Categories » ‘Banking Fraud’
August 29th, 2015 by olddog
By Joyce Rosenwald
On the night of December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and thereby committed the greatest act of TREASON in history. It surrendered this nation’s sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan international bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer this nation with a money swindle.
The “money” the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It cost them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless “notes” backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the “privilege”.
From 1913 until 1933, the United States paid the “interest” with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired: the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the United States declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources, life) in ever-increasing amounts. This may have been the greatest heist and fraud of all time.
When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty. In 1933 the United States declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt’s Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, confirmed in Perry v. United States, (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L.Ed 912, as well as 31 USC 5112, 5119, and 12 USC 95A. The bankrupt United States went into receivership, reorganized in favor of 115 creditors and new owners.
In 1913, Congress turned over America… lock, stock and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of the United States of America and eliminate this nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world private commercial government, a “New World Order.”
On March 9, 1933 President Roosevelt called for the passing of The WAR POWERS ACT TITLE 12 USC. Section 95 (a) and 95 (b). This act declared all United States Citizens to be the enemy of the United States Government, and placed us under permanent Emergency Rule, bypassing Constitutional constraints on government.
With the Erie R.R. v Tompkins case of 1938, the Supreme Court confirmed their success. We are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom, common law, Article III Courts, and The Bill of Rights has been statutized into “civil rights” in commerce. You have destroyed the Republic. America has been stolen. We have been made slaves, i.e. permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, renderedcommercial “persons,” “residents,” and corporate franchisees known as “citizens of the United States”
Since 1933 what is called the “United States Government” is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/International Monetary Fund. It is merely an instrument whereby the bankers administer their ongoing subjugation and plunder of what was once considered “the last great hope of human freedom.” All “public servants,” officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals – see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 – who have stolen the country by clever, intentional, and unrelenting fraud, trickery, treachery, non-disclosure, miss-representation, intrigue, coercion, conspiracy, murder. If there is a greater tragedy in human history it is hard to know what it is.
An insidious aspect of this is that “officials” like you may think you are “public servants,” are upholding the “law,” or other hoaxes. In truth you are conscientiously and assiduously serving the archenemies of yourselves, your own rights, your fellow citizens, continued human rights, life, and freedom in general. YOU are seditiously administering the plunder, bankruptcy, conquest, destruction, dismantling, and elimination of your country. YOU are systematically defrauding, extorting, impoverishing, and injuring human life on the basis of crimes and lies of such magnitude, depth, and proportions as to be beyond human comprehension.
Now you believe you can sell this nation to foreign powers with the stroke of a pen by Executive Order 12803, April 30, 1992.
By so doing, you are committing TREASON and PERFIDY so immense as “to make the angels weep.” If you and your fellow “officials” do not understand the real situation, you are ignorant, naive, deceived, and conned. You are sheer dupes. If you do know and are parties to it, you are guilty of evil and heinous BETRAYAL. You are in such case TRAITORS and CRIMINALS. All of you “in power” are therefore, either fools or knaves, either of which eminently invalidates your “authority” and renders null and void absolutely all-moral obligation to pay allegiance or to obey the TREASONOUS SYSTEM you enforce with such mechanical viciousness.
If, you, “public servants” had any shred left of humanity, awe, heart, clarity, sanity, access to your true being and conscience, you would instantly resign and do everything possible to inform the American people of their plight and help us retrieve our rights and our country. Only by such means can you even begin to atone for your endless crimes against humanity, the lives you so arrogantly and mindlessly butcher with the “meat-grinder of the law.”
What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their “leaders” who sold them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged “public servants” are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, and ruin of their lives and country?
There is no acceptable excuse for what you have done. You cannot engage in bringing harm to life and, like the Nazi’s defense at Nuremberg, presume that because you do so under the “authority” of an imaginary, abstract, unreal legal fiction called “government” you are freed of the consequences of your acts. Moral and natural law are not obviated by ignorance, hubris and self-righteous militancy. Your entire system – from the ground up – is deceit and fraud. It is illicit in essence and ab initio. As Broom’s Maxims 297, 729 put it: “A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.” Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color of the cloth one wears cannot cover up the usurpations, lies, and treachery. “When black is fraudulently declared to be white, not all will live in darkness.”
More and more Americans are awakening to the truth. What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their “leaders” who sold them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged “public servants” are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, ruin and destruction of their lives and country? Thomas Jefferson wrote: “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.” Lincoln said: “Just as I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master.”
I will not participate in your corrupt, arrogant, and cruel fraud, either as perpetrator or victim. I will no longer sit here and writhe. The TYRANNY over this nation MUST END! End Emergency Rule. Repeal all laws passed under Emergency Rule. Give us back our substance and our law. Give us back our Republican form of government.
If you continue with this course, you will have natural and moral law and higher powers to answer to, not to mention all those you have wronged under color of law. You will have your own laws turned against you, as you have turned the law against us. To transform the shield of protection into a sword of exploitation, subjugation, and plunder is perfidy. I am an American. My destiny is to live as a freeman on the land my forefathers conquered and that I will fight to keep.
You have now been placed on notice. All further actions on your part will be willful!
Resolutely, from an American who demands their country back
See also Parens Patriae – Government as Parent
Joyce Rosenwald died in July 2011. While her web site has disappeared, Angela Stark of My Private Audio has maintained a web page in her honor which includes an excellent interview with Joyce as well as some of her research. Joyce lived in California and exposed some really important facts regarding the STATE OF CALIFORNIA and its judges. Web page for Joyce Rosenwald
August 24th, 2015 by olddog
THE REPUBLIC STANDS! IT IS THE CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE AN ILLUSION. THE CORPORATIONS DO NOT EVEN LAWFULLY EXIST! THEY ARE THE PRODUCT OF FRAUD ON THE PEOPLE.
FRAUD NEGATES EVERYTHING!
TIME TO JUST ARREST AND PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL IMPERSONATORS.
- HOW LONG WILL THE PEOPLE REMAIN IGNORANT TO THIS?
The impostors would have you believe differently. Who do you believe?
The enemies of freedom?
Welcome to the Phantom of the United States Corporation… It is all Theater. An illusion!
ASIDE FROM THAT MAJOR POINT, MR. MAHNKE SEEMS TO BE CORRECT!
On Aug 23, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Dan Mahnke <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
We The People, Sheriffs, and Larry Klayman,
As long as the Corporations that are in control of your city, county, and State Governments still make the rules and regulations to support the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are to disregard the Original 13th Amendment, for to disallow Nobility to Government Officials, when Virginia did Ratify it with its own laws in 1819, and the Corrupt Governments have even the War of 1812 to hide it, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as the United States is still under Martial Law from 1862, by Congressional Agreement and kept Quiet to the People, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to comply with the Orders of a Corporation that was voted into Law to be your Government by an Unconstitutional Congress, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to comply with contracts for which you have no knowledge of even signing them, yet you are to accept them as voluntarily signing them, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are an Official United States citizen and NOT an American State Citizen, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to file the Proper Government Forms and in the correct order to remove yourself as an Official United States citizen to become Sovereign, when it was Congress or the people that voted into laws to make you NOT Sovereign, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to pay the Income Tax to the IRS for a Truly NON-Ratified 16th Amendment, which 100% of the funds go to your IRS of Puerto Rico, the City of London, the Vatican, and the Rothschilds, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People are Required to fill out forms and have personal Licenses of any kind to be in the 50 States, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People were made Collateral for the Bankrupt THE UNITED STATES, INC. with the HJR 192 of JUNE 5, 1933, for which ALL Your Debts were to be Paid For as you became their Credit, yet you are prohibited to claim that except for a Bank Signature for which the Banks are allowed to Receive Money Out Of Thin Air, and Law Enforcement fails to take actions, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People that are convicted of a Crime and the Judges of the Profit making BAR Association can have you fill out a form for the Courts to Receive the Treasury Direct Account funds, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as a President has made an Executive Order to claim you People as Human Capital for which their Corporations have control, and thus you are a Slave, then We The People have NO Republic.
As long as you People cannot get up to 1% of your population to take actions against the Government Corporations, then We The People have NO Republic.
The population of 30,000 in a city only needs 300 people to wake the rest up to inform them that Treason has been going on for over 200 Years.
The population of 300,000 in a county only needs 3,000 people, only 10 cities of those size, to wake the rest up to inform them that Treason has been going on for over 200 Years.
The population of 3,000,000 in a State only needs 30,000 people, only 10 counties of those size, to wake the rest up to inform them that Treason has been going on for over 200 Years.
By this time for the population of 300,000,000 in the USA there should be enough of you only needing 3,000,000 people to cover the country to wake the rest up for; the Republic for the united States of America to be established and NOT a Public Vote to decide it.
Are you going to be the one that Steps Up To The Plate to take action to get the Republic back, or are you going to approve of the possible New World Order that may be Mentioned in September?
Live Affidavit to: Common Law Citizen’s Grand Jury HQ and John Daresh
Proposing the Original 13th Amendment
Lincoln Starts With 37th Congress, 1861
Martial Law Instigated, 1862
Organic Act of 1871
Trading with the enemy Act, 1917
House Joint Resolution 192 of JUNE 5, 1933
Executive Order 13037, 1997 (Slavery)
August 21st, 2015 by olddog
The ‘Asset Development Plan’ for Greece is out and it’s all go for the privatization of the country. Hellenic sea ports, air ports, motorways, petroleum companies, water and gas supply, real estate, holiday resorts – it’s all for sale……………………. Is America Next?
© FLICKR/ MELISSA MAPLES
Occupy Greece: Germany Wins Bid to Run Regional Airports
Debt laden Greece has been forced to sell the family silver in an all too familiar tale with ancient history repeating itself.
The Hellenic Public Asset Development Fund has been published by German Green MEP Sven Giegold who said the Greek people “hardly know” what will be sold off and that they have “the right” to know.
The selling of Greek assets to raise $56 billion (€50bn) was demanded by Greece’s creditors, the Troika. The document reveals that 66 percent of a gas distribution and processing firm will be sold to Azerbaijan; 35 percent of Greece’s first oil refinery firm will be sold off along with 17 percent of its electricity distributor and 65 percent of gas distributor Depa.
