit the liberty and rights of the citizenry – and numerous prominent law schools teach it as well.

Let me make a final point about rights. Much communitarian thinking from both Left and Rights laments that Americans are too fond of rights but not of responsibilities or obligations. Yet if one realizes that having rights also implies having obligations, this lament is quite misguided. Everyone has the legal obligation or responsibility to respect the rights to everyone else. And that is just as it should be, with other obligations and responsibilities left to be worked out in the private sector, mainly via morality and contract law.

Why Not a Global Currency?


The Daily Bell

“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” – Frederic Bastiat

by  Staff Report 03 11 11

Special drawing rights issued by the International Monetary Fund could be used as an international reserve currency, Hu Xiaolian, vice-governor of the People’s Bank of China, said Friday. Hu told a symposium organized by the Bank of Paris that volatility in exchange rates among existing reserve currencies – which include the U.S. dollar – affects commodity prices and causes problems for other nations … Hu said the SDRs have “a potential role to play as an international reserve asset.” – Wall Street Journal

Dominant Social Theme: The time has come to make a change. The IMF can lead the way to global financial efficiency.

Free-Market Analysis: So much of the world’s economy is in flux these days. The Middle East suffers from serial color revolutions. In Europe, the euro is faltering because of the Sovereign debt crisis. Despite comforting predictions from the Obama administration, America remains mired in a stubborn recession with commensurate job loss and growing inflation concerns while their currency spirals towards the fiat-money graveyard that inevitably hosts all value-delinked paper currencies.

Even China, the world’s engine of prosperity is having its problems. Price inflation has sent real estate into the stratosphere and food too has grown dangerously costly. Chinese leaders are in a dilemma: If they push too hard to tame price inflation, they may choke off the economic growth they so desperately need. If they do not do enough, price inflation will spread and the economy itself will become unmanageable.

Within this context it is tempting to hypothesize that the Anglo-America elite that has created the world’s economy over the past 100 years (see City of London) is willing to let social and economic chaos blossom in order to justify the transition to a true global economy and a global currency as well. The International Monetary Fund has been especially outspoken on this issue, proposing that its SDRs constitute the beginnings of a global currency.

SDRs are international reserve assets supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It is not a currency of itself but a “claim” on the IMF member currencies. In point of fact, if a country wants to cash in its SDRs, it has to find another country willing to trade dollars for its SDRs. While the SDR basket includes the pound, the euro and the Japanese yen in addition to the dollar, the dollar remains the settlement currency of choice as it is the most liquid and yet the world’s “unofficial” reserve currency. Between SDRs and the dollar-denominated oil trade, the US Fed has created a global demand for it’s dollar-Ponzi scheme.

SDRs do not stand-alone but are backed by the IMF’s money pool, the result of contributions by all 187 member states to the IMF. It is the money pool itself and the commitment of IMF members to honor the SDRs that provide SDRs (and the US dollar) with their (its) reserve status. At Davos, recently, the IMF published an elaborate road map as to how it could establish SDRs as a reserve currency, complete with a bond market, a repo market and other significant elements needed by a full-fledged currency. The IMF indicated it was a long-term process, but it is perfectly possible that the powers-that-be have a much shorter timeline in mind than the IMF is letting on.

There are several upcoming trouble spots that would seem to add to larger economic woes and make the possibility of an international currency more likely. The upcoming EU negotiations regarding an expansion of the bailout fund may go more smoothly than anticipated but only because the Irish government seems to have capitulated in advance of many of the demands for EU “austerity.” In fact, the just-elected Fine Gael party, now in a coalition with the Irish Labour party, has announced it will honor previous austerity plans for two years while attempting to renegotiate the terms of the US$150 billion bail-out. The program includes cuts in public sector employment and privatizations of state companies – the IMF model, in other words.

Given that the Irish just threw out its previous government on its ear for negotiating the package that Fine Gael is now determined to honor, the likelihood of significant Irish civil unrest has gone up considerably. Of course, some of what Fine Gael is seeking from the EU remains controversial, including interest rate cuts and the possibility that bond holders after all may be compelled to haircuts for securities held in Ireland’s failing banks. But it cannot be denied the possibility of serious unrest within the larger Irish domestic community has gone up considerably.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is facing a “day of rage” and if social unrest spirals out of control in the world’s largest producing oil country, then the dollar as reserve currency would surely be in jeopardy. Currently, the dollar’s reserve status is based on Saudi Arabia’s willingness to maintain dollar exclusivity. By refusing to sell oil in any other currency but dollars, the Saudis (along with other OPEC members) virtually force the rest of the world to use dollars and to keep them in reserve. This in turn basically allows the US leaders to print as much currency as they wish, as inflation can be exported.

The consequences of the fall of the House of Saud would be serious indeed. Whatever hope there is for a world recovery would probably be wiped out by the soaring price of oil. More than that, without Saudi Arabia to enforce the discipline necessary to maintain the dollar-as-reserve currency, there would surely be an increase in currency volatility and corollary swings in the bond markets.

It is surely difficult to establish that all – or any of this – is by design. But the world’s economy is in every way an elite construct, and one watches with a mixture of awe and disbelief as the gears grind and refuse to mesh with ever-increasing frequency. Whether it is Chinese inflation, Japanese malaise, American recession, European austerity or German frustration – it is difficult to find a place on the map these days that is not suffering with some form of economic unease or downright dysfunction.

Earlier this week an ex-Goldman Sachs Analyst Charles Nenner told the Fox Business network that the Dow Jones would soon sink to a level around 5,000 – probably as the result of a major war to be uninitiated at the end of 2012. Nenner runs his own firm, now Charles Nenner Research Center, and uses computer programs to predict market trends. He reportedly predicted the 2008 financial crisis in 2006. He has now urged clients to get out of the stock market entirely.

Such grim warnings are part of a relentless tide of unsettling news sweeping the globe. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Anglo-American power-elite itself is driving hard to establish a level of misery – including fundamental shortages in areas such as food and water – that will drive significant sociopolitical change worldwide – all in the direction of increased global governance and a single world currency. Enter stage left… the UN and the IMF.

Conclusion: The larger question is whether Western populations especially will be apt to acquiesce to such changes, or whether the transition will be waylaid by a general unwillingness of people to be subject such manipulations. We maintain that sweeping programs such as those the elite apparently has in mind are far more difficult to implement in the 21st century than they were in the 20th – thanks primarily to the power of the Internet. That doesn’t mean, however, that the efforts of the elite won’t continue to be tried.

The City of London the historic central core of London is an independent entity about a mile square. Britain’s financial services industry and central bank (Bank of England) are located in the City of London. There is a London Corporation that runs the City; it is not run by greater London. It has its own police force and is headed a Lord Mayor. About 10,000 people call the City “home” but nearly 350,000 work in the City of London including many lawyers and litigators. Historically, the City harkens back to Roman London, founded around 50AD and known as Londinium.

The City waxed and waned for centuries but by the 16th century was taking on its modern profile as a banking and commercial center. A stock exchange was eventually founded and many international merchants made their headquarters in the City. But the 18th century, Britain’s Industrial Revolution was beginning and the Empire itself was expanding. London spread out far beyond the City of London, but the City of London itself gained enormous power as the British conquered one-fourth of the world, colony by colony.

The City of London has its own motto: “Domine dirige nos” – “Lord, direct (guide) us.” It has its own coat of arms and flag. It maintains its unique status as perhaps the world’s oldest incorporated city, with 25 wards that also serve as political districts. Each ward has an Alderman and Beadles, as well as a Ward Club – something like a residents’ association. The City of London supports performing arts centers and administers the Bridge House Trust, which in turn supervises the famous bridges of central, including London Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge.

All this is somewhat beside the point, however. What the City of London actually is in reality, is the epicenter of an Anglo-American power elite that has dominated world finance for 500 years or more. The elite’s modern genealogy is said to include Venetian bankers who arrived in Britain and intermarried with English royalty. Today, the world’s most powerful families make the City of London either their home or base of operations. Even the Queen of England bows before she enters the City of London and when she walks in ceremonial parades, her place is a few steps behind the Lord Mayor.

Today, the City of London is the epicenter of central banking worldwide. It is the place from which world wars have emanated and plans for global conquest are apparently hatched there even today. The fear-based dominant social themes that the power elite uses to extract wealth and power from Western middle classes have their home in the City of London. The UN and League of Nations were given birth there.

The EU was likely conceived there. Every centralizing influence in the world today of any note has its roots in the City of London or its sister-municipalities – Washington DC and the Vatican. These three “independent” city-states function as a trilogy of financial terrorism, the building blocks of the New World Order, the epicenter of the unrolling darkness that seeks to organize the world into one large medieval plantation.

The City of London may seem like a quaint, historical backwater but it lies at the world’s current malignancies. The Rothschilds themselves do business out of the City of London and the vastness of resources located in and around the City of London must number in the tens or even hundreds of trillions. Money power is centralized in the City of London and has never been dispersed, despite ever-present talk about how the “City” is losing its clout as a major financial player. It is not.

The Anglo-American axis, within the context of the power, elite, is the unacknowledged cultural cradle of the latest effort to consolidate countries and governments into a global order. One needs to see the axis from a historical perspective to understand its evolution and the strength that it derives from successive waves of immigration.

From Wikipedia we learn that “Anglo-Saxons” – the Germanic tribes that entered England after the fall of Rome –

drove the indigenous people out of most of the region and into Wales. There were at least three tribes. First, the Angles from Angeln, the whole nation of which apparently entered Britain, “leaving their former land empty.” (The etymology, then, would be Anglo-Saxon ‘Engla land’ or ‘Ængla land’.) Second, were the Saxons from Lower Saxony and, third, apparently, the Jutes from Denmark.

The Anglo-Saxons in England were in turn invaded by the Viking Normans. According to Wikipedia, “The name ‘Normans’ derives from ‘Northmen’ or ‘Norsemen’, after the Vikings from Scandinavia who founded (French) Normandy. … In 1066, Duke William II of Normandy conquered England killing King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings. The invading Normans and their descendants replaced the Anglo-Saxons as the ruling class of England … Eventually, the Normans merged with the natives, combining languages and traditions. In the course of the Hundred Years war, the Norman aristocracy often identified themselves as English. The Anglo-Norman language became distinct from the French language.”

There was yet, perhaps, one more cultural overlay, a most controversial one and part of what may be termed “secret history.” This, according to certain historians was a migration of various Venetian banking families to England during a period of perhaps 200 years (1500-1700). These wealthy and powerful families, some apparently withJewish antecedents, are said to have established themselves within the independent enclave of the “City of London” a financial district and the epicenter of world-spanning Anglo-American financial power. Eventually, these families, inter-marrying with Anglo-Saxons, are said to have become part of the royalty of Britain with familial branches through Europe and especially in Germany, France and Italy.

The “Anglo” power elite that emerged from the above waves of conquest, if such “secret history” is deemed to be true, was highly militant and manipulative – perhaps the most ruthless and vibrant power-culture on the planet. It utilized fiat money and central banking as tools to impose its will throughout Europe. Set back by the communication explosion of the Gutenberg press and resultant Reformation, it nonetheless persevered and created, eventually, a “democratic” facade of governance behind which it could continue to exercise leadership and further consolidate hidden authority.

The American exception, especially as enunciated by the American libertarian philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson, was a conscious attempt to break away from the mercantile authoritarianism of Europe and the Anglo power elite. These “united States of America” were successful in pursuing a republican, agrarian legislative order until the “War Between the States” – partially funded by New York banks controlled by the Anglo elite – put an end to the Republic and ushered in a new order, the Anglo-American axis.

It is this Anglo-American axis (a “special relationship”) that has dominated the Western world for the past 150 years. It is a secretive and closely guarded group of families and individuals with enormous wealth derived from the implementation of mercantilistcentral banking. In recent years, America has provided the military power and to a large extent the corporate vehicles that have projected the “one world” vision of the Anglo-American elite throughout the West, and even to Africa and Asia.

The ruthless progress of the Anglo-American axis – or Empire – depended in large part on secrecy and on the implementation of fear-based dominant social themes that were used to control the expanding populace and to further consolidate wealth and power. These themes were promoted through an intricate array of think tanks, universities and government organizations that first presented the concepts and then provided authoritarian solutions. The introduction of the Internet, like the Gutenberg press before it, has exposed the machinations of the Anglo-American power elite and made visible the secret mechanisms of control via dominant social themes.

The Anglo-American power axis is currently in retreat, its authoritarian promotions giving way to increasingly failed attempts at manipulation via outright force and the implementation of legislation that has not been properly promoted. Since it is impossible for a few thousand to harry the world’s billions into submission via brute authoritarianism, one would assume at some point that the latest efforts at global governance would be abandoned and the Anglo-American power elite would take a step back to come up with new control methodologies as they have before.

Ingo Bischoff on Real Bills and Why They Are Not Inflationary


03 06 11 Ingo Bischoff on Real Bills and Why They Are Not Inflationary

Sunday, March 06, 2011 – with  Anthony Wile
Ingo Bischoff

The Daily Bell is pleased to present an exclusive interview with Ingo Bischoff (left).

Introduction: Ingo Bischoff is the president of the San Francisco School of Economics, a California non-profit corporation. He did his undergraduate work in Physics, Chemistry and Business Science and his graduate work in Economics. In his professional life, he was the CEO of a commercial printing and publishing company for twenty-eight years. After his retirement from commercial business, he formed the San Francisco School of Economics in 2006.

Daily Bell: Ingo Bischoff, we thank you for your time and sitting down with us today. Whenever we discuss Real Bills, we get massive amounts of feedback. People are fascinated by the concept. In this interview, we’d like to more fully establish the parameters and history of Real Bills so feed-backers and viewers will have a reference point for their discussions. Let’s begin with a fundamental question. What is money?

Ingo Bischoff: To answer the question, I must explain how money evolved. As the “hand to mouth” existence during the “Hunt” gave way to agriculture and animal husbandry, surpluses developed. These surplus goods where exchanged via a “barter system”. When the barter system proved too localized and lacking in a fixed standard of value, the “money system” evolved. The money system developed first along major trade routes before it became accepted more widely. To answer the question posed directly, “Money is a commodity with constant or near constant marginal utility”. This means that one particular commodity is preferred over all others because of its “liquidity.” As such it is suitable as an intermediate good in facilitating the exchange of other goods. The use of money removed the limitation of space and time, a characteristic of barter. The “money system” constituted a tremendous improvement over the “barter system.”

Daily Bell: Why is gold money?

Ingo Bischoff: Gold is “Money”, because it is the one commodity with constant or near constant marginal utility. Gold has been money for at least 2,500 years. That does not mean that early on and away from major trade routes, other commodities did not prove to have greater utility, and therefore functioned as money. However, as trade expanded, gold as “Money” became universally accepted. It is the physical and chemical properties of gold which renders it ideally suited as a standard of value. Today, contrary to popular assertion, still only gold is “Money.”

While gold as a standard of value has persisted for several thousand years until today, Gold as a medium of exchange lost its usefulness when the demand for goods outstripped the ability of physical gold to finance the production of goods. Gold as a medium of exchange to separately finance each step in the production of consumption goods in a modern economy is completely unworkable. The solution was found by using Real Bills as “clearing instruments” to finance the production of consumption items.

These Real Bills were cleared at the end of a ninety-day period with the money received from the items sold to the consumer. Instead of circulating Real Bills with varying amounts and maturity dates directly, States’ chartered banks acquired Real Bills at a discount and circulated denominated bank notes in their stead. To attach an accounting standard to these bank notes, the state bank charters’ required that the bank notes be redeemable into “U.S. Dollars” as valued by the U.S. Congress. The provisions for providing the legal frame work to create a “commercial banking” system based on the “Real Bills Doctrine” are contained in Section 8 and Section 10 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

Daily Bell: Is silver money? Why not?

Ingo Bischoff: Silver was used as a monetary metal and its value as a ratio to gold was established by the U.S. Congress in the Coinage Act of 1792. Silver coins were suitable as “Money” for purchases in the “small.” The congressionally established fixed value for silver came under pressure with the discovery of the Comstock Lode in Nevada in 1859. The Fourth Coinage Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1873, embraced the gold standard and demonetized silver altogether. However, silver still serves as a check on the value of gold. Because of its conductivity characteristics, silver is today primarily an industrial commodity. While the above ground inventory of gold is well known, the above ground inventory of silver is largely kept a mystery.

Daily Bell: What are Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: “Bills of Exchange” or “Real Bills” are commercial instruments which are regulated by the “Law of Bills and Notes.” They are different from “two party” contracts enforceable under “Contract Law.” Real Bills function as “clearing instruments.” They are not “credit instruments”, as is widely asserted. The “clearing” function performed by Real Bills can be compared to the clearing of transactions of purchases and sales of commodity contracts at the end of a trading day when all sales and all purchases are “cleared” against each other and the difference recorded on account. Real Bills are not cleared daily, but upon maturity at the end of a ninety-day period.

Daily Bell: How did Real Bills evolve?

Ingo Bischoff: “Goods Bills” or “Real Bills” evolved during the early Middle Age when they were used as “fair script” at large trade fairs, such as were periodically held at Lyon and Seville. The use of Real Bills was greatly advanced with the invention of “double entry” bookkeeping. The final improvement of “Real Bills” was realized through Acts by British Parliament in the early 18th Century which set aside “Common Law” practice in the enforcement of “two party” contracts by creating a “Law of Bills and Notes” which made “Real Bills” assignable and enforceable by “third parties.”

Daily Bell: How did they work?

Ingo Bischoff: “Goods Bills” or “Real Bills” were issued at the entrance to the trade fair based on the declared value of goods the merchant or artisan brought to the medieval fair. These bills were used as “script” or “currency” to effect exchanges. When exiting the fair, the merchant or artisan was required to return the bills. The difference between the value of Real Bills issued and Real Bills returned was settled in gold coin. The growth of overland trade and ocean shipping, created greater use of Real Bills both for reasons of security and for facilitating the “back loading” of cargo vessels. With the invention of double entry bookkeeping, Venetian merchants took a lead in the use of Real Bills. The use of Real Bills was further extended by the development of the “Law of Bills and Notes” through enactments by the British Parliament in the 17th and 18th Century.

Daily Bell: Why are Real Bills important?

Ingo Bischoff: The use of “Real Bills” as “clearing instruments” is as important a development in the production and exchange of goods as is the advance from the “barter system” to the “money system.” As the money system took hold, demand for goods expanded. Soon, the use of gold as a medium of exchange proved insufficient to finance the production of goods and also facilitate their exchange. Real Bills solved the problem by making available “social circulating capital” needed in the production of consumption goods. Only producers of consumption items which are sold within ninety days are acceptable to a drawer of Real Bills. It is the immediate demand by consumers which makes drawing and holding of Real Bills almost risk free. The production of consumption items represents 80% of all production of goods.

By “social circulating capital” is meant the “higher order” goods in warehouses which suppliers are perfectly willing to deliver to producers of “lower order” goods against the signature of acceptance on a “Real Bill” drawn by the supplier. The Real Bill is immediately negotiable by the supplier, and it can be discounted by any number of banks or individuals. The drawee or signer on the bill will pay to the holder the full amount shown on the Real Bill upon its maturity.

Daily Bell: Does the state (government) have any role in Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: The first successful and widely used currency in North America was the Pennsylvania Pound. It was created by the Bank of Philadelphia of which George Clymer and Benjamin Franklin, two signers of the U.S. Constitution, were principals. The Bank of Philadelphia acquired “Bills of Exchange” or “Real Bills” at discount. By inventorying the Real Bills of varying amounts and varying maturity dates, and circulating fixed denominated bank notes in their stead, the use of Real Bills was greatly improved.

The impeccable operation of the Bank of Philadelphia which was marked by the immediate withdrawal from circulation of excess currency to un-matured Real Bills held. This was the major reason that the value of the Pennsylvania Pound never fell below the value of gold and silver. This most remarkable fact was mentioned by Adam Smith in his book “The Wealth of Nations” published in 1776.