All rail and bus services will go under the hammer — along with the Greek telephone and postal service.
Even before the bailout deal was completed and the money arrived safely in the Greek banks, the Germans had won their bid to take over 14 Greek airports for the next 40 years, paying $1.36 billion (€1.23bn) for the privilege.
FRAPORT will own and operate Greece’s most popular tourist island airports.
Of the $56 billion (€50bn) needed in asset stripping and bank shares, only $8.69 billion (€7.7bn) has been agreed so far.
Nick Dearden, economic expert and campaigner, says it makes “no sense to sell off valuable assets in the middle of Europe’s worst depression in 70 years.”
Writing in Global Justice Now, Dearden says: “The vast majority of the funds raised will go back to the creditors in debt repayments, and to the recapitalization of Greek banks.
“From German airport operators and phone companies to French railways — who are getting their hands on Greece’s economy. Not to mention the European investment banks and legal firms who are making a fast buck along the way.
“The self-interest of European governments in forcing these policies on Greece leaves a particularly unpleasant flavor…workers will be sacked and their conditions made worse, while the elite of Europe profits.”
Dearden continues to offer a scathing attack on the asset stripping of Greece.
“Privatization in the context of the bailout accord is tantamount to expropriation, like forcing a bankrupt to sell the family silver in order to pay off debts…the victorious Northern European governments are now inviting their companies to partake in the spoils.”
It seems ancient history is repeating itself.
In 1871, the ancient Greek city of Troy was crudely excavated by German businessman and archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann using dynamite which destroyed many significant artifacts; his exploration methods condemned.
But the spoils of Troy always remained in Schliemann’s hands — who in 1884 handed the entire collection to Berlin. Today’s Greek spoils are in the hands of the Troika which will oversee every deal made and decide where the money goes.
This is the results of the monopoly frenzy that’s been going on all over the world in the last hundred years. Now the major stock holders of the consolidation project (“The International Banking Cartel”) are going to own the majority of world commerce. This is what it’s always been about. Control of the energy, food, natural resources, and currency will give them absolute control of all the people. Those people now planning a family are going to be contributing to slave production. That is, IF they are allowed to reproduce. The only possible recourse we have is to eliminate the Cartel! OR! BEND OVER AMERICA , YOU’RE NEXT!
August 20th, 2015 by olddog
Can anyone stop the overweening lunacy of the banking oligarchs? No more than anyone can stop pythons from devouring rabbits at play. Our bankers are not honorable. They are not farsighted. And they have set in motion forces that no human effort can avert. Moreover they long ago formed a deathly co-op with history’s most deplorable criminal element – the state. This has given them a free pass to indulge in ugly asset corpulence and hideous irresponsibility. It has hidden the true state of their criminality from realization by good men and women. The banking oligarchs and the power they have over us today are the result of a long train of poisonous ideas descending upon the American republic over the past 120 years.
It began with the coming of socialism to Europe and its Fabian migration to America at the turn of the century. Capitalism, the Fabians preached, is the root of all evil with its insistence on gold as money. Its freedom is no longer possible in the modern world. It brings to mankind uncontrollable booms and busts and horrific poverty. There is no cure for capitalism. It must be burnt at the stake of its egregious altar – free banking. Free banking is responsible for wild cycles, and gold stifles productivity when needed. Only by centralizing the great network of free banks that capitalism creates and shifting from rigid gold money to flexible paper money can abundance and stability be brought to modern life. Thus was ushered in America’s reign of “easy money” with the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913.
The Lure of Easy Money
Prior to 1913 we had resisted the lure of easy money, a curse that goes back to early civilization. Governments of history have always partaken in monetary debasement to create the illusion of prosperity. Our Founders realized this and preached against any kind of paper money. But their wisdom lasted only 125 years.
Easy money is like promiscuous sex. The two lures promise sensual delight and prosperity, and they do deliver such for various periods of time to their partakers. But ultimately they erode self-worth (for the female) and degrade the store of value that money represents for society. Bleakness and disaster are their ultimate denouements.
The media of the day, however, were eager to endorse this glorious shangri-la of perpetual prosperity that was sold to them as the Federal Reserve. “All progressive thinkers now realize,” they hammered home to us, “that banking must be centralized and controlled in Washington. Only then can booms and busts be eliminated. Only then can true stable wealth be produced.”
The fact that just the opposite has taken place over the past 100 years of this maniacal experiment in giving to government the power to create money escapes the awareness of pundits on the political left because clarity and reason do not move pundits on the left. Getting more out of life than they are willing to put in moves them. Denying the existence of Natural Law moves them. These two obsessions blind them to the irrational mega-statism that they so ritualistically worship in face of every problem that life thrusts upon us. Their worldview belongs to Alice in Wonderland. Words mean what they want them to mean. Objective reality is optional in their mind.
Because the pundits of the left have been taught the misconceptions of socialism, they fell prey to John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s who believed that capitalism had reached its “mature stage” and would never again be able to “generate sufficient demand.” Thus it needed massive government intervention into banking and the creation of money by those in Washington.
But capitalism has no such thing as a “mature stage.” It is eternally renewable as long as it is left free to recharge itself. The flaw in Keynesianism is that it was not capitalism that brought us the Great Depression; it was government intervention into capitalism via the Federal Reserve and its irresponsible inflation of the money supply that created a massive boom throughout the 1920s that had to eventually crack up and collapse.
All Keynesianism does is to exacerbate the normal cycles of laissez-faire and turn them into dangerous monster cycles via massive injections of credit, i.e., DEBT. If left on a gold standard, this cannot happen. Only the normal cycles of laissez-faire will come about, which quickly self-correct if left alone. Keynesianism is the classic case of government intervention creating economic distortions that it then uses as an excuse for more interventions, which then create more distortions. Eventually the distortions reach epic proportions such as we have today.
The solution is to restore a free market in banking. Take the control of money out of government hands and let the marketplace determine what is to be used. It will always pick gold and silver, which cannot be inflated and thus will not bring about massive booms and busts. Keynes was catastrophically wrong in thinking that gold and the free market caused the Great Depression. The cause was the paper inflation that came from the creation of the Fed in 1913. Numerous Austrian economists have demonstrated this quite brilliantly – Murray Rothbard in America’s Great Depression and Ludwig von Mises in Human Action, for example. It is this crucial mindset that our intelligentsia must grasp if we are to get back to a free society and avoid the New World Order being prepared for us by the banking oligarchs.
The Tragedy of Modernity
Thus the tragedy of modernity. Political collectivists have swept over our country like a plague of infected rats in the days of Black Death. And they are destined to bring the same degree of upheaval to us that came to Europeans in the 14th century because of the rodents infesting their societies. Pathogenicity is not limited solely to physical life. It also plays a very prominent role in ideological life and comprises the evil factor in forming the tidal waves of history that sweep the shores of human endeavor over the millennia. The other side of the equation is that of salubrity and heroism which drive humans toward truth and propriety. Herein lies the great clash of good and evil that we find to be the metaphysical base of all meaning for our lives.
Unfortunately, the pundits of the left like Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman, and talking heads like Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow dominate the scene and are lost in the utter irrationality of their philosophical fundamentals learned long ago in the formative years of their Fabian youth. Together with the equally warped neoconservatives, they control ten times the air space that the American freedom movement controls. Thus the country drifts toward an apocalyptic collapse.
What is coming is the end of the world as we know it. There will be no recovery from the Marxian-Keynesian disease and its vast rodent spawn of minds like Krugman, Friedman, Matthews, Maddow and their 20th-century mentors. There will be only chaotic economic crashes mixed into a steady, drizzling dissolution of culture and hope, prosperity and faith, politics and freedom proceeding from now into an indeterminate future.
But out of every downfall comes the inevitable effort to right the requisites of existence. Humans are seekers of truth in the long run. They desire the good rather than the evil even though they get hypnotized by the latter for long stretches of time. So for those of us who grasp the overwhelming idiocy of the collectivist Weltanschauung, sanity drives us to seek out one of two avenues: 1) drop off the grid and find a safe haven to ride out the coming storm, or 2) attempt to forge a resistance movement to fight the purveyors of what surely will be a Tyrannical World Order foisted upon us by the banking oligarchs in the coming storm. Both avenues have their appeal. One’s particular persona will dictate which is the preferred.
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance scholar/writer in Dallas, Texas and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic, www.afr.org. A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Social Critic, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: NelsonHultberg (at) afr.org
August 19th, 2015 by olddog
By Brandon Smith
The average person is a statist, whether he realizes it or not. It is important that liberty activists recognize and accept this fact because the truth of our limitations as a movement determines the kinds of solutions into which we should ultimately put our time and energy. The fantasy of a final grand march of an awake and aware majority on the doorsteps of power is just that: a fantasy. Some people might argue that given more time, such an event could be organized or could happen spontaneously. But these people seem to forget that the immediacy of any crisis inspires awareness and cuts the bindings of complacency for only a certain percentage of any given population. With “more time” often comes more complacency, not less.
So, history becomes a kind of balancing act, with crisis generating the necessity of intelligent and moral action in some people but rarely, if ever, in most people (even during the American Revolution, in which patriots represented a stark minority). The reason that the culture of freedom consistently plateaus and remains stuck at underdog status is because human beings are, first, often acclimated to the idea that crises are things that only happen to other people, and, second, they are obsessed with the idea that governments should retain prohibitory and administrative power over the public as a means to “prevent” crisis from occurring (the sheepdog and sheep mentality).
Not all people necessarily “love” their current government, but many citizens tend to see the idea of government as an inevitability of a stable society. They assume pre-eminence of the state because they have never known anything else. Not only that, but as people separate into political and ideological factions, often based on false paradigms (such as the false left/right paradigm), they covet government as a kind of tool or weapon that can be used for “the greater good” if only their side had total control of it. Very few people in this world want to shrink government down to a manageable size comparable to that which existed just after the American Revolution, and even fewer would entertain the idea of erasing central governments entirely. The allure of the federalized state as a means to impose ideological control over others is intoxicating.