The “commercial banking” system that evolved in the United States sadly does not have the record of the impeccable operation of the Bank of Philadelphia in employing the Real Bills Doctrine. While the individual states issued “state bank charters” to authorize the creation of a redeemable U.S. Dollar currency against Real Bills and usually required a minimum of gold for capital stock, they often neglected to supervise the commercial banks they had chartered. The failure of close supervision frequently resulted in violations of provisions in the state bank charter, which involved the circulation of currency not “backed” by either the value of Real Bills or physical gold. The failure of providing supervision over state chartered banks constitutes a neglect of duty on the part of the states to insure compliance with constitutional requirements.

Daily Bell: Were they used all over the world?

Ingo Bischoff: “Bills of Exchange” were used to “clear” trade throughout the world. The clearance center for international “Bills of Exchange” was in London, UK. The success in facilitating international exchange of goods by means of “Bills of Exchange” lies in the statistic which shows that the volume of trade in real terms was larger in 1890 than it was in 1990.

Daily Bell: What banks interacted with Real Bills – investment banks or commercial banks?

Ingo Bischoff: While commercial banks offered some services, such as safe storage of valuables or the furnishing of personal references to their clients, the main function of the commercial bank was to create a redeemable currency against un-matured Real Bills in their possession. Commercial banks earn revenue by discounting Real Bills. In the conduct of their business, commercial banks have to constantly replenish their inventory of Real Bills. Real Bills expire after a ninety-day period when cleared with payment from the payer named on the bill.

A failure to pay on a Real Bill constitutes a loss to the holder. Remedy is not available under contract law. A willful failure to pay on a Real Bill ostracizes the offender from the bills market and spells the demise of his business. The bills market is not an open “outcry market” such as the commodity market. Instead, it consists of a community of businesses producing items for consumption goods, of private investors who seek to park idle cash for discount earnings and of commercial banks who seek revenue by discounting Real Bills. Real Bills are drawn only by private businesses in the manufacturing sector. Service businesses, whether private or governmental, will not find financing by means of Real Bills.

In contrast, “investment banks”, or “investment trusts” as they are mostly known, are financial institutions which seek a return on the savings entrusted to them by their clients. They invest the “savings” of people for interest on debentures or for dividends on equities. They earn their money in relation to the return they garner for their clients. Investment banks do not require a charter from the State, nor are they authorized to create a currency.

By their very nature, bankers do not like to see idle currency sit in bank vaults. Commercial banks are by charter required to withdraw from circulation excess currency to the value of Real Bills. This necessitates that “idle” currency be held in the vaults of the bank until the volume of Real Bills acquired increases again. The problems in commercial banking can invariably be traced back to the use of “idle” currency for “investment purposes”, mostly by speculating in real estate. “Borrowing short” and “lending long” is a recipe for disaster. Most bank runs and the eventual failure of banks were caused by indulging in such practice. Strong supervision by the State over commercial bank operations is essential to prevent rogue bankers from creating havoc.

Daily Bell: Why did central bankers dislike Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: To answer this question, I have to explain “central banking.” Central banking involves the monetization of sovereign debt. Unlike a redeemable currency created against Real Bills, currency created by a central bank is “irredeemable” and monetizes government debt. The acceptance of central bank currency in exchanges is enforced through a “legal tender” provision. By the requirement to pay a federal income tax, taxpayers are used to guarantee the payment of interest and repayment of debt voted by federal politicians. Central bankers are close allies of the federal politicians who vote budget deficits, which are then monetized by the FED. In contrast, “commercial banks” exist on discounting Real Bills initiated and drawn by private, productive businesses.

The currency created against Real Bills is “redeemable” into a fixed quantity of gold. A redeemable currency is suitable to keep as savings since it can be exchanged for gold. The willingness of people to invest their gold savings determines the rate of interest paid for the use of people’s savings. With the creation of a redeemable currency, commercial banks enable savers to have control over their savings. Since “irredeemable” central bank currency is monetized debt, it cannot serve as a means of savings. An irredeemable currency must always be “invested”, regardless of the prevailing interest rate. The FED determines the prevailing interest rate through the conduct of Federal Open Market Operations. This involves a bidding process to purchase government debt from which average savers are excluded. Savers must accept the interest rate established through FOMOs. Central bankers dislike Real Bills, because their creation is entirely in the hands of private businessmen. Central bankers crave control over the issuance of currency which they do not have with Real Bills. Furthermore, Real Bills are drawn only when they can be cleared with a “redeemable” currency or with gold. The gold standard required under the Real Bills Doctrine strips central bankers of control over the interest rate.

Daily Bell: In America how did the advent of the Federal Reserve damage Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: Contrary to the widely held perception that the Federal Reserve Act was the result of lobbying and manipulations by the big money center banks, the Federal Reserve Act was really an attempt by the states to rein in the violation of good banking practices by the big money center banks and to preserve the application of the “Real Bills Doctrine” for commercial banking. While the publicized meeting of prominent bankers and politicians on Jekyll Island did in fact take place, the discussion amongst them was more defensive than offensive as regarded the pending banking legislation in the U.S. Congress. Many of the States, working through their U.S. Senators, attempted to put controls on the big New York City banks by establishing a reserve system that created a “redeemable” national currency based on the “Real Bills Doctrine.”

When the big money center banks were unable to guarantee themselves control over the contemplated reserve system, they countered the congressional effort to strengthen commercial banking by supporting the push of the Progressive Movement for more “Democracy” in the early 1900s. This movement called for the establishment of an income tax and the popular elections of U.S. Senators. The bankers in New York sensed a benefit for themselves in the goals of the Progressive Movement at the time.

The “Income Tax” or 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in February of 1913. The “Popular Election of U.S. Senators” or 17th Amendment was ratified in April of 1913. The Federal Reserve Act was passed by the Congress in December of 1913.

The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) established a system with twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks whose operations were overseen by a Federal Reserve Board answerable to the U.S. Congress. The original FRA of 1913 authorized a “redeemable” Federal Reserve Note to be created only against Real Bills and gold within the system. “Anticipation Bills” or U.S. Treasury debt instruments were specifically banned from monetization under the original 1913 FRA.

Of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks, the New York Federal Reserve Bank was twice as large as the next largest Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. The influence and power of the big banks within the NY Fed was soon brought to bear on the other regional banks to fall in line with NY FED decisions. Benjamin Strong as president of the NY FED manipulated the members of the Federal Reserve Board to the point where he all but neutralized the oversight function of the Board.

When in the early 1920s the national economy experienced a recession, the NY FED under Benjamin Strong promptly violated the prohibition against the monetization of U.S. Treasury debt by initiating Federal Open Market Operations (FOMO). The other Federal Reserve Banks were silent about this violation of the FRA, as was the U.S. Congress. The NY FED continued with illegal FOMO until the effects of its rogue acts resulted in the bursting of the Florida real estate bubble and the collapse of the stock markets in 1929. When in 1933, banks no longer could or were willing to redeem Federal Reserve Notes for gold, Franklin D. Roosevelt obliged them by declaring a “bank holiday.”

Instead of prosecuting the violation of the Federal Reserve Act and to pave the return to a “redeemable” currency, F.D.R. by Executive Order #6102 confiscated the savings of the American people and prohibited them from holding gold in the future. In January of 1934, the U.S. Congress passed an addition to Section 14 of the Federal Reserve Act which ex-post-facto legalized the rogue acts of the NY FED, in which it had engaged in since the early 1920s, and it authorized the monetization of “Anticipation Bills” or sovereign debt previously ineligible to be monetized. These acts of Congress would never have been possible without the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

With the prohibition of gold ownership, the Real Bills market was destroyed. Businessmen will simply not draw Real Bills that would only be settled with irredeemable currency. The destruction of the bills market spelled the demise of the commercial banking system. What today are called “commercial banks” are the carcasses of the old, real commercial banks, which have been authorized by the FED to create a “deposit currency” against the issuance of loans and mortgages. This deposit currency is converted into Federal Reserve Notes by the payments made on the loans and mortgages. In other words, today’s commercial banks function merely as outlets for the distribution of irredeemable FED central bank fiat currency. Absent these outlets, the FED would have to resort to dropping Federal Reserve Notes from airplanes in order to bring them into circulation to be of any use in a productive economy. Today’s commercial banks have nothing in common with real commercial banks, though many of the FED requirements mimic the operation of commercial banks employing the Real Bills Doctrine.

Daily Bell: What else damaged Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: The prohibition of gold ownership in 1933 prevented Real Bills from coming into existence. With the demise of Real Bills, the “wage fund” as part of Real Bills vanished as well. This plunged the productive economy in the 1930s into an economic depression from which the country could not escape despite the application of massive Keynesian pump priming.

The return to a commercial banking system employing Real Bills in the creation of a redeemable currency is the only answer to the present unemployment situation. The control over the disposition of excess currency and the supervision over commercial bank operations, while a problem in the past, would be of little problem in the age of the computer.

Daily Bell: Were Real Bills damaged in Europe as well? How?

Ingo Bischoff: By the end of the 19th Century, Germany had become the undisputed leader in the production of chemicals and manufacture of coloring dies. It held most patents for processes in these industries. When large gold reserves were discovered in British Transvaal in the 1880s, the Bank of England decided to withhold this gold from circulation by locking it away in their vaults. Britain did not want to support the thriving chemical industry in Germany by having gold move to Germany in settlement of “Bills of Exchange”. The Germans retaliated in freeing some of their gold reserve by paying civil servants with an “irredeemable” currency.

Soon the French joined in the battle by copying the Germans in payment of their civil servants. All the wrangling over the free flow of gold in settlement of international Bills of Exchange ended in the conflagration of World War I. With the onset of the First World War, the Real Bills system in Europe was in shambles. The gold reserves of England were used to pay for war materials provided by the United States. Drastic war reparations demanded from the Germans by the Treaty of Versailles stripped Germany of all gold. When the British insisted on bilateral settlement of trade balances after the end of World War I, the world’s trading nations never returned to the unfettered use of international Bills of Exchange.

Daily Bell: What amendments in the American constitution need to be undone in order to unlock Real Bills once again?

Ingo Bischoff: Most of the popularly elected senators in today’s U.S. Senate are handmaidens of the large banks within the Federal Reserve System. With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, individual States as governing entities lost their seat at the table of power in the federal government. The States had always tried to protect commercial banking and the Real Bills Doctrine from subversion by central bankers.

It was such in 1811 with the attempt to get the Congress to renew the charter of the First Bank of the United States and particularly in 1836 in the attempt to renew the charter for the Second Bank of the United States. When the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 proved to be unfavorable to plans hatched by the central bank minded owners of the big New York banks, they simply bit their time and waited until their campaign contributions to popular elections of Senators yielded sufficient majorities in the U.S. Senate to pass favorable legislation. With the ratification of the 17th Amendment, the state legislatures no longer selected the U.S. Senators, nor could they recall them. A return to a commercial banking system employing the Real Bills Doctrine will require the repeal of the 17th Amendment, yet the Congress is unlikely to propose the necessary amendment to that effect.

This leaves the States to act on their own to make application to the U.S. Congress for calling an “Article V” convention to propose and ratify an amendment to repeal. With the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the repeal of the 16th Amendment, the other amendment which underpins FED central banking, will be a given. What is the chance for this to happen? I judge it as relatively good, given the increase in the number of conservative governors and conservative legislatures as a result of the last federal election.

Daily Bell: What would the benefit be to the economy were Real Bills to be offered privately?

Ingo Bischoff: I assume that by this question is meant, could Real Bills coexist with central banking? The answer is yes. They can, as long as the central bank currency is not protected by a “legal tender” provision. As mentioned before, private businessmen will draw Real Bills as long as they can be cleared with redeemable currency or with gold. As long as Federal Reserve Notes enjoy “legal tender” protection, Real Bills will not come into existence.

If on the other hand the question asks whether individuals can earn discounts by acquiring Real Bills, the answer is yes. Banks are not essential to the circulation of Real Bills, though a redeemable currency in their stead can vastly improve their circulation.

Again, Real Bills are only drawn by productive, private businesses. Governments and private service businesses have no part whatsoever in the creation of Real Bills. If the U.S. Government were to strip the Federal Reserve Note of its legal tender protection as regards the payment of private debt, a commercial banking system could return on a state-by-state level. Real Bills would be drawn by suppliers and discounted. Immediate employment opportunities in private industry would be the result. The redeemable currency would compete with Federal Reserve Notes for purchases in stores. Federal Reserve Notes would likely drop in value against the redeemable currency which would cause the migration of public sector employees to work in the private sector. Of course, the ideal is to have a redeemable “National Reserve” currency based on the Real Bills Doctrine similar to the redeemable “Federal Reserve” currency created under the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Daily Bell: What supervision would government have to give Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: A “National Reserve” banking system employing the Real Bills Doctrine would have to provide for significantly improved independent oversight of commercial banking operations. Computer systems can easily provide solutions to all past problems encountered in the operations and oversight of commercial banking. With the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the voice of State governments will again be heard in the U.S. Congress, which will demand the sharp curtailment of the ambitions of central bankers to exercise control over the currency system.

Daily Bell: What are the accounting ramifications? Would accounting have to change?

Ingo Bischoff: The accounting standard for U.S. currency was set by the 1792 Coinage Act, which defined a “U.S. Dollar” to be 1/20.65 of an ounce of gold. This was the accounting standard until 1935 when the U.S. Congress changed the “U.S. Dollar” to be 1/35 of an ounce of gold. The last adjustment to the value of the U.S. Dollar before August 15, 1971 had the U.S. Congress define the “U.S. Dollar” to be 1/42.22 of an ounce of gold. That is the constitutionally set value of the “U.S. Dollar” today. With the suspension of redemption of U.S. Currency and Federal Reserve Notes on August 15, 1971, no redeemable major trading currency was left in the world.

The value of the Federal Reserve Note today can be determined by checking the “price of gold” in terms of USD/FRN on precious metals markets, then reversing it to read it as the value of the USD/FRN in terms of ounces of gold. The “floating” value of the USD/FRN makes it extremely difficult for businesses to value their capital positions and to maintain market share in foreign markets. The return to a commercial banking system requires that U.S. currency again be redeemable in a fixed quantity of gold. It does not matter whether a “U.S. Dollar” is valued to be 1/20.65, 1/35 or 1/42.22 of an ounce. Any reasonable amount of gold that could be struck into a workable coin would do. The quantity of gold contained within a minted coin, nor the overall quantity of gold in the world has little to do with the establishment of a fixed standard. It is the fixed standard itself that is important in accounting.

All prices are in fact a ratio of the fixed standard. Gold itself has no price, because it is the commodity that is used in setting the standard for a redeemable currency. In my opinion, it is best to accept the latest constitutionally established standard of 1/42.22 of an ounce of gold to be one “U.S. Dollar.” Individual States could then immediately charter commercial banks and authorize the creation of redeemable U.S. Dollar currency. The new redeemable currency thus created could later be absorbed into a nationwide system, if and when the U.S. Congress gets around to passing the necessary legislation. For a redeemable currency to circulate parallel to an irredeemable FRN, it is necessary that the FRN be stripped of its legal tender protection at least as it applies for use in the payment of private debt.

The USD/FRN would be in effect a different currency with a “floating standard”, while the new redeemable U.S. Dollar denominated currency would have a “fixed standard” in terms of quantities of gold. The Congress must also reconsider the obligation of the United States to guarantee the FRN. For accounting purposes, the FRN would have to be treated differently from the treatment of the redeemable currency. Would it be workable? I’d say yes. This is exactly what Horace Schacht, Finance Minister in the Weimar Republic did when he created the redeemable “Rentenmark” to circulate parallel with the highly inflated, irredeemable “Reichsmark”, and it worked. It stabilized the German monetary system.

Daily Bell: So central banking does not have to cease?

Ingo Bischoff: Real Bills will not reappear until a redeemable currency can again be created against them. Central banking does not necessarily have to cease to exist for a commercial banking system to return. However, central bank currency cannot be made legal tender in payment of private debt at the same time that a redeemable currency is meant to circulate.

Daily Bell: Are Real Bills inflationary? Why not?

Ingo Bischoff: Real Bills in and of themselves are non-inflationary. Their volume can expand and contract without causing any inflation whatsoever. It must be remembered that Real Bills are not “credit instruments”. They are “clearing instruments” which facilitate that consumption items get to the consumer without first having to pay separately for every step in the production process. The consumer’s payment in gold coin or redeemable currency for purchase of the finished items is used to clear the Real Bills drawn to finance the production process along the way. It is the existing immediate demand by consumers for the consumption items coming to market that assures payment on Real Bills at maturity.

Real Bills can be used as a vehicle to create inflation by conspiring to create “double bills.” This deception however is quickly discovered when the Real Bills mature. Any offender is immediately ostracized from the business and banking community which means the demise of his business. “Double bills” created by businesses are rarely a problem in the commercial banking system.

It is in banking operations where most problems in connection with Real Bills occur. Real Bills can be used by rogue bankers to create inflation using temporarily “idle” currency for investment purposes. This in essence amounts to the creation of “double bills” by the bankers. This sort of unethical practice is not easily detected. For that reason it is necessary that States closely supervise the operation of banks they chartered. Almost all problems in commercial banking involved the use of “idle” currency for long-term investment. This borrowing “short” to lend “long” frequently lead to disaster.

Daily Bell: Why have they attracted so much negative attention? Why are they unknown even to free-market economists?

Ingo Bischoff: It is utterly amazing how in a matter of a few generations something which was universally accepted and understood can become totally unknown. There was absolutely no doubt among the American colonists that gold was money. The principals of the Bank of Philadelphia which created the Pennsylvania Pound perfectly understood the function of Real Bills and how to improve their use by circulating paper currency in their stead. When F.D.R. contemplated the confiscation of the people’s gold, 700 business professors and economists signed a letter to urge him not to do it. Five years later, not a single one of these people could be found to speak against F.D.R.’s implementation of the Keynesian theory.

As stated previously, the understanding of the function of Real Bills in a real commercial banking system is not in the interest of central bankers. The education establishment is so intimidated by the monetary elites that they dare not speak out against the interest of central bankers. Every large business school of a university has buildings or lecture facilities built with funds donated by large banks. The financial press and talking heads on TV and radio also will not go out on a limb to talk about something which has totally slipped from the consciousness and understanding of people.

I believe that the “Austrian” free-market economists missed the distinction between credit and clearing as they looked at the function of Real Bills. Books written by prominent bankers, who should know better, reveal a lack of understanding of the function of Real Bills. Yet, Real Bills were well understood a century ago, and they were the basis of the banking system in North America and the United States for 185 years. FED central banking has been with us for only 77 years. John Maynard Keynes well understood Real Bills when he took bets on how long the First World War would last. He also knew that his General Theory of Money and Banking could not stand the test of time. We have the proof now.

Daily Bell: What is the criticism of Real Bills from free-market quarters?

Ingo Bischoff: The criticism I seem to detect is that the free-market quarter views Real Bills as credit instruments and therefore deems them inflationary. Real Bills are not credit instruments and inherently are non-inflationary.

Daily Bell: Do Real Bills interact with the land tax you favor? How so?

Ingo Bischoff: I must correct you. I favor a “land value tax” which is fundamentally different from a “land tax”. I have done a lot of thinking about the “land value tax” in connection with Real Bills and a redeemable currency. I have come to the conclusion that the founding fathers were much further ahead in their thinking than we give them credit.

The philosophical principles for the institution of a “land value tax” lie in the allodial title rights and duties under Anglo-Saxon law, which are included in each of the constitutions of the original thirteen states and further included in the constitutions of the rest of the thirty-seven states as provided by Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Henry George in his book “Progress and Poverty” made a perfect case for the collection of a “land value tax” on the basis of equality and justice. However, he never alluded to the form in which the payment of this land value tax would be collected. The word “value” implies a standard. The mechanism by which “land” is valued is established with the county assessment and recording system enshrined in every state constitution.