Central planning acolytes see society as a a single unit, or engine, in which all the people are parts rather than autonomous individuals. They believe that if any part acts outside of the bounds of the engine, the entire machine could break. According to their fuzzy logic, everything you do as an individual affects everyone else, therefore, the collective state must mold and control each individual’s behavior in order to ensure that what you do as a singular person does no harm to the whole. This philosophy is the primary rationale for EVERY push for centralization, but it is based on a faulty premise.
Governments are run by people, people commonly more flawed and corrupt than the average citizen. Central planners adore the use of government as a means to rein in populations and to compel conformity and “oneness”, but centrally planned systems always revert to a divided structure in which a criminal minority separates itself from the collective in order to rule over that collective. The elites actions violate the integrity of the engine as they attempt to drive the engine according to their own twisted ideals, leading to disaster and the end of the supposedly safe environment which the central planners had originally claimed was the benefit of central planning. Thus, the central planning model is an inherently self destructive and foolish one.
At bottom, the only viable purpose of any central government is to safeguard individual liberty. All other claims and supposed benefits are irrelevant. Infrastructure, food and water, health, education, public security, etc: All of these issues can be provided for voluntarily at a local level by common people without the aid of a central authority. The original intent of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was to LIMIT government to the job of ensuring the continuance of a free citizenry. One could certainly argue that that role has been lost; not because of the constitution itself, but because of the lack of vigilance needed to defend the integrity of the constitution. One could also argue that the very nature of a federal government is one of inevitable corruption; many of the founding fathers did as the document was drafted, after all.
I will say that the constitution and the Bill of Rights are representations of natural law and inherent conscience, and it has taken elitists over two centuries to mostly dismantle them. At this point, a complete end to any form of federalization may be called for, but the founders certainly tried their best to create a government system that could be controlled by the people.
It was war, of course, that was used to dismantle constitutional protections…
Most of the outside or foreign threats we face today as a nation (threats often used to rationalize centralized government and standing armies) or have faced in the past century were directly or indirectly CREATED by our own government apparatus and by the banking class through covert means. Funding and training of Americas future enemies has been a grand pastime for the power brokers and politicians that reside in this very country. Without such people and the structures they exploit, it is not outlandish to suggest that the past hundred years could have been a period of peace and prosperity rather than mass death through engineered war, state culling, and mass enslavement through artificial debt constructs.
In a culture where vigilance is encouraged rather than labeled paranoia, in a culture where productivity is enabled rather than obstructed, in a culture where free thought is treated with interest rather than disdain, government holds no value.
The only people who understand the true nature of government and still value the existence of an overreaching state are the people who would like to take advantage of the unchecked power such a state affords. We often call these people “elitists.” They often call themselves elitists. Big government serves only the interests of these elites. Everyone else is either a hapless victim of it, a useful idiot in service of it, or a revolutionary opposed to it.
When a government becomes a power mechanism for a select few, it has lost all relevance. When a government like ours here in America violates the tenets of individual liberty despite its constitutional mandate, in the name of “protecting” individual liberty, that government no longer serves any purpose. Even further, when a government’s policies are designed only to ensure its own continued dominance rather than the freedom and prosperity of the citizenry, that government becomes separate from the people and is, by extension, an enemy to the citizenry.
Governments and the elites behind them retain control over populations through the use of central planning. Central planning is essentially a bureaucratic structure that bottlenecks productivity, resources, academia and ideas until all progress and expression require approval. That is to say, central planning is a machine that turns rights into privileges. It also sets up bureaucracy as the final arbiter of who is considered an authority in any particular field and who is a “layman.” These designations are not based on individual ability, intelligence or accomplishment. Rather, they are based on subservience and the level of blind faith in the establishment each person is willing to display in order to attain professional status.
Some of the most ignorant people in any given field or profession are often those deemed “experts” by establishment institutions, from politics, to law, to medicine, to economics, to science, to history, etc. The sad fact is mainstream experts are rarely the most knowledgeable, but they are the most indoctrinated.
As central planning gains ground, it moves away from more subtle institutional dependencies into full-bore tyranny. The line between permission and despotism is razor-thin, and this is where we in the U.S. stand today. Most nations around the globe are socialized nations, with central planning as the very foundation on which their societies stand. For the most part, these cultures are disarmed and servile with a modicum of perceived freedom that is treated as a privilege granted by the state rather than an inborn right of natural law. Yes, many societies have “freedoms,” as America does; but the difference is that these societies can have their freedoms confiscated at any given moment on the whim of the political elite. They have no recourse to obstruct such an action and no power to remove the offending system that rules over them when they finally get fed up.
In the U.S., central planning is surely prevalent and socialization is on a fast track. But Americans, whether they know it or not, still retain the ability of independent response — as we saw at Bundy Ranch, for instance, or in the defense of shopkeepers in Ferguson, Missouri, despite threats from government. We will lose our advantage of independent action if we allow the following changes to occur within our culture without a fight.
A disarmed population is utterly useless, philosophically and organizationally impotent, and easily ruled. Take a look at simpering weakling societies like the U.K., which prohibits anyone under the age of 18 to purchase plastic knives and punishes victims of crime for physically defending themselves. Governments that seek to undermine personal liberty ALWAYS disarm their respective populations if they can get away with it. In America, the only reason we have not yet been disarmed is because the establishment understands that revolution would immediately follow any attempt and that revolution would be seen as justified. I believe ultimately that disarmament in the U.S. will not be fully attempted until after a national crisis has been triggered.
Centralized Health Standards
The real purpose of Obamacare was not to provide universal health insurance. Such a task is utterly impossible in an economic system that is in the midst of decline with an aging population and reduced profit opportunities for the young. Socialism works only as long as there is someone from whom to steal money and resources. No, the purpose of Obamacare was to bond the healthcare industry to government in such a way as to make it an official appendage of the state.
Already, we have seen the push for the use of doctors as government informants, the issuance of forced vaccinations regardless of religious orientation or philosophical objection, increased taxation in the name of “harmonization” of care, etc. Beyond all this, the system must continue to perpetuate its own usefulness. And, I have no doubt that one day we will see such things as mandated health appraisals of individuals up to and including psychological health, as well as restricted care based on age, life habits or even ideological orientation. If the state can have your flight status restricted merely for your political beliefs, then why not one day have your access to medical care restricted?
We have heard it said many times that people should be required to attain a “license” before they are allowed to have children, but who gets to decide who is eligible for the “privilege” of children? Well, under a population planning scenario the state and its central planners do, of course. And what makes such people so ethically competent as to deserve this power over the right to family? Not a thing. In many cases, bureaucrats are the most psychopathic and unintelligent people in any given society.
Some people might argue that this kind of development is unthinkable in America and not a legitimate concern. But already in the U.S. we have seen instances of Child Protective Services abducting children belonging to parents with political conflicts with the existing establishment and living habits outside of the mainstream. We also live in a system in which many parents are forced by law to hand over their children to state-controlled schools for half of every weekday (as home-schoolers are attacked as aberrant child abusers). We are only a short step away from a world in which having a child invites as much government intrusion and restriction as rearing a child.
Overt Militarization Of Police
Yes, many people would claim that overt militarization of police has already occurred. I would say that they haven’t seen anything yet. We do not yet live in a country where jacked out cops with armor and M4 carbines stand on every street corner 24/7, but it won’t be long before this becomes our everyday environment. With politicians openly suggesting extreme measures to combat “lone wolf terrorists,” up to and including internment camps for “disloyal Americans” (thanks for at least being honest about your intentions, Wesley Clark), all it would take is one large-scale attack to inspire enough confusion in the population to provide cover for a full-blown police state. Central planning survives and thrives through fear. Fear is defeated through preparedness, planning and mindset.
A person cannot plan or prepare for crisis if he is not allowed to manage his own resources. In Venezuela today, the government has locked down all food production and is rationing out necessary supplies through sophisticated electronic tracking due to economic crisis. Make no mistake, America is just as vulnerable to financial disaster as any Third World nation, if not more so. Resource management will be the inevitable result. In fact, the Obama administration has already positioned itself for resource management through his National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order. Government officials will call preppers “hoarders” and argue that no one person should be allowed to have more than he needs. Once again, the argument will be that the self preservation mentality of individuals actually harms the collective.
We already have a centralized and socialized economy for the most part, but private trade and production are still possible. Central planning is designed to wipe out alternative forms of trade and subsistence so that all people can be made dependent on the singular state. As in Venezuela, we should expect that economic declines will be used as a rationale for a clampdown on individual trade. The only way to fight these kinds of measures is for average people to become avid producers and be willing to fight back physically against confiscation and government-controlled rationing.
Beyond trade controls, centralization will culminate in economic “harmony” through multilateral currency schemes, ending in a one-world currency. A single currency system by default calls for a single economic authority, and this by default calls for a single political authority. A one-world currency is not only a fiscal coup for central planners; it is also a stepping stone toward world government.
A cashless system is a kind of unholy grail for central planners because it allows for total control of economic trade. Electronic-based currency systems can be dictated from the comfort of a computer, and savings can be erased or limited arbitrarily. Cashless systems also allow banking structures to operate without the normal consequences of supply and demand fundamentals. Today, even in our massively corrupt financial system, one cannot get around the concrete effects of diminishing demand, endless debt obligations and criminal fiat creation. We are seeing these effects vividly so far in 2015, just as we saw then in 2008. In a completely cashless system, though, debts can vanish, capital can be stolen and shifted away from the public in a more precise manner, taxes can be excised without waiting for taxpayers to comply, and demand can be artificially generated with digital fiat directed to the correct accounts without any trail to follow.
Of course, there will be damages. But, those damages will be foisted upon the general public incrementally until Third World living standards become normal, and no one will be the wiser after a couple of generations. Control of the population would be absolute, while any dissent could be met with immediate financial reprisal, as activists are sentenced to starvation.
The examples listed above may be measured as extreme, but every single one has support within our existing government structure either legally or through actual programs already being implemented. The speed at which they might occur is an unknown, but the desire for them by central planners is absolutely certain. There is no good or benevolent form of central planning. There is no scenario in which the system will not be abused because such power concentrated in the hands of any group of human beings invites abuse. Therefore, the only prudent course, the only solution to the absolute terror of complete state power, is to reduce government down to a shell of its current size or to remove its existence entirely and focus on localized systems and independent trade and infrastructure development. If the federalized state as an edifice no longer exists, then it can no longer be exploited by evil people.