“Land” is a factor in the production of goods, as are “Labor” and “Capital”. Just as Labor receives Wages, and Capital receives Interest, Land is due a return in the form of Rent. The overall value of manufacturing materials supplied to the production cycle of consumption goods made by use of Real Bill reflects the value contributed by each of the three factors of production, Land, Labor and Capital. Since Real Bills when cleared furnish the compensation to all the factors involved in the production of the goods, the Rent in return for contribution by Land must be in the form of redeemable currency or gold. Therefore, I conclude that it is not sufficient to only compensate Labor and Capital with a redeemable currency or gold, but that it absolutely necessary to collect the full value of the contribution made by Land in the form of the “land value tax.”

To do so, is much more important for the proper “discovery of prices” for goods in a “free market” distribution system than it is to garner revenue to cover the cost of government. A failure to fully collect the “land value tax”, or worse to monetize land values by using “temporary excess currency” in commercial banks to speculate in real estate, does nothing but distort the prices of goods and harms the “free-market” distribution system. With the inability to discover true prices, the Real Bills market is harmed, which then has a detrimental effect on the commercial banking system, which circulates redeemable currency instead of the Real Bills.

I make this statement: A redeemable currency cannot long exist without the full collection of a “land value tax.” Conversely, a “land value tax” where a “free-market” distribution system is desired, must be collected in the form of a redeemable currency or in gold.

Daily Bell: What other distortions have been caused in the economy by the lack of Real Bills?

Ingo Bischoff: A banking system based on the Real Bills Doctrine along with the collection of a “land value tax” is the most stable system to advance prosperity, bar none. The distortions caused by the absence of commercial banking employing the Real Bills Doctrine are all reflected in the ills brought on by central banking. Most unjust is the distribution of the central bank currency. Central bank currency cuts all connections to an ability to properly value the contribution made by each factor of production in the creation of wealth or in valuing services, be they private or governmental.

Daily Bell: Is it possible to have Real Bills without a gold standard?

Ingo Bischoff: No, it is not. As I mentioned before, no businessman will draw a Real Bill unless he knows that it will be paid either by a redeemable currency or by gold. He would never give up something of positive value, to in turn be paid back with something of negative value. A redeemable currency can only exist with a gold standard. “Redeemable currency” is the definition of a “gold standard”. No gold standard, no Real Bills. It is as simple as that.

Daily Bell: Any other thoughts you want to add? Any further misperceptions you want to clear up?

Ingo Bischoff: No, thank you. Your questions have given me a plenty of opportunity to express my thoughts on the importance of Real Bills. Thank you very much for your enlightened questions.

Daily Bell: Thank you for this primer on Real Bills.

An obvious question from a high-school dropout would be, with the global convergence of central banking and corporate servitude to the bankers, how would one break the chain of totalitarian control over production and politics? James P. Harvey





(For those of you under 50, keep this for future reference)

Begin by standing on a comfortable surface, where you have plenty of room at each side.

With a 5-lb potato bag in each hand, extend your arms straight out from your sides and hold them there as long as you can. Try to reach a full minute, and then relax.

Each day you’ll find that you can hold this position for just a bit longer.

After a couple of weeks, move up to 10-lb potato bags.

Then try 50-lb potato bags and then eventually try to get to where you can lift a 100-lb potato bag in each hand and hold your arms straight for more than a full minute. (I’m at this level now.)

After you feel confident at that level, put a potato in each bag.

Break Up Wall Street?


The Daily Bell

Break Up Wall Street?

by  Staff Report

Top Economists: Trust is Necessary for a Stable Economy … But Trust Won’t Be Restored Until We Prosecute Wall Street Fraud … Most policy makers still don’t understand the urgent need to restore trust in our financial system, or the need to prosecute Wall Street executives for fraud and other criminal wrongdoing. But top economists have been saying for well over a decade that trust is necessary for a stable economy, and that prosecuting the criminals is necessary to restore trust. In his influential 1993 book Making Democracy Work, Robert Putnam showed how civic attitudes and trust could account for differences in the economic and government performance between northern and southern Italy. Political economist Francis Fukiyama wrote a book called Trust in 1995, arguing that the most pervasive cultural characteristic influencing a nation’s prosperity and ability to compete is the level of trust or cooperative behavior based upon shared norms. He stated that the United States, like Japan and Germany, has been a high-trust society historically but that this status has eroded in recent years. – Washington’s Blog

Dominant Social Theme: Incarcerate ‘em. Then everything will be better.

Free-Market Analysis: We have noted of late the emergence of a particularly ubiquitous power elite dominant social theme: It’s Wall Street’s (Big Finance’s) fault. This is an extraordinarily important promotion because it is intended to spare central banks from scrutiny and deflect blame to the private sector. The above article, posted at Washington’s blog, is almost torturous to read because it presents in relentless detail the current betrayal of trust at high levels in Western (US) society and uses an endless amount of cites to buttress its arguments. In doing so – in our opinion – it almost totally misses the point.

Having stated this, let us pause to express our extreme admiration for many of the articles on Washington’s Blog. It is a courageous exercise in many ways, well-written, passionate and somewhat libertarian in our view. In fact, this is perhaps one of the only articles we could find with which we have a serious difference-of-opinion. (So don’t take it personally, Washington’s blog if you happen to notice our commentary; we’ve written a number of analyses on this subject, several in response to Rolling Stone articles.)

Additionally, we should point out that there is no doubt Wall Street is an enabler and that Goldman Sachs in particular sits near the center of the modern conspiracy in all its fundamental criminality. There really is no “private” sector in America anymore (but for struggling small-time entrepreneurs). However, from the power-elite point of view, these are unimportant distinctions. Capitalism is to be blamed whenever possible with an eye toward creating evermore regulation, government bureaucracy and mercantilism.

Ultimately modern-day high finance is a technocratic function. It is a supporting mechanism not a strategic one. The planning for the New World Order – the fundamental strategy of ruin – is made at much higher levels by a handful of banking families and their enablers. Blaming financial entities for the endless economic catastrophes that afflict the West is a bit like blaming meteorologists for earthquakes. We pointed this out previously in our article “Mervyn King Caught Spreading a Meme,” as follows:

[UK central banker] Mervyn King’s statement to the UK Treasury Select Committee is a textbook case of how the elites that run the West’s banking system attempt to deflect blame from central banks by pointing fingers at the private sector. King, Britain’s top central banker, is charged with protecting the elite’s most important asset: central banking, which in the modern era involves printing money-from-nothing without any underlying asset base. The power elite has successfully installed central banks in almost every country around the world and these central banks are coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements out of Switzerland, a mysterious entity that is evidently and obviously under the control of the powers-that-be.

It is a measure of the power of the BIS that its couriers travel under blanket immunity throughout the world and that personal searches or searches of their cargoes is forbidden. In order for this to be so, laws have to be on the books in countries throughout the world confirming these privileges. That these laws apparently exist indicates the incredible and subtle reach of the Anglo-Americanelite and its ability to influence legislation globally. King’s statement to the Treasury Select Committee as reported in the UK Telegraph is a pitch-perfect defense of central banking using the meme of private-sector blame. This fear-based promotion was used most successfully in our view during the Great Depression in America when “Wall Street” was exclusively blamed for the market crash (rather than reckless Federal Reserve inflation) and the entire modern apparatus of regulatory finance was initiated.

This article, unfortunately, is like Mervyn King on steroids. It is so detailed and all encompassing that it even blames the boom-bust economic cycle on Wall Street corruption. (The Misesian concept of central-banking-initiated business cycles goes unmentioned.) What is most frustrating, however, is its faith in US and Western institutions. The American judicial system is inherently corrupt; a shell of the system that it once was and likely based on Admiralty law rather than common law. Judges apparently even receive some sort of compensation for putting people in jail (we’ve read this) and the prison-industrial complex itself incarcerates more Americans than the rest of the world put together under heinous conditions.

There is something inherently questionable about insisting that the American judicial system “clean up” Wall Street. The justice system is in as much need of cleaning up as the financial system. But the article rolls along nonetheless. Here’s another quote:

Nobel prize winning economist George Akerlof has demonstrated that failure to punish white collar criminals – and instead bailing them out- creates incentives for more economic crimes and further destruction of the economy in the future. Indeed, William Black notes that we’ve known of this dynamic for “hundreds of years.”

Of course, the article neglects to point out that the Nobel prize given to economists is not the “real” Nobel prize but is similarly named to confuse people. The corruption of the system is so deeply layered that one almost despairs that the mainstream media (or even portions of the blogosphere) will see their way clear of it.

Begin with the (reasonable?) idea that the financial system as it stands now is worth resuscitating. We’ve written a good deal on the stock market and the general system of high finance as it is practiced especially in the US. It is dysfunctional in large part because it is planned that way. The West’s real financial problem is mercantilist central banking, which creates the paper-money booms that drive stock markets to new heights – at which point the middle classes begin to invest, only to lose their money during the inevitable busts. To argue that if “crooks” are put in jail, the system will miraculously right itself as trust returns is to ignore 100 years of cleverly crafted deceptions orchestrated at a level far higher than those being incarcerated. You can read an article on this issue here:

Beyond this, we think there are different reasons why US citizens in particular have withdrawn trust from the system, that have little to do with Wall Street criminality per se. We wrote about this long ago. It has to do in our opinion with the bailouts that were granted to big banks around the world and in particular the money that was printed by the Fed to reliquify the world’s financial system. You can read that article here:

For the first time in 100 years, the actual mechanism of modern money creation was revealed because the bailouts were made in full view of the Internet. Thousands and then perhaps millions of people in the US and throughout the West suddenly realized that central banks were PRINTING the money that they were giving away. For the average person struggling to hold on to his or her house, the realization that “money” could be printed at will by a handful of extraordinarily powerful men was a realization that has in our view essentially shattered the cleverly manipulated compact between the elites and an unsuspecting public.

John Maynard Keynes said that not one man in a million could conceive of how central banks operate but he would have to revise that statement today. Millions DO understand. And that is why we have long predicted that the dollar reserve system is finished as well. It has little to do with Wall Street “crooks” and everything to do with the dawning realization that a handful of people control money and that – as George Carlin famously said – “it’s a club, and you’re NOT in it.”

Conclusion: We hoist a glass in the general direction of Washington’s Blog’s many fine articles (metaphorically anyway). This is not one of them. The story finishes with this quote: “You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bulls–t would stop, all over Wall Street,” says a former congressional aide. “That’s all it would take. Just once.” To which we reply, “Really?


As a person who reads hundreds of articles per week on the political and economic history of the major countries, I am close to deciding on a 1 through 10 value system as a recommendation to my readers. If I do decide to do that, this one is a 10.

I have been shouting for years that the best way to kill a snake is to cut off its head, and believe me there is no other method to install confidence in world leaders than for them to attack the elite bankers and confiscate their assets. Then set up a world value system of a basket of life sustaining food and water commodities as an index for each nations currency. The daily Bell’s resistance to violence is their one small fault. When considering just a small percentage of the banker’s atrocities, I would applaud their incarceration and torture for their life’s balance.

James P. Harvey


The Un-spontaneous Libyan Revolution


The Daily Bell

The Un-spontaneous Libyan Revolution

By Staff Report

Qadhafi will be held accountable even if he steps down: U.S. … In a clear message to Muammar Qadhafi and his aides, the U.S. has said they would be held accountable for human rights violations against their own people, even if the Libyan leader leaves the country, putting an end to his over four-decade long regime. “We want to see Qadhafi step down, and one would infer that in stepping down it is probably best for him to leave the country, to allow a different government to emerge. Any departure from Libya does not exempt him, his family, or others from responsibility and accountability for what has occurred,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley told reporters at his daily news conference. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: Where do all these spontaneous revolutions come from? Is it something in the water?

Free-Market Analysis: The United States and its allies do not want to get involved outright in Libyan warfare, or so we are told, but as we can see from the above article excerpt, the administration has plans for Colonel Qaddafi. Of course, if we peer beneath the surface, we find that the US (and its allies) are far more involved in the Libya “revolution” than it seems on the surface. In this article, we will examine US and Western involvement in the Libyan uprising – much as we have already examined participation in Egypt and Tunisa.

What is the evidence for US involvement in the overthrow of the Libyan dictator? When one lifts the curtain, an obvious portrait of involvement emerges. Pictures, for instance, have emerged of “rebels” carrying “” signs. The webmaster of “EnoughGaddafi” is listed as – and is the network supporting the larger youth movement, with State Department encouragement.

We have written about the Alliance for Youth Movements’ worldwide network – a US sponsored organization of vast proportion. Using Internet technology and organizing “youth,” the US (and its vast network of intelligence operatives and mercenaries) has successfully destabilized numerous developing countries around the world and actually succeeded in creating regime change in two of them. Doubtless there will be more.

“EnoughGaddafi” material (which can be seen on Twitter) is also archived via Ibrahim Sahad’s NFSL site (National Front for the Salvation of Libya). The NFSL, run by Sahad, is apparently headquartered in Washington DC and Sahad, a former captain in the Libyan army, has been making appearances from Washington where he is providing strategic guidance to the revolution. Tony Cartalucci at Land Destroyer wrote a ground-breaking article on Sahad’s alliance with the US and pointed out the following:

The Sahad’s NCLO began organizing the February 17th “Day of Rage” right on cue as Egypt fell so the mainstream media apparatus could swing around and put the focus on Libya. Conveniently, the media needs only move from Cairo to Egypt’s western border and wait for Sahad’s men on the ground to secure them a base of operations, presumably in Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi. Qaddafi apparently understands the role of NGOs and the foreign media, which is why they are not in the streets of Libya’s cities, and coverage has been admittedly daunting.

The pattern repeats itself. Beginning with Tunisa, and then most evidently in Egypt and now Libya, the US and its allies are firmly, tenaciously, in charge of the revolutionary process. The arrogance is breathtaking as is the cynicism. Around the world, staunch US allies – many of them dictators and murderers to be sure – now tremble at the thought that what just happened in Egypt and Tunisia may be visited upon them as well. It used to pay rather well to be a US ally. Not anymore. Hosni Mubarak’s fate in particular may be troubling to erstwhile US allies, as Mubarak was as staunch a “friend” of the US and Israel as existed in the Middle East. Yet his regime was very obviously targeted by the same forces that are now at work in Libya.

This is very much an operation of the Anglosphere located primarily in the City of London, Washington DC and the Vatican – three “special cities” that are actually countries unto themselves. Those who see the fine hand of Israel and “Jews” behind all these disruptions will have to explain the dismay of Israel’s leaders at the fall of Mubarak. Here’s the beginning of a Reuter’s story that appeared in late February:

Israel shocked by Obama’s “betrayal” of Mubarak … If Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is toppled, Israel will lose one of its very few friends in a hostile neighborhood and President Barack Obama will bear a large share of the blame, Israeli pundits said on Monday. Political commentators expressed shock at how the United States as well as its major European allies appeared to be ready to dump a staunch strategic ally of three decades … Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told ministers of the Jewish state to make no comment on the political cliffhanger in Cairo, to avoid inflaming an already explosive situation. But Israel’s President Shimon Peres is not a minister. “We always have had and still have great respect for President Mubarak,” he said on Monday. He then switched to the past tense. “I don’t say everything that he did was right, but he did one thing which all of us are thankful to him for: he kept the peace in the Middle East.”

Israel is a tool of the Anglo-American elite; the Mossad is a kind of “enforcer” (along with MI6 and the CIA), conveniently placed at the heart of the Middle East from whence all sorts of mischief can emerge and chaos can be fomented. It is apparently a kind of fiefdom of the Rothschild family, which personally paid the bills for the construction of the Knesset and the eerie Supreme Court building with all its Illuminati symbolism. Of course the Rothschild’s were instrumental in the creation of Israel before and after World War II, and also helped devise various plans to frighten Jews into “returning” to Israel.

The Rothschilds it should be noted have a strong base of operations in Britain, specifically in the City of London where the strategic braintrust of the New World Order is located. It is run like a mafia family, with the Rothschilds choosing to work with other Jews just as the Italian mafia works with other Italians. The Rothschild’s operations are apparently worldwide and the money that the Rothschild’s and others control via central banking is virtually limitless.

From this nexus of investment and banking families has spread the plague of mercantilist central banking, which now afflicts the globe. Not content with the ruinous centralization of central banking, the Rothschild’s, their allies and intelligence operatives have apparently launched a global attack on developing countries. Libya is just the latest country to receive the “treatment.” Even the orchestration is deliberate, with each country falling in line, like dominoes, no two at once to ensure maximum media coverage.

America, like Israel – though to a much greater degree – is the muscular enforcer for the City of London braintrust. There is, in fact, no doubt about American involvement in orchestrating the Libyan revolution, right down to the shiny new flags that were unfurled for the cameras – red-and-green flags of a pre-revolutionary Libya that have now conveniently found their way onto flagpoles of Libyan embassies around the world. The ‘flag-change’ initiative was taken by the Libyan Human Rights League – another group that “spontaneously” formed in 2005 at the same time as Sahad’s NFSL.

There is much hand-wringing currently in the mainstream media about how involved the US and its allies ought to get in the Libyan revolution. We would suggest that the West is already fully involved and that there are likely intelligence agents and Western mercenaries on the ground in Libya helping organize the rebels’ military campaigns. While it is no doubt true that the rebels are composed of average Libyan citizens along with many deserters from the Libyan army, it is likely just as true that the groundwork for the Libyan revolution was laid well in advance – organized by the West in the same manner as the other revolutions now taking place.

These are meticulously planned events. No doubt Sahad and his allies constitute a leadership in waiting and he will fly back to Libya at the proper time. Gaddafi has proven to be a much tougher nut to crack than Mubarak or Ben Ali, and thus his emergence onto the world stage may have been put off for a while. But there is little doubt that Gaddafi’s days are numbered. There is an army on the ground and it will be buttressed one way or another with Western resources.

Conclusion: The eventual triumph of this latest revolution, when it comes, will be hailed by the Western mainstream media as another miraculous uprising of oppressed people. There is no doubt of the heroism of those Libyans fighting and dying to free their country. But that is obviously not the whole story. And whether the West can maintain control of these revolutions, or whether many will emerge as Islamic republics is an open question. Presumably those helping with the orchestration do not care. (Perhaps they will in a sense control the Islamic republics as well.) Additional Islamic republics only buttress Western authoritarianism at home and provide the pretext for further domestic oppression.



Lincoln Mythology is Born


The Southern National Congress

Lincoln Mythology is Born

Commentary by Steve Scroggins

March 4th, 2011 marks the 150th Anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration as President of the United States. Lincoln idolators and court ‘historians’ are certain to gush forth with fluff and flowery prose about how Lincoln “saved the Union” and “freed the slaves” when history shows that he did neither — in fact, he did just the opposite, as we’ll show below.

This date March 4th marks the beginning of the Lincoln Legend, the mythology that was erected after his death and which has been compounded for over a century since in support of the ambitions of the centralizers, those who support the nationalist empire and the belief that all principles must be sacrificed on the alter of the elite’s pursuit of wealth. Let’s review.

Many of the lies and distortions and omissions that form the Lincoln Mythology have been debunked and exposed in previous commentary on this site and in the work of others in books and periodicals. A list of worthy links, references and suggested reading will follow below. For our purposes here today, let’s simply review the top Five Myths you’re most likely to hear or read on the anniversary of the inauguration and throughout the sesquicentennial observances of the war that Lincoln started and carried out on behalf of northern special interests and the advocates of the centralized model of government.

  • 1. Lincoln the Great Emancipator: He reluctantly inaugurated war to abolish slavery
  • 2. Lincoln “Saved the Union” from those who would “destroy the Union”
  • 3. Lincoln had to respond to Fort Sumter to put down treasonous secession
  • 4. Lincoln the Humanitarian
  • 5. Lincoln the champion of personal liberty and defender of the Constitution

1. Lincoln the Great Emancipator: He reluctantly inaugurated war to abolish slavery

First of all, war was NOT required to end slavery. No other country in the world required war to end it; neither did America. Chattel slavery was doomed by the 1850s and on its way to extinction everywhere in the western Christian world. Brazil, a former Portuguese colony, was the last to abolish slavery in the western hemisphere in 1888. It is a lingering fallacy that it took war to end slavery in America.

Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address that he had no intention, no inclination and no legal authority to abolish slavery where it existed. He stated this in writing on numerous occasions. In the same address, Lincoln stated his support for the Corwin Amendment – otherwise known as the “Slavery Forever Amendment” — which would constitutionally enshrine slavery permanently beyond the jurisdiction of the Congress.

The Republican party platform opposed the expansion of slavery to the western territories for economic and social reasons. The Republicans didn’t want any blacks or Indians living anywhere near them. Illinois, it should be noted, had passed law to prohibit the settling or residence of blacks in Illinois. The Lincoln Dream was for a lilly-white America with no blacks or Indians. His soldiers, trained in the art of making war on southern civilians, did a fair job of genocide against the plains Indians after the war.

“[T]he Union … will constitutionally defend and maintain itself… In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” –Abraham Lincoln, from inaugural address, March 4, 1861.

In his inaugural address, Lincoln promised not to invade or start a war EXCEPT to enforce the tariff law and hold federal forts for the purpose of tariff collection. His object was to quell the secession movement and force the recently departed states to return to the union, or at least to pay the tariffs as if they were still part of the Union. Lincoln claimed in the address that states did not have the authority to secede or leave the union. This is, of course, a 180 degree about-face from his stated opinion just 14 years earlier.

“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. This is a most valuable, –a most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.” –Abraham Lincoln, from the Congressional Record, Jan. 12, 1847.

Lincoln’s 1861 argument was logically ridiculous. Lincoln claimed that somehow the union came before the states which formed the union by ratifying the Constitution. That’s like saying that a marriage came before the two people who were joined in the marriage.

Lincoln argued in his 1861 Inaugural address that “Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.” Note that the Framers specifically avoided the use of the words “national” and “perpetual” and struck them from proposed documents. James Madison made it clear that the people, their liberties and their “safety and happiness” were more important than any form of government when he said, “The safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions must be sacrificed.”

Lincoln was inaugurated March 4th. After Lincoln’s secretary of state promised to evacuate and surrender Fort Sumter for weeks, Lincoln dispatched an armada to reinforce and resupply Fort Sumter in early April, an act of war. Lincoln let the Confederates know it was coming. To miminize the loss of life, the Confederates decided to bombard the Fort into submission before warships arrived. Fort Sumter was surrendered April 12th. It should be noted that there was no loss of life in the attack and the federal garrison was permitted to leave peacefully after the surrender. Lincoln had provoked the South into firing the first shots. Again, there was no person killed or injured at Fort Sumter, but it fired a war fever in the north.

On April 15th Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers with which to invade the South and enforce the tariff laws. He ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, raised an army, gathered war materiel and committed other acts of war without the Constitutionally required Declaration of War from Congress.

When the Congress finally convened in July 1861, they rubber stamped his aggressive military actions since April 15th. They also confirmed his motive and objectives. The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution dated July 25, 1861 stated explicitly that the purpose of the war was to “preserve the union” and “not to interfere in the established institutions of the states” nor to limit their rights and freedoms in any other way.

Once Lincoln started the war by attempting to reinforce Fort Sumter by force, he repeatedly stated that his intent was to “save the Union” and his war effort had nothing to do with slavery. A year and a half after hostilities commenced, in his August 1862 correspondence with Horace Greeley (New York Tribune), he emphatically stated that slavery was irrelevant to the war — it was only about restoring (preserving) the Union. This was just a month before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” –Abraham Lincoln, from letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862

Regardless of any sophistry or distortions to the contrary, the historical record shows incontrovertably that Lincoln and the U.S. Congress started and prosecuted the war for the purpose of preventing southern secession and independence and to enforce the tariff collections, to “preserve the union” as they called it. Though slavery (especially expansion) was a source of regional conflict, it was NOT the purpose of the war.

And what did the participants in the war think? General John B. Gordon gives us an assessment:

“But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defence on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work. I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country. As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” –General John B. Gordon, from Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 19

But what about the Emancipation Proclamation, you ask? It was strictly a war measure aimed at weakening the South by creating chaos or inciting slave insurrection. Another obvious purpose was to keep Britain and the European powers out of the war — many of those nations wanted to trade with the South for cotton. Here’s a sample of how the British press saw the Proclamation:

“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” –London Spectator, 1862

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” –Charles Dickens, 1862

As the secession “crisis” started in December 1860 and continued into January 1861, the initial reaction of most people in the North was “let them go in peace.” They acknowledged that the principles of the Declaration of Independence, including the ‘consent of the governed’, prohibited coercion of the southern states to remain in the union by force. But by February and March, the northern industrialists and shipping interests had leaned on the northern editors and made them aware of the financial losses southern independence would bring the northern states. Northern editorials changed from “let them go” to “heck, no, we’ll go broke.” See aselection of Northern editorials for the flavor of the thought and note the change.

As the saying goes, “follow the money.” The real power and wealth wanted war to protect their financial interests and to keep the southern states on the taxpaying plantation to pay for their subsidized infrastructure and favored special interests. It should be noted that the Republican party platform included raising protectionist tariffs (paid mostly by the southern states)… and the Congress passed the Morrill Tariff which doubled the tax rates, and President Buchanan signed it into law just two days before Lincoln was inaugurated.

From this it appears that Charles Dickens summed up the yankee motivation best, a “desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

2. Lincoln “Saved the Union” from those who would “destroy the Union”

Lincoln didn’t save anything, just the opposite. We started the war with a Constitutional Republic and ended with a consolidated empire, ruled from a central capitol with the States neutered. The Southern states didn’t seek to “destroy” anything. All they wanted was peaceful separation. There would have been no war if Lincoln hadn’t raised the troops and launched an invasion and blockade. Remember, not one person had been killed or injured in the taking of Fort Sumter. The Southern states tried repeatedly to open negotiations to pay for the federal properties in their territory, their share of the national debt (infinitely smaller than today), and so on. Lincoln would not even discuss it. A man with his considerable political skills could have resolved the issues without war. No, the party that elected Lincoln was determined to keep the southern states as economic colonies — even if they had to exterminate all southerners to do it.

“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history… The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg 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. 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 their people to govern themselves.” –H.L. Mencken [emphasis added]

“[T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those [republics] that have preceded it.” –Robert E. Lee, letter to Lord Acton, 1866

The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called ‘national greatness’ and ‘imperial glory.’ The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state.” –Thomas DiLorenzo, from Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State

3. Lincoln had to respond to Fort Sumter to put down treasonous secession

As noted above, no person was killed in the taking of Fort Sumter.

Secession cannot be reasonably considered treason. Most Americans celebrate that secession document called the Declaration of Independence every July 4th. We don’t call it “Treason Day.”

The states of New YorkRhode Island and Virginia in their ratification documents explicitly reserved the right to leave the union whenever in their opinion it was best for the security, happiness and liberty of their people. The other states reserved these rights implicitly. It was the understanding of all the Framers and those who ratified the Constitution in their respective states that the states “retain every power not expressly relinquished” in the Constitution. Since secession was not mentioned, that right is retained. This understanding is underscored by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. If any thought for a moment they were bound in perpetuity, almost no states, and certainly not the requisite nine states would have ratified. They knew they didn’t have the right to bind their posterity, but that they could choose for themselves their form of government.

The cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point studied the Constitution using an 1829 text written by William Rawle, a Philadelphia attorney, who was the U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania under the Washington Administration, one who prosecuted the rebels of the Whisky Rebellion. Chapter 32, entitled On the Permanance of the Union, contains the following text:

The Union is an association of the people of republics; its preservation is calculated to depend on the preservation of those republics. The people of each pledge themselves to preserve that form of government in all. Thus each becomes responsible to the rest, that no other form of government shall prevail in it, and all are bound to preserve it in every one. …If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth to subdue it.

Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. [emphasis added]
–William Rawle, Chapter 32, A VIEW of the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America

Charles Adams, in his book entitled When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, obliterates the weak and faulty arguments that secession is not a right of the states.

Jefferson Davis was held without trial in military prison at Fortress Monroe for two years after the war. The yankee prosecutors realized they could not win a conviction of Davis in open court for treason. Davis wanted nothing more than his day in court, but it was denied when the indictment for treason was dismissed. On that same date, treason indictments on 19 other Confederate officers were dismissed.

The Constitution defines treason against the United States to consist only in “levying War against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” Under that definition, it’s Lincoln who could be convicted of treason since he organized and ordered that war be levied against the Southern states. When the Constitution uses the word “them” it refers to the States. Davis, on the other hand, hoped that the southern states could leave peacefully. Defending against an armed invasion is not treason. There was never any intent to interfere with the government of the United States nor to occupy any territory of the remaining states in the U.S. Thus, the term ‘civil war’ is a ridiculous misnomer.

4. Lincoln the Humanitarian

It should be remembered that Lincoln launched an unnecessary war for economic reasons that cost the lives of over 620,000 American soldiers, an estimated 50,000 civilians and left probably over a million horribly maimed and wounded. Standardized for today’s population, that would be the equivalant of six million Americans dying in four years. Such unnecessary bloodshed earns Lincoln a place in the pantheon of 20th century killers such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Adolph Hitler.

Sheridan and Sherman both noticed that Lincoln always asked to be regaled with stories of civilian suffering as the yankee armies practiced their raping, looting and vandalism. What kind of human being wants to hear such horror stories? See Walter Brian Cisco’sWar Crimes Against Southern Civilians Some of it is detailed in Thomas DiLorenzo’s essay entitled, Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State

Lincoln actively advocated for “colonization” (deportation) of all blacks from North America. As noted earlier, Lincoln’s Dream was an all-white America. He actively planned and lobbied for support to round up all blacks who were emancipated by any means and send to them outside the United States (to South America, the Caribbean or back to Africa). This part of the historical record is irrefutable, yet the Court Historians seems to omit such details while painting Lincoln as an angel.

5. Lincoln the champion of personal liberty and defender of the Constitution

This one is real howler. Lincoln crushed the Constitution while his rhetoric professed to revere it.