Alt-Market is currently running our annual Summer Donation Drive!
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here. We greatly appreciate your patronage.
You can contact Brandon Smith at: email@example.com
August 18th, 2015 by olddog
Posted on http://olddogsletters.blogspot.com/ Friday, November 28, 2008 by OldDog
Those who believe the U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land are just as delusional as those who believe America has free and honest markets.
The Constitution is selectively enforced by government corporations, acting in obedience to the international bankers, just as our founding fathers predicted.
American’s are totally beguiled by THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION, which is a Washington D.C. Corporation acting as elected politicians, with the sole objective of draining America of its natural resources, devaluing its currency through the excessive accumulation of national, and personal debt, and indoctrinating each generation into a dependency on the government to solve their problems, and take care of them.
Our present concern is for getting arrested for not obeying all the un-constitutional laws being passed by a rogue Congress, preserving the ability to earn a living, and stopping the transformation to a Global Electronic Currency, and Global Government.
As each generation of indoctrinated children mature, and each generation of self reliant individuals die off, America becomes a nation of intellectual cowards who obediently accept economic slavery.
Communitarianism then becomes America’s GOD, technology will no longer be needed to update character databases, and personal freedom will no longer be desired. Americans will be happy slaves!
I started researching on American sovereignty in 2004, and in 2008 I started a blog named http://inpursuitoffreedom.blogspot.com/ then shortly after that I started http://olddogsletters.blogspot.com/ then I started http://anationbeguiled.com/ and https://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/ as a backup, and even with the proliferation of other patriot web-sites over these eleven years, the vast majority of American citizens still don’t have a clue about the real state of the union. They don’t know that America is NOT a sovereign Nation of Independent States, they don’t know that their brain washed children went off to Profit making wars and died for the International Banking Cartel, they don’t know that they are listed as assets, and not as free living persons, or their personal possessions like houses, cars, trucks, and bank and saving accounts are not their own private possessions, and this is just the short list of how they have been robbed, raped, and mutilated! Will someone please tell me just what the hell it takes to reach their little minds? Are the majority of my fellow Americans so stupid they have no survival instinct? No Pride! No Rage for having been beguiled their entire life! Is one hour of daily reading too much of a burden? If that is too much, will you at least read one 276 page book? I have been trying to make sense of the fiasco in America for several years and re-publishing articles showing the vast number of un-constitutional actions preventing us from enjoying a Constitutional Government. Finally I found a Retired Lady Judge through http://scannedretina.com/ (Anna von Reitz) in Alaska and discovered her book which brings all the pieces of the puzzle together. This book will change your life and help you understand the degree of tyranny you have suffered. It is available here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong When/dp/1491279184
You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause.
Paperback – June 14, 2015
August 17th, 2015 by olddog
By Philippe Gastonne
This Saturday marks one full year since the US military began its still-undeclared war against Islamic State that the government officials openly acknowledge will last indefinitely. What do we have to show for it? So far, billions of dollars have been spent, thousands of bombs have been dropped, hundreds of civilians have been killed and Isis is no weaker than it was last August, when the airstrikes began.
But don’t take it from me – that’s the conclusion of the US intelligence community itself. As the Associated Press reported a few days ago, the consensus view of the US intelligence agencies is that Isis is just as powerful as it was a year ago, and they can replace fighters faster than they are getting killed.
Like it does for every stagnant and endless war, this inconvenient fact will likely will only lead others to call for more killing, rather than an introspection on why continuing to bomb the same region for decades does not actually work. Perhaps we’re not firing missiles at a high enough rate, they’ll say, perhaps we need a full-scale ground invasion, or perhaps we need to kill more civilians to really damage the enemy. – The Guardian, Aug. 8, 2015
Like the proverbial frog in a kettle, the American public is almost completely unaware that its president is waging an illegal war. President Obama has been spending American blood and treasure in and around Syria for a full year now.
Whether attacking the Islamic State is necessary or advisable is beside the point. The War Powers Resolution clearly requires the president to withdraw from hostilities within 60 days unless Congress consents. It has not.
The administration contends that the 2001 authorization for military force against al Qaeda gives it authority to attack the Islamic State as an allied force. Yet al Qaeda and Islamic State are not even remotely allied. They are bitter enemies, in fact. By bombing the Islamic State, the U.S. is actually helping al Qaeda.
Why does Congress not defend its prerogative? Because our representatives and senators are cowards. Taking a vote would mean taking a stand, either for or against the action. The members fear (correctly) that opponents will use this stand against them in subsequent elections. Dodging responsibility is far easier. They retain the option to either claim credit or blame Obama, whichever is more expedient.
Keep in mind, this same Congress claims Obama has overstepped his authority in other areas and has taken many symbolic votes to prove it. They have filed lawsuits against him on matters far less serious than an illegal war. Yet in this case, they are happy to let him keep bombing. Why?
The real answer is that war is very profitable. The Pentagon must replace the expended weaponry, buy parts for its aircraft and pay contractors for all sorts of tasks. One man’s waste is another man’s profit margin. Those who profit from U.S. military action use their influence to make sure it continues.
War is a racket. It always has been and will always be so. The racketeers succeed because they have help from a cowardly Congress and a public obsessed with its bread and circuses.
Any Nation obsessed with immorality, diversity, self-centeredness, and cowardice will not survive if WAR is their only attribute. Sadly, America is at the point of imminent destruction and no-one seems to care enough to stand up and publically declare the right to reorganize its own Government. Let it be clear that we were given that right the second we were born, so why are you standing on the tracks while waiting on the train? I don’t mean to say that every person has the ability to be a leader, and to be honest a real leader is few and far between, but if the majority do not believe that the present danger exist, that capable person is certainly intelligent enough to avoid certain death. My fellow Americans, unless you find a capable person to rally around and pledge your life to protecting him/her, and show the deadheads you will die for your freedom from economic tyranny and immorality then you most certainly will have to accept slavery FOREVER! It could begin by finding a capable Governor for each State who can organize a resistance in his/her own State against the tyrannical Corporation in D.C. and together compose a new contract between each State, and then appoint potential candidates for protector of the contract. We don’t need an all powerful nation to show the world our strength, all we need is to be a good neighbor. That begins by EDUCATING THE PEOPLE and being honest with ourselves.
August 12th, 2015 by olddog
By John Whitehead
Being a citizen in the American corporate state is much like playing against a stacked deck: you’re always going to lose.
The game is rigged, and “we the people” keep getting dealt the same losing hand. Even so, most stay in the game, against all odds, trusting that their luck will change.
The problem, of course, is that luck will not save us. As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the people dealing the cards—the politicians, the corporations, the judges, the prosecutors, the police, the bureaucrats, the military, the media, etc.—have only one prevailing concern, and that is to maintain their power and control over the citizenry, while milking us of our money and possessions.
It really doesn’t matter what you call them—Republicans, Democrats, the 1%, the elite, the controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that while they are dealing the cards, the deck will always be stacked in their favor.
Incredibly, no matter how many times we see this played out, Americans continue to naively buy into the idea that politics matter, as if there really were a difference between the Republicans and Democrats (there’s not).
As if Barack Obama proved to be any different from George W. Bush (he has not). As if Hillary Clinton’s values are any different from Donald Trump’s (with both of them, money talks). As if when we elect a president, we’re getting someone who truly represents “we the people” rather than the corporate state (in fact, in the oligarchy that is the American police state, an elite group of wealthy donors is calling the shots).
Politics is a game, a joke, a hustle, a con, a distraction, a spectacle, a sport, and for many devout Americans, a religion.
In other words, it’s a sophisticated ruse aimed at keeping us divided and fighting over two parties whose priorities are exactly the same. It’s no secret that both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.
Most of all, both parties enjoy an intimate, incestuous history with each other and with the moneyed elite that rule this country. Don’t be fooled by the smear campaigns and name-calling. They’re just useful tactics of the psychology of hate that has been proven to engage voters and increase voter turnout while keeping us at each other’s throats.
Despite the jabs the candidates volley at each other for the benefit of the cameras, they’re a relatively chummy bunch away from the spotlight, presenting each other with awards (remember when Jeb Bush presented Hillary Clinton with a Liberty Medal for her service to the country), attending each other’s weddings (Bill and Hillary had front-row seats for Trump’s 2005 wedding), and embracing with genuine affection.
Trump’s various donations to the Clintons (he donated to Hillary’s Senate campaigns, as well as the Clinton Foundation) are not unusual. Remember, FOX News mogul Rupert Murdoch actually hosted a fundraiser for Hillary’s Senate reelection campaign back in 2006 and contributed to her presidential campaign two years later. In fact, FOX News has reportedly been one of Hillary’s biggest donors for the better part of two decades.
Are you starting to get the picture? It doesn’t matter who wins the White House, because they all work for the same boss: Corporate America. In fact, many corporations actually hedge their bets on who will win the White House by splitting their donations between Democratic and Republican candidates.
We’re in trouble, folks, and picking a new president won’t save us.
Just consider how insidious, incestuous and beholden to the corporate elite the various “parts” of the government mechanism have become.
Congress. Perhaps the most notorious offenders and most obvious culprits in the creation of the corporate-state, Congress has proven itself to be both inept and avaricious, oblivious champions of an authoritarian system that is systematically dismantling their constituents’ fundamental rights. Long before they’re elected, Congressmen are trained to dance to the tune of their wealthy benefactors, so much so that they spend two-thirds of their time in office raising money.
The President. With the 2016 presidential election shaping up to be the most expensive one in our nation’s history, with estimates as high as $10 billion, “the way is open for an orgy of spending by well-heeled interest groups and super rich individuals on both political sides.” Yet even after the votes have been counted and favors tallied, the work of buying and selling access to the White House is far from over. Such access comes with a steep price tag.
The Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court—once the last refuge of justice, the one governmental body really capable of rolling back the slowly emerging tyranny enveloping America—has instead become the champion of the American police state, absolving government and corporate officials of their crimes while relentlessly punishing the average American for exercising his or her rights. Indeed, law professor Erwin Chemerinsky makes a compelling case that the Supreme Court, whose “justices have overwhelmingly come from positions of privilege,” almost unerringly throughout its history, sides with the wealthy, the privileged, and the powerful.
The Media. Of course, this triumvirate of total control would be completely ineffective without a propaganda machine provided by the world’s largest corporations. Besides shoving drivel down our throats at every possible moment, the so-called news agencies which are supposed to act as bulwarks against government propaganda have instead become the mouthpieces of the state. The pundits which pollute our airwaves are at best court jesters and at worst propagandists for the false reality created by the American government.
The American People. “We the people” now belong to a permanent underclass in America. It doesn’t matter what you call us—chattel, slaves, worker bees, drones, it’s all the same—what matters is that we are expected to march in lockstep with and submit to the will of the state in all matters, public and private. Through our complicity in matters large and small, we have allowed an out-of-control corporate-state apparatus to take over every element of American society.
Our failure to remain informed about what is taking place in our government, to know and exercise our rights, to vocally protest, to demand accountability on the part of our government representatives and at a minimum to care about the plight of our fellow Americans has been our downfall.
Now we find ourselves once again caught up in the spectacle of another presidential election, and once again the majority of Americans is acting as if this election will make a difference and bring about change—as if the new boss will be any different from the old boss.
Come on John, admit it you’re working both sides of the table until you give up your bar credentials. You are also laying a smoke screen between what you call Corporate America and the International Investment Banking Cartel. How about publishing all of their names and the hierarchy ranking.
August 8th, 2015 by olddog
By Washington’s Blog / globalresearch.ca
Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike
Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):
In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?
Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.
For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.
Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed
Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.
As historian Doug Long notes:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).
Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):
The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):
In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.
Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?
If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:
On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”
However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.
Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:
“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.
Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:
We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).
The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.
The Real Explanation?
In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reported in 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”
[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
John Pilger points out:
The US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.
We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:
Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
With what has been learned about the power of the International Banking Cartel, who in their right mind would doubt they controlled the Political Powers who committed this unspeakable scourge on humanity? Only when people world wide understand how and why humanity has been beguiled will they rise up and demand these monsters be burned at the stake. They are the purest form of evil, and deserve unspeakable deaths. Likewise, the Popes who have participated in the destruction of Christianity should surely be acknowledged as the Bankers assistants. Enlighten yourself and ACCEPT THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY!
August 4th, 2015 by olddog
By Richard Ebeling
Many forms of personal liberty are under attack today, from economic regulations that hinder people from their peaceful pursuits of earning a living and improving the material conditions of life to an increasingly intrusive surveillance state that seems to follow every step we make and every breath we take.
Equally disturbing is the extent to which too many Americans have become desensitized and indifferent to this growth in the size and scope of government. Around this Fourth of July time of the year, after the hotdogs and burgers have been grilled and eaten and the evening firework displays have been enjoyed, it is worth remembering the meaning and significance of this holiday.
The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
The Declaration of Independence, proclaimed by members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, is the founding document of the American experiment in free government. What is too often forgotten is that what the Founding Fathers argued against in the Declaration was the heavy and intrusive hand of big government.
Most Americans easily recall those eloquent words with which the Founding Fathers expressed the basis of their claim for independence from Great Britain in 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But what is usually not recalled is the long list of enumerated grievances that make up most of the text of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers explained how intolerable an absolutist and highly centralized government in faraway London had become. This distant government violated the personal and civil liberties of the people living in the 13 colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America.
Grievances Against the Crown’s Economic Controls
In addition, the king’s ministers imposed rigid and oppressive economic regulations and controls on the colonists that was part of the 18th-century system of government central planning known as mercantilism.
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” the signers declared.
Concentrating Power in the Hands of Government
At every turn, the British Crown had concentrated political power and decision-making in its own hands, leaving the American colonists with little ability to manage their own affairs through local and state governments. Laws and rules were imposed without the consent of the governed; local laws and procedures meant to limit abusive or arbitrary government were abrogated or ignored.
The king also had attempted to manipulate the legal system by arbitrarily appointing judges that shared his power-lusting purposes or were open to being influenced to serve the monarch’s policy goals. The king’s officials unjustly placed colonists under arrest in violation of writ of habeas corpus, and sentenced them to prison without trial by jury. Colonists often were violently conscripted to serve in the king’s armed forces and made to fight in foreign wars.
A financially burdensome standing army was imposed on the colonists without the consent of the local legislatures. Soldiers often were quartered among the homes of the colonists without their approval or permission.
In addition, the authors of the Declaration stated, the king fostered civil unrest by creating tensions and conflicts among the different ethnic groups in his colonial domain (the English settlers and the Native American Indian tribes).
But what was at the heart of many of their complaints and grievances against King George III were the economic controls that limited their freedom and the taxes imposed that confiscated their wealth and honestly earned income.
Governmental Controls at Every Turn
The fundamental premise behind the mercantilist planning system was the idea that it was the duty and responsibility of the government to manage and direct the economic affairs of society. The British Crown shackled the commercial activities of the colonists with a spider’s web of regulations and restrictions. The British government told them what they could produce, and dictated the resources and the technologies that could be employed. The government prevented the free market from setting prices and wages, and manipulated what goods would be available to the colonial consumers. It dictated what goods might be imported or exported between the 13 colonies and the rest of the world, thus preventing the colonists from benefiting from the gains that could have been theirs under free trade.
Everywhere, the king appointed various “czars” who were to control and command much of the people’s daily affairs of earning a living. Layer after layer of new bureaucracies were imposed over every facet of life. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” the Founding Fathers explain.
In addition, the king and his government imposed taxes upon the colonists without their consent. Their income was taxed to finance expensive and growing projects that the king wanted and that he thought was good for the people, whether the people themselves wanted them or not.
The 1760s and early 1770s saw a series of royal taxes that burdened the American colonists and aroused their ire: the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773 (which resulted in the Boston Tea Party) and a wide variety of other fiscal impositions.
The American colonists often were extremely creative at avoiding and evading the Crown’s regulations and taxes through smuggling and bribery. (Paul Revere smuggled Boston pewter into the West Indies in exchange for contraband molasses.)
The British government’s response to the American colonists’ “civil disobedience” against their regulations and taxes was harsh. The king’s army and navy killed civilians and wantonly ruined people’s private property. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people,” the Declaration laments.
Defending Freedom as the Last Resort Against Tyranny
After enumerating these and other complaints, the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration:
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Thus, the momentous step was taken to declare their independence from the British Crown. The signers of the Declaration then did “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” in their common cause of establishing a free government and the individual liberty of the, then, three million occupants of those original 13 colonies.
Never before in history had a people declared and then established a government based on the principles of the individual’s right to his life, liberty and property. Never before was a society founded on the ideal of economic freedom, under which free men may peacefully produce and exchange with each other on the terms they find mutually beneficial without the stranglehold of regulating and planning government.
Never before had a people made clear that self-government meant not only the right of electing those who would hold political office and pass the laws of the land, but also meant that each human being had the right to be self-governing over his own life. Indeed, in those inspiring words in the Declaration, the Founding Fathers were insisting that each man should be considered as owning himself, and not be viewed as the property of the state to be manipulated by either king or Parliament.
It is worth remembering, therefore, that what we celebrate every July 4 is the idea and the ideal of each human being’s right to his life and liberty, and his freedom to pursue happiness in his own way, without paternalistic and plundering government getting in his way.
Dr. Richard Ebeling is the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. He was professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan (2009-2014). He served as president of the Foundation for Economic Education (2003-2008) and held the Ludwig von Mises Chair in Economics at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan (1988-2003).
How repulsively sad it is that so few in America are willing to die for this kind of governance. It is also repulsively sad that the first declaration of Independence turned out to be a bold face lie. It was just another atrocity by the incredibly greedy Investment Bankers who surreptitiously used human nature to enslave millions of unsuspecting Americans. That’s right folks, our fore fathers swallowed the rhetoric hook line and sinker, just as we have done via government control of education and media sources. The real truth is; they and all future generations were enslaved by legal methods too complicated to be believable, and remain so. Don’t believe me? Please read YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN…. “An American Affidavit of Probable Cause” By Anna Maria Riezinger & James Clinton Belcher
OLDDOGS AMAZON REVIEW ON: YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG WHEN….
Anna and James should receive National support for this gift to America. Now there is no excuse to continue supporting the political system that enslaves us, and every reader should make it a personal obligation to promote this work. I envision a hundred million people reading this book over and over until they can recite verbatim the skulduggery used to rob, rape, and pillage millions of unsuspecting Americas; not to mention the trillions of dollars these Tyrant Bankers have made from our ignorance. This fiasco is akin to a Preacher in a mega Church raping the women thereof and getting away with it for years, because they had so much faith in him. I will demand every family member and friend read this magnificent piece of research. More praise and info on this book will continue to be available at http://scannedretina.com/ and http://anationbeguiled.com
August 1st, 2015 by olddog
Grand Juries Not So Grand
In the beginning, back about 1215 AD in Europe, grand juries were comprised of 25 good and honorable men who stood as a shield to protect the people from corrupt bureaucrats and overly-aggressive prosecutors; and a sword to bring wrongdoers to justice.
Fast-forward to the beginning of the 1900s in America: grand juries stood as an obstacle to the greed and corruption of the legal profession and their co-conspirators, the judiciary (sometimes referred to lawyers on steroids). With a little help from their other partners in crime, lawyer/legislators, statutes were passed, gradually bringing grand juries under control of the courts and the state attorneys, and away from any effective connection with the People. ‘Can’t have all them little people running around thinkin’ for themselves, now, can we?’
Today, Grand Juries are a plaything, a rubber stamp, for state attorneys, paying nothing more than lip service to our Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…” An infamous crime being any infraction that could result in loss of property or liberty (fines or jail).
Anything less than a grand jury review is obstruction of justice and lack of due process.
“If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
Which pretty much sums up where we are—garbage in, garbage out. A
grand jury can only consider the information they receive. If the court determines who is on the grand jury, and the state attorney decides information they receive, the results are 99.9%, the state attorney gets what he wants.
How does that serve the People? Obviously it can’t.
So, what can we do about it?
It would be pretty good to have a place to go where someone will listen to your concern and actually has the power to do something about it.
First let’s find out who has the power. According to the Constitution, “All power derives from the People.” So that would lead us to believe the People have the power. Second, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” –Tenth Amendment.
Since there are no provisions for the federal government to control grand juries, that leaves the states or the People to decide.
When the states decide (and many states simply decided to do away with grand juries) their decisions are always on the side of what best benefits Bar Association members.
That leaves the People—remember, the ones with the power? Some People decided, enough is enough and are joining a rapidly-growing trend by setting up their own grand juries. Some call themselves Citizen Grand Jury, others Common Law Grand Jury, or The People’s Grand Jury. Regardless the name, the purpose and process is much the same: secrecy of deliberations, independence of influence, and, self-managed, of, by, and for the People.
This may not be the answer to all our problems, but it’s a really good start. For more info: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello from James P. Harvey aka Olddog,
http://anationbeguiled.com and http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com
Not having the education or intellect to properly investigate, research, and write my own articles I have resorted to re-publishing the works of my betters as the only course of action I can control. Please reflect on the word control, because as I see it a citizens Grand Jury is, and will remain impotent unless they acquire the power to convict and control the verdict, and an educated public supports them.
Please inform me of who would enforce a Grand Jury conviction, as I stand ready to give my life to reverse the tyranny of our government.
I will be 75 on 10-19-15 and live with a rage that only the very best word-smith could elucidate. My former ignorance of the real state of the Union was much more comfortable to live with.
I commend you and all who want freedom from tyrannical governance, but the very best minds have designed this state of affairs and presently have the muscle to enforce their decisions, while we dream of revenge. Our results so far can only be compared to intellectual masturbation.
From: Jury Foreman [email@example.com]
Subject: Re: Grand Juries not so Grand
Attachments: Grand Jury Authority.doc
There is nothing wrong with your ability to express yourself, Sir, you do quite well, and I thank you for your kind words. To be clear, Sol Wachtler was a New York prosecutor credited with making the ‘ham sandwich’ statement. I wrote the article, but because of my direct involvement in the Grand Jury, I use a pen name to deflect attention.
Enforcement of our presentments or True Bills is in the domain of the state attorney or law enforcement office. For a public official to ignore notification of convincing evidence a crime has occurred makes them susceptible to charges of obstruction, malfeasance of office, misprision of felony, violation of oath of office, ad infinitum.
We use their statutes to enforce our laws. See attached. If there is anything else I can answer, I welcome your communications, anytime. Also, if you want to form your own People’s Grand Jury in your county, let us know.
As you can see by the conversation above, I was convinced there was nothing we could accomplish besides exposing juries to civil retribution. But things have recently changed with new information received. Retired Judge Anna Maria Retzinger and James Clinton Snover have authored a book explaining the sequence of events that was used to enslave we the people and now the real accumulation of power can commence. Once we have a hundred million people read and understand the Real State of the Union which will happen as they read this book, then we will have a force so powerful, freedom can be obtained.
So, with hope firmly in mind, please do everything in your power to obtain and read this book, which will give you the courage through understanding to make our demands on the tyrannical tyrants lording over us.
As Moses said, LET MY PEOPLE GO!
It is available here: http://www.amazon.com/You-Know-Something-Wrong-When/dp/1491279184
276 pgs $11.22 + shipping
You Know Something is Wrong When…..: An American Affidavit of Probable Cause Paperback – June 14, 2015
This will empower you through, Comprehension, Hope, Courage and Motivation.
July 31st, 2015 by olddog
Lies, Damned Lies, and Forensic History
As regular consumers of alternative media have likely noticed, China’s voracious appetite for gold has been reported on ad nauseam in the wake of the 2008 Depression. Endless geopolitical and economic analysts have mused about the implications of Chinese gold accumulation, with most concluding (perhaps prematurely) that some form of gold-backed Yuan is on the horizon. Some extend this scenario further, optimistically declaring that the BRICS NDB (New Development Bank) and AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), led by China, will usher in a “New Golden Era” of progress and prosperity, spelling the end of the Western model of Central Banking tyranny.
The reason for this transfer of precious metals from West to East by the Anglo-American Establishment, these pundits prognosticate, is a simple and tragic combination of incompetence and malfeasance. The aged and corrupt West must end, and in the wake of its destruction, the Phoenix of the East must rise.
Does this narrative, however, have any basis in reality when viewed within the context of history? How have institutions traditionally defined as “Globalists” participated in satiating China’s gold fever? Is the hand of the Red Shield, infamously and intimately involved in the metals market for over 200 years, at work, even in the East?
And what, ultimately, do the answers to these questions spell for the “BRICS Saviour” meme?
To begin answering these questions, we must analyze the history of the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) and the ignominious “Precious Metals Fix” that makes it all possible.
The (Global) Fix Is In
In 2010, the alternative finance community was set ablaze by the revelations of bullion trader turned whistleblower Andrew MacGuire, contending that JPMorgan and HSBC, operating as agents for the Federal Reserve, had suppressed the price of precious metals in an effort to silence the “Canary in the Coal Mine” amidst unprecedented money printing. By using managed selloffs via algorithmic trading bots, bullion banks drove down the price of “electronic/paper” metals certificates at the COMEX, effectively capping their price and ultimately driving them down to new 5-year lows.
The Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) deemed MacGuire’s claims credible enough to warrant further investigation; led by Bart Chilton, the CFTC’s probe into silver price manipulation ended in September of 2013 with the stunning declaration that no illegal activity had occurred:
Based upon the law and evidence as they exist at this time, there is not a viable basis to bring an enforcement action with respect to any firm or its employees related to our investigation of silver markets. – CFTC Statement
What many fail to realize is that the CFTC’s conclusion is technically correct. JPMorgan and HSBC were not acting in violation of any legal structure; they were, in fact, merely implementing the dictates of the long-standing LBMA Metals Fix:
Already we can identify the hand of the Anglo-American Establishment at work by way of the East India Company. The LBMA’s commentary on the nearly global “Silver Standard” of the 17th and 18th Century is not without consequence; the British Empire’s domination of the gold market of the era made subjugation of nations like China and India, rich in silver wealth, notoriously difficult to colonize.
The Opium Wars changed this nearly overnight. Beyond the engineered addiction and mercantile foothold the opium trade gave the East India Company in China, it also made way for the wholesale looting of China’s silver wealth:
From China, the Company bought tea, silk and porcelain. The Chinese wanted silver in return. Over the next 100 years tea became a very popular drink in England, and there was a fear that too much silver was leaving the country to pay for it. To stop this happening, the Company became involved in a triangular trade by smuggling opium (a highly addictive and illegal drug) from India into China.
The Company grew opium in India. They were looking for something that the Chinese would accept instead of silver, to pay for the goods they bought at Canton. Opium was a valued medicine which could deaden pain, assist sleep and reduce stress. But it was also seriously addictive and millions Chinese became dependent on the drug. – British Library
With China gutted of her material wealth, the Chinese silver standard came to an end in November of 1935, a mere decade before the implementation of the first truly “Global Gold Standard,” the Bretton Woods agreement.
The path was set for a worldwide metals price-fixing mechanism, and the LBMA was more than happy to provide. Front-running the Bretton Woods agreement by decades, the LBMA’s own gold fix – run by N.M. Rothschild – was officially established in 1919:
By the LBMA’s own admission, the Rothschilds maintain this price fixing mechanism to the present, and seemingly, the sole beneficiary of their recent price suppressing actions is none other than China, the very country looted of monetary metals a century ago. Is this a rare act of benevolence from the Rothschild family, or do they have big plans for the East’s new-found wealth in the coming World Order?
The British analogue to the Council on Foreign Relations, Chatham House, seems to suggest the latter.
Chatham House Rule and the Gold-Backed SDR
Established in the wake of World War I at the Paris Peace Conference, the Royal Institute of International Affairs was created. Fulfilling the dream of the Last Will and Testament of Cecil Rhodes, the RIIA also birthed its more widely known American outpost, the Council on Foreign Relations. Its headquarters, Chatham House, have become the RIIA’s colloquial moniker.
As what many would contend is the world’s premier “Think Tank,” Chatham House has been far from bashful in exploring a wide range of topics, and in the wake of the “Great Recession,” gold and the IMF’s “Special Drawing Rights” (SDRs) have been chief among them. While national Central Bankers like Ben Bernanke have been vocal in their opposition towards a remonetization of gold, the supranational level represented by groups like the IMF, Bank for International Settlements, the CFR, and Chatham House have been far more accommodating towards the idea of a return to a “partial gold standard.” Chatham House has gone so far as to create the “Chatham House Gold Taskforce” designed explicitly to examine gold’s role in a “multipolar World Order.”
This task force has yielded a number of fascinating forecasts. Take, for example, these 2011 comments by Lord Meghnad Desai, the Indian-born, British-naturalized member of the House of Lords and Chatham House member in a paper entitled, “Gold, the SDR, and Other Matters.” Desai remarks:
Far from challenging gold’s role as a monetary metal, Chatham House is recommending the exact opposite: Nothing less than a gold-backed SDR to take the place of the dollar as World Reserve Currency, with calls for the IMF to make legal the monetization of gold. All this coming from a man who is a Professor at the Keynesian London School of Economics, lecturing chiefly on econometrics and Marxian Economics. Quite the curious blend of ideology, no? Desai’s commentary is far from the only (seemingly) pro-precious metal rhetoric born of the “Chatham House Gold Taskforce.” Also included in the report were the writings of one Catherine Schneck of the University of Glasgow, entitled, “Adding Gold to the Valuation of the SDR,” directly echoing Baron Desai’s recommendation:
Schneck, perhaps directly referring to Chinese gold acquisition, makes specific note of the RMB’s current exclusion from the SDR in the paper’s introduction. The inclusion of the RMB in the article also seems to imply that “reducing the USD weighting” as called for in bullet point 3 could indeed be “in favour” of the RMB in the future, overtly stating that the Euro, Pound, and Yen are unfit for the task:
Allowing the IMF to issue more SDRs than they have gold hearkens back to the era of bank-issued Gold Certificates and their eventual monetary debasement; not a new scheme by any means. Nor are “residual” gold claims, which were commonplace during the Bretton Woods era. The last statement, “not include any right to sell SDR for gold,” would effectively ensure that gold could never be redeemed by “citizens” from banks, assuring gold coinage would never actually circulate.
A pseudo-gold standard if there ever was one.
The Chatham House Gold Taskforce’s premier publication, “Gold and the International Monetary System,” maintains the more typical Newspeak of Globalist documents with its somewhat reserved analysis; its most revealing passages, however, greatly reinforce the thesis already outlined herein.
The document reiterates the “rising China” narrative, noting that China’s recent advancements in the form of the recently-launched Shanghai Gold and Silver Exchange are a “small step” in subverting the dollar as the World Reserve Currency:
Ultimately, the Chatham House Gold Taskforce concludes that, while the RMB is a strong contender for reserve currency status, it still lacks one major prerequisite for the role – Inclusion in the IMF’s SDR basket:
Chatham House also seems to advocate a digital, cryptographic version of gold as opposed to physical notes. Perhaps as a direct response to the rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and BitGold, perhaps as the implementation of a “One World” digital currency as foretold by Nicholas Rockefeller, Chatham House devotes an entire section of its policy paper examining “digital gold.”
So it seems that the Anglo-American Establishment has lofty aspirations for China’s gold hoard and the RMB after all. Regardless of the manner by which China’s reunion with precious metals has manifested, however, this Globalist plot coming to fruition is still dependent upon Chinese participation.
Is there any evidence to suggest that China desires inclusion into the SDR basket? Would they allow the West to use their gold as collateral against the SDR (or something akin to it) as a reserve currency as opposed to the Yuan?
Enter stage East.
Crouching PBOC, Hidden Bank for International Settlements
Meet the latest actor in our twisted drama, Zhou Xiaochuan:
A Globalist by any objective metric, Xiaochuan is the head honcho at the People’s Bank of China, effectively the Janet Yellen of Eastasia. Readers, look into the eyes of this man. If anyone were to lead the world’s return to “sound money,” a BRICS without usury, and a gold-backed Yuan utopia of gold-plated puppies and kittens, by necessity, it would have to be China’s most powerful Central Banker.
Think he can pull it off?
Unfortunately for those still steeped in the milieu of the “BRICS Saviour Paradigm,” I don’t think he particularly wants to. He probably never has, as long before Xiaochuan began China’s purchase of Rothschild “fire sale” gold via the LBMA, he joined the Board of Directors of the Bank for International Settlements.
For readers not yet aware of the specific role the BIS has to play in the “Rings Within Rings” structure of the Anglo-American Establishment, it is referred to by Georgetown Professor, Globalist insider, and whistleblower Carroll Quigley as the “apex” of the “powers of financial capitalism.”
The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.
The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope
It is to this “apex” which Xiaochuan counts himself as a proud member of, and it is via this “apex” which he published his official position on Chinese precious metals, the future of the Yuan, and the SDR. The title of this BIS paper? “Reform The International Monetary System,” and its vision for the future isvirtually identical to that of Chatham House and the Anglo-American Establishment.
Xiaochuan makes mention of the Silver and Gold Standards of the past, right before discussing the “creative reform” necessary to save the global monetary system.
If the Yuan is to become a gold-backed currency (let alone the World Reserve Currency), it will not be accomplished by the desires of the People’s Bank of China. It is not the RMB that Xiaochuan applies these grandiose aspirations to, but the IMF and its Special Drawing Right:
The PBOC’s recommendation for the SDR as a supra-national reserve currency
Presumably, a world in which the SDR is a “super-sovereign reserve currency” would also include the Yuan in the SDR currency basket. At least, it will if Xiaochuan and Chatham House have anything to say about it. And of all those shiny kilo bars of gold and silver recently re-homed to Shanghai?
Zhou would have them priced in SDRs in international trade. It seems the PBOC would see the Shanghai Gold Exchange as a mere clearing house as opposed to a physical exchange devoted to pricing outside the LBMA fix.
Xiaochuan’s damning statements as head of the PBOC and BIS Board Member are not his first documented foray into international financial debauchery. Precious metals researcher and forensic historian Charles Savoie contends that Zhou Xiaochuan had participated in the wholesale liquidation of “paper” silver contracts at the behest of the LBMA. If true, this would have effectively lowered the price of silver from 2000-2004 in favor of the COMEX pricing mechanism.
The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) pressed the LBMA on potential silver price manipulation via Chinese silver liquidation, much to the chagrin of Jeffrey Christian of the CPM Group, who referred to China’s paper silver dumping as a “myth.” A masterful PR move in providing an alibi of sorts for Xiaochuan’s silver manipulation, as the CPM Group is a 1986 spin-off of none other than the criminal banking syndicate known as Goldman Sachs.
The same Goldman Sachs that, in 2003, coined the term BRICS and “forecast” the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in a paper entitled, “Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050.” Bear in mind, this is a full four years before the BRICs even existed.
What incredible foresight the analysts at Goldman have! Or perhaps it’s insider knowledge? Maybe even assistance in drafting the BRICs “vision?” Whatever the case, it is this “BRICS Dream,” the dream of Goldman Sachs, that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development reference when calling on the BRICS bank to fund “sustainable development” projects throughout Asia:
Some, when faced with the evidence of widespread collusion between financial Elites of West and East, paraphrase a passage of Sun Tsu’s The Art of War – “Keep your friends close, your enemies closer,” and perhaps this is indeed the ultimate goal of the People’s Bank of China.
But a similar American saying also comes to mind: “Don’t let the fox inside the hen house.”
Has the fog before the eyes of Free Humanity begun to dissipate? Hopefully enough to realize that the BRICS “anti-hegemon” are no friends of human autonomy. In viewing the BRICS NDB’s recent appointments to upper management, the organization’s participants are barely distinguishable from World Bank and IMF rosters, and while the controlled demolition of China’s financial crisis just begins to emerge, so, too, will the pre-arranged monetary “solution” to the woes it shall create, as outlined throughout this article.
An end to the “Debt and Death” paradigm will not come from national, supranational, or hierarchical structures, but from those seeking Freedom themselves. Unparalleled advancements in decentralization of trade and manufacturing. Truly local agricultural independence. Open-source software, not to mention news. Modern pioneers in liberty are already making great strides in these and many other fields, and it is from these men and women which hope springs eternal.
Not Zhou Xiaochuan’s Globalist gold hoard and whatever “New World” monetary paradigm will be foist upon us in the wake of the next financial crisis.
Blogging under the pseudonym of Rusticus, the author and freedom activist operates a website tracing the machinations of the Anglo-American Establishment throughout history while simultaneously documenting the process of creating a truly off-grid homestead. (www.statelesshomesteading.com)
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
July 29th, 2015 by olddog
By Rory Hall
Earlier today I was speaking with Dave Kranzler and we fell into a discussion regarding the current state of gold and silver. This is how I described everything to Dave as we talked:
Beginning in December, as Dave pointed out in Is The Global Financial System On The Brink Of Collapse?something happened in the derivatives market and I believe something broke and there has been an ongoing smoldering fire just under the surface. The criminals at the too big to prosecute mafia organizations, formerly known as banks, have been doing their level best to keep the fire from coming to the surface. The desperate behavior by the Central Planners reeks of the unmistakable scent of fear. If you think the Wall Street criminals aren’t scared right now, then explain this:
I’ve never seen so many sophisticated Wall Street’ers this scared in my entire career. – This comment comes from a very well-connected Wall Street/DC insider and is in reference to how illiquid the bond markets have become –InvestmentResearchDynamics
Subsequent to whatever it was that blew up behind the scenes in December, a smallish bank in Austria blew up and filed for bankruptcy. Approximately two weeks later, a bank in Germany began having problems due to the derivatives associated with the Austrian bank.
In April we learn, by way of Mr. Steve St. Angelo of the SRSRocco Report, the gold and silver miners are beginning to have serious cash flow problems and output is slowing down. We also learned, from Mr. Jeff Brown when we interviewed him on Shadow of Truth, that China had been removing silver ore directly from the miners. We believe this was to supplement their solar program which requires approximately 90% of the silver that China mines internally; leaving them virtually nothing to create silver bullion coins, medallions, silver bars or ingots for investment purposes. We also learned that India is also following the same line as China and has undertaken a massive solar energy program for their country. Currently, we do not have the information regarding how much silver India is pulling from the market but we do know their silver bullion imports have exploded in 2015.
On July 5, the Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras, decides to hold a referendum and allow the people of Greece to decide if they want to stay in the EuroZone and continue using the Euro as their currency. The Syriza Party, of which Mr Tsipras is a member, was elected with 35% majority, for the specific purpose of ending of austerity. As many people know, Greece has experienced enormous economic problems since joining the EuroZone and has taken on approximately $350 billion worth of debt from the IMF. The people of Greece voted, by a margin of 61% to 39%, to leave the EU and stop using the Euro. The Prime Minister responded by telling the Greek people, they would NOT be leaving the EuroZone and would in fact be taking on more debt from the IMF and would continue using the Euro!! The Greeks responded accordingly and have been protesting, rioting and various other nasty things since this happened. I don’t blame them one bit.
The second week of July 2015 the US Mint sells completely out of American Silver Eagles. This was unannounced, no forewarning was given at all. Usually if supplies become tight the Mint, in the past, has moved to allocated (read rationed) sales to the wholesalers. Not this time. The Mint opened their doors (figuratively) for business and before lunch had announced they were sold out and promptly closed their doors!
The following week China announces, for the first time in five years, their current Official gold holdings. The increase was greeted with little enthusiasm as no one actually believed the amount announced. Most analysts believe the amount of gold held by China is much higher than they are willing to share with the world.
Then a very curious thing happened. With all of the bullet points above as a back drop, four days after China makes their announcement of current gold holdings, someone or something triggered a massive selloff of gold futures. 716,000 ounces of gold, approximately 3% of annual global gold mining production, was sold in approximately 1 minute’s time. WOW!!! Why would this happen at this time unless something was very, very wrong? China just announced they had increased their holdings, the global economy is in trouble and someone decides that now is the opportune time to unload 3% of global gold in 1 minute!! Does that make sense to you? Does that sound like the act of a desperate, trapped rat? It does to me.
It seems like something else other than a derivatives event happened in December 2014 which has broken in the gold and silver markets. It seems like something unprecedented is about to make a grand entrance. I am not 100% sure, but I know this: if you don’t have several months worth of cash, food, water and security on hand you better make a move and you better make it quick. Fall is coming, and there have been way too many people saying that fall of 2015 something is going to change; the picture seems pretty clear….
July 28th, 2015 by olddog
By Ron Paul
The drama over Greece’s financial crisis continues to dominate the headlines. As this column is being written, a deal may have been reached providing Greece with yet another bailout if the Greek government adopts new “austerity” measures. The deal will allow all sides to brag about how they came together to save the Greek economy and the European Monetary Union. However, this deal is merely a Band-Aid, not a permanent fix to Greece’s problems. So another crisis is inevitable.
The Greek crisis provides a look into what awaits us unless we stop overspending on warfare and welfare and restore a sound monetary system. While most commentators have focused on Greece’s welfare state, much of Greece’s deficit was caused by excessive military spending. Even as its economy collapses and the government makes (minor) cuts in welfare spending, Greece’s military budget remains among the largest in the European Union.
Despite all the hand-wringing over how the phony sequestration cuts have weakened America’s defenses, the United States military budget remains larger than the combined budgets of the world’s next 15 highest spending military’s. Little, if any, of the military budget is spent defending the American people from foreign threats. Instead, the American government wastes billions of dollars on an imperial foreign policy that makes Americans less safe. America will never get its fiscal house in order until we change our foreign policy and stop wasting trillions on unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.
Excessive military spending is not the sole cause of America’s problems. Like Greece, America suffers from excessive welfare and entitlement spending. Reducing military spending and corporate welfare will allow the government to transition away from the welfare state without hurting those dependent on government programs. Supporting an orderly transition away from the welfare state should not be confused with denying the need to reduce welfare and entitlement spending.
One reason Greece has been forced to seek bailouts from its EU partners is that Greece ceded control over its currency when it joined the European Union. In contrast, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is the main reason the US has been able to run up huge deficits without suffering a major economic crisis. The need for the Federal Reserve to monetize ever-increasing levels of government spending will eventually create hyperinflation, which will lead to increasing threats to the dollar’s status. China and Russia are already moving away from using the dollar in international transactions. It is only a matter of time before more countries challenge the dollar’s reserve currency status, and, when this happens, a Greece-style catastrophe may be unavoidable.
Despite the clear dangers of staying on our recent course, Congress continues to increase spending. The only real debate between the two parties is over whether we should spend more on welfare or warfare. It is easy to blame the politicians for our current dilemma but the politicians are responding to demands from the people for greater spending. Too many Americans believe they have a moral right to government support. This entitlement mentality is just as common, if not more so, among the corporate welfare queens of the militarily-industrial complex, the big banks and the crony capitalists as it is among lower-income Americans.
Congress will only reverse course when a critical mass of people reject the entitlement mentality and understand that the government is incapable of running the world, running our lives and running the economy. Therefore, those of us who know the truth must spread the ideas of, and grow the movement for, limited government, free markets, sound money and peace.
This article provided courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
How many of you remember my past warning about building a one hundred million re-educated people force as the only possible way to defeat this foreign owned imposter government we live under. Are you still ignorant of the truth to consider it treason to survive? TAKE THIS TO THE BANK FOLKS, EITHER YOU PARTICIPATE IN RE-EDUCATING EVERY ONE YOU CAN, OR THE REST OF YOUR SHORT LIFE WILL BE HELL ON EARTH!
July 22nd, 2015 by olddog
So, why are we still in the United Nations?
By A. Dru Kristenev — Bio and Archives
After the United States’ president orchestrated the ultimate circumvention of his country’s representative branch of government in order to assist the western world’s archenemy to gain a foothold in the nuclear fraternity, the manner in which Obama achieved his ends must be closely examined. Not only is the president’s rationale questionable, but the five co-conspirator nations must be scrutinized for their complicity in endangering their own citizens.
As much as leaders of the free world praise the arrival of a global economy and each nation’s supposed place in it, the concept of a globally accepted, or acceptable, governing body is yet anathema to the average person. It matters not if they hail from Australia or Uzbekistan, no one is particularly interested in handing over power to an absent agency that, aside from not truly owning real estate in any of the member nations, resembles an absent landlord. The United Nations has become a squalling voice complaining about injustice all the while providing the best path to establish institutional injustice.
Engineering the manner by which the UN was to be used as a surrogate for the United States Congress, Obama laid the foundation with the participation of the Senate. Whether the collusion was attained knowingly or unwittingly, only those senators who voted for the Corker Bill that sidelined their treaty ratification power know for certain. The craftiness that inspired the sly move was accomplished through bending rules of language, something in which the Obama administration has become expert. The fact that Bob Corker and the other assenting senators were sucked into believing the Iran deal (that ensured Iran’s nuclear future) was an ‘executive agreement’ is proof of either their compliance with Obama or their gullibility. Neither description being complimentary, let alone inspiring trust.
Groundwork was laid from the beginning to use the withering body of politically correct UN dupes to do an end run around not just Americans, but the citizens of the other nations at the negotiation table.
The question should then be asked, why does the United States continue to hold membership in an organization that vilifies it, the sponsor nation? A nation that bankrolls a group harboring so-called diplomats from enemy countries who are welcomed inside its borders, walk its streets freely and plot its destruction, is simply dense for continuing any association. All one need do is listen to the Iranian parliament complain that the deal’s ICBM ban isn’t tolerable as it might keep them from developing the method to deliver nuclear missiles overseas and eventually into the laps of the Great Satan… us. That is, after they’ve annihilated Israel.
If Congress has any self-respect, or plain respect for those it represents, the citizens who constituted this nation, then it’s time the Senate and House disassociated the United States from the adversarial United Nations. There is no good purpose in belonging to an organization that makes every effort to bite the hand that feeds it. How much contempt should America endure from a batch of ragtag nations that are perfectly comfortable bleeding us monetarily while threatening our very lives?
The answer should be obvious except for the self-hate that has been fostered by public re-education that rewrites history to demean our heritage.
It is past time to terminate membership in the United Nations and boot them from our shores.
Only the most stupid person, or deviant traitor would let their country and its people – economy – traditions – and every other facet of their lives be dominated by a shadow governing body. People of America please grow a set and demand the U.N. be evicted, dismantled, and disgraced. For God’s sake folks, wake the hell up and make your demands heard. Stop this stupid, idea you can’t do anything about it, because you can! “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas [from Mexico]. (By Paul Craig Roberts)
July 21st, 2015 by olddog
Peter O’Toole as British Intelligence agent, T.E. Lawrence.
By Jay Dyer
From Benghazi to Turkey, the ISIS “supply lines” are directly from NATO-controlled territory, and apparently it never occurs to the minds of Western media to ask where, in fact, the so-called Islamic State obtains their arms. The reason for this is obvious, as it would demonstrate that the Islamic State is not a homegrown, indigenous Wahhabist extremist group, but Western creation, funded and aided like Al Qaeda since its inception, as Carter and Brzezinski openly discussed. Not much has changed in the international terror theater since 1979, save the targets. Counterpunch noted over a decade ago: Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct? Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979.
But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Concerning the aiding and funding of the updated Mujahideen-Al Qaeda-ISIS brand, Tony Cartalucci comments: The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’,” that: [CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels. Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A.,” that: From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield. Recent revelations have revealed that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.” In terms of foreign policy, the target with ISIS is still Syria, as Washington elites have expounded through their Brookings Institution discussion of June 24, a rebound from the failed attempt by John Kerry to drum up support for war with Syria that fell flat due to the exposure of the laughable false flag “chlorine attack” propaganda pinned on Assad.
Now ISIS is both the means and the raison d’etre for invading and saving Syria, in the classic problem-reaction-solution strategy the West never tires from enacting in the global “freedom” war. Acting far inferior to Peter O’Toole. The endless, eternal war on terror is a contrived strategy of tension the Atlanticist establishment has used for over a hundred years, dating back to the exploits of Harry St. John Philby, T.E. Lawrence and the British carving up of the Middle East and special relationship with Saudi Arabia.
As mentioned, nothing has changed in the last century, other than the focal point of the terror attacks, as the Middle East must constantly be broken up, destabilized and reorganized into “micro-nations” more amenable to Washington’s corrupt corporate and ideological expansionist domination. Recent so-called “terror events” are merely dots on the long timeline of terror, a scripted narrative designed to remodel the American landscape as much as the Middle East, according to D.C. think tank machinations. Saudi Arabia, of course if one of the world’s chief funders of terror, operating as a proxy for the Western elites. Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait are all “Gulf Cooperation nations,” arising from the aegis of the British Empire, and adopted under the U.S. empire.
And what is constantly forgotten is the origin of this cadre’s alignment of the West through oil production was not merely the result of OPEC and Kissinger, it was in fact organized by Bilderberg: It was Bilderberg that organized the ’70s OPEC oil debacle. Isn’t it curious the GCC pro-terror states are also Western-supplying oil states? Citing William F. Engdahl in his A Century of War, Andrew Gavin Marshall writes: One enormous consequence of the ensuing 400 per cent rise in OPEC oil prices was that investments of hundreds of millions of dollars by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell [both present at Bilderberg] and other Anglo-American petroleum concerns in the risky North Sea could produce oil at a profit,” as “the profitability of these new North Sea oilfields was not at all secure until after the OPEC price rises.” In 2001, the former Saudi representative to OPEC, Sheik Ahmed Yamani, said, “’I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.”
When he was sent by King Faisal to the Shah of Iran in 1974, the