Lincoln illegally suspended Habeas Corpus. He imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern citizens without trial for expressing views contrary to his, or for criticizing the war effort. Lincoln shut down over 300 opposition newspapers in the North. One such editor/citizen imprisoned was mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Frances Scott Key (author of the Star Spangled Banner). He arrested much of the Maryland legislature to prevent them from discussing secession. When Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional, Lincoln issued as arrest warrant for Taney. Though the arrest was never made, the intimidating threat was made.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in his book entitled Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men makes the case eloquently that while the 13th Amendment ended chattel slavery in America, the result of the war was to enslave all Americans at tax slaves. The growth of the Empire was enabled once the States had been neutered and the Constitution crushed in practice.


This has ran much longer than originally intended. And we covered only the top five Lincoln Myths. Lincoln didn’t “save the Union,” he destroyed the decentralized and voluntary Republic as defined in the Constitution. He didn’t “free the slaves,” he enslaved all Americans to their government. The name Lincoln shouldn’t pass any American’s lips unless followed by a contemptuous expectoration.

“It is a testament to the effectiveness of 140 years of government propaganda that a 308 page book filled with true facts about Lincoln could be entitled “The Lincoln No One Knows.” It is not a matter of a poorly-performing government education system but quite the opposite: The government schools have performed superbly in indoctrinating generations of American school children with a pack of lies, myths, omissions, and falsehoods about Lincoln and his war of conquest. As Richard Bensel wrote in Yankee Leviathan, any study of the American state should begin in 1865. The power of any state ultimately rests upon a series of government-sponsored myths, and there is none more prominent than the Lincoln Myth.” –Thomas DiLorenzo, from The Unknown Lincoln

Gordon on the War

“Prior to actual secession there was even at the South more or less division of sentiment–not as to principle, but as to policy. Scarcely a man could be found in all the Southern States who doubted the constitutional right of a State to withdraw from the Union; but many of its foremost men thought that such movement was ill-advised or should be delayed. Among these were Robert E. Lee, who became the commander-in-chief of all the Confederate armies; Alexander Hamilton Stephens, who became the Confederate Vice-President; Benjamin H. Hill, who was a Confederate senator and one of the Confederate administration’s most ardent and perhaps its most eloquent supporter; and even Jefferson Davis himself is said to have shed tears when, at his seat in the United States Senate, he received the telegram announcing that Mississippi had actually passed the ordinance of secession.”

“He agreed, however, with an overwhelming majority of the Southern people, in the opinion that both honor and security, as well as permanent peace, demanded separation. Referring to the denial of the right of Southerners to carry their property in slaves into the common Territories, he said: ‘Your votes refuse to recognize our domestic institutions, which preëxisted the formation of the Union–our property, which was guarded by the Constitution. You refuse us that equality without which we should be degraded if we remained in the Union. . . . Is there a senator on the other side who, to-day, will agree that we shall have equal enjoyment of the Territories of the United States? Is there one who will deny that we have equally paid in their purchases and equally bled in their acquisition in war? . . . Whose is the fault, then, if the Union be dissolved? . . . If you desire, at this last moment, to avert civil war, so be it; it is better so. If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we cannot live peaceably together, to leave with the rights we had before we were united, since we cannot enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations, drawn from the associations of our (common) struggles from the Revolutionary period to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us.'” –General John B. Gordon, from Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 14-15

OldDogs Comment

No person ignorant of the following article

has a right to call their self an American

What is States’ Rights?

by Mike Crane
Morganton, Georgia

Most of us – especially myself – have believed most of our lives – the intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to give us a “federated” form of government. If you too have believed this during your life you will either find this series of articles educational or will dislike them very much.


China “Attacks The Dollar”


Moves To Further Cement Renminbi Reserve Currency Status

Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
March 3, 2011

In a surprising turn of events, today’s biggest piece of news received a mere two paragraph blurb on Reuters, and was thoroughly ignored by the broader media. An announcement appeared shortly after midnight on the website of the People’s Bank of China.

The statement, google translated as “Pragmatic and pioneering spirit to promote cross-border renminbi business cum on monitoring and analysis to a new level” is presented below:

China Attacks The Dollar Moves To Further Cement Renminbi Reserve Currency Status CNYReserve  [SEE ARTICLE AT LINK FOR CHINESE DOCUMENT]

Reuters provides a simple translation and summary of the announcement: “China hopes to allow all exporters and importers to settle their cross-border trades in the yuan by this year, the central bank said on Wednesday, as part of plans to grow the currency’s international role. In a statement on its website, the central bank said it would respond to overseas demand for the yuan to be used as a reserve currency. It added it would also allow the yuan to flow back into China more easily.” To all those who claim that China is perfectly happy with the status quo, in which it is willing to peg the Renmibni to the Dollar in perpetuity, this may come as a rather unpleasant surprise, as it indicates that suddenly China is far more vocal about its intention to convert its currency to reserve status, and in the process make the dollar even more insignificant.

International Business Times provides further insight:

This is all part of China’s plan for the internationalization of its currency, which may, in the decades to come, threaten the global ‘market share’ of other currencies like the US dollar.

Previously, China also announced that bilateral trades with Russia and Malaysia will begin to be conducted with the yuan and the ruble and ringgit, respectively.

Other moves on the part of China to internationalize its currency include allowing foreign companies to issue yuan-denominated bonds and relaxing rules for foreign financial institutions to access the yuan.

Aside from the efforts of the Chinese government, fundamentals also point to the increasing international popularity of the Chinese currency.

China is already the leading trade partner with Australia and Japan. It’s also the leading or a large trade partner with many of its smaller neighbors. The purpose of having foreign currencies is to conduct foreign trade and investment, so the yuan is expected to become a more attractive currency for China’s trade partners, espeically as the government continues to relax restrictions.

The reason for this dramatic move may be found in what Stephen Roach wrote a few days ago in Project Syndicate:

In early March, China’s National People’s Congress will approve its 12th Five-Year Plan. This Plan is likely to go down in history as one of China’s boldest strategic initiatives.

In essence, it will change the character of China’s economic model – moving from the export- and investment-led structure of the past 30 years toward a pattern of growth that is driven increasingly by Chinese consumers. This shift will have profound implications for China, the rest of Asia, and the broader global economy.

Like the Fifth Five-Year Plan, which set the stage for the “reforms and opening up” of the late 1970’s, and the Ninth Five-Year Plan, which triggered the marketization of state-owned enterprises in the mid-1990’s, the upcoming Plan will force China to rethink the core value propositions of its economy. Premier Wen Jiabao laid the groundwork four years ago, when he first articulated the paradox of the “Four ‘Uns’” – an economy whose strength on the surface masked a structure that was increasingly “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated, and ultimately unsustainable.”

The Great Recession of 2008-2009 suggests that China can no longer afford to treat the Four Uns as theoretical conjecture. The post-crisis era is likely to be characterized by lasting aftershocks in the developed world – undermining the external demand upon which China has long relied. That leaves China’s government with little choice other than to turn to internal demand and tackle the Four Uns head on.

The 12th Five-Year Plan will do precisely that, focusing on major pro-consumption initiatives. China will begin to wean itself from the manufacturing model that has underpinned export- and investment-led growth. While the manufacturing approach served China well for 30 years, its dependence on capital-intensive, labor-saving productivity enhancement makes it incapable of absorbing the country’s massive labor surplus.

Instead, under the new Plan, China will adopt a more labor-intensive services model. It will, one hopes, provide a detailed blueprint for the development of large-scale transactions-intensive industries such as wholesale and retail trade, domestic transport and supply-chain logistics, health care, and leisure and hospitality.

Obviously, a reserve currency would be not only extremely useful, but quite critical in achieving the goal of China’s conversion to an inwardly focused, middle-class reliant society. And even that would not guarantee a smooth transition. However, should China really be on a path to a step function in its evolution, the shocks to the system will be massive. Roach puts this diplomatically as follows:

But there is a catch: in shifting to a more consumption-led dynamic, China will reduce its surplus saving and have less left over to fund the ongoing saving deficits of countries like the US. The possibility of such an asymmetrical global rebalancing – with China taking the lead and the developed world dragging its feet – could be the key unintended consequence of China’s 12th Five-Year Plan.

A less diplomatic version implies that the relationship between China and the US would suffer a seismic shift in which the game theoretical model of Mutual Assured Destruction, and symbiotic monetary and fiscal policies, would no longer exist, allowing China to pursue its fate completely independent of any economic shocks that the increasingly distressed United States may be going through.

And confirming that the PBoC announcement is far more serious than the amount of airtime allotted to it by the mainstream media, is the just released article in Spiegel “China Attacked the Dollar” (google translated):

The Chinese central bank surprised with a spectacular announcement: The would-be superpower wants to handle their entire future foreign trade in yuan, not in dollars. Beijing shakes America’s claim to represent the key currency – with serious consequences for the U.S..

The announcement was inconspicuous , but it has the potential, to permanently change the balance of power on the world currency market: China strengthens the international role of the yuan. All exporters and importers will, this year, be allowed to settle their business with their foreign partners in Yuan, the central bank said on Wednesday in Beijing.

This will respond to the growing importance of the yuan as a global reserve currency. “The market demand for cross-border use of the yuan rises,” said the central bank. The PBoC had previously tested this plan by allowing 67 000 enterprises in 20 provinces to run their business abroad in yuan. The trade volume amounted to the equivalent of €56 billion.

Now the amount of yuan to be extended, it should be handled much more business in Chinese currency – and less in the U.S. Chinese companies trade at present often in dollars, they are thus dependent on the decisions of the U.S. Federal Reserve to pay on it in a rising oil price and will have pay higher transaction fees than necessary. That should change now.

Currently, the People’s Republic can hardly take yuan out of the country and even that is monitored within the boundary of all legitimate capital flows. Chinese exporters have to change a large part of their euro, yen or dollars at a fixed rate revenue in yuan. Foreign companies wishing to do business in China must do so in Yuan, they can exchange their money in the People’s Republic. Tourists are allowed a maximum of 20,000 yuan and exporting. Yuan an international market can not occur – and not on supply and demand-based exchange rate.

Needless to say, should the yuan be seen increasingly as a reserve currency, all of this, and virtually everything else is about to change.

The only question is whether or not the Yuan will cement its status at the top of the currency pyramid by allowing the backing of the currency with individual or a basket of commodities. If that were to happen, it would be the last nail in the coffin of the already terminally ill dollar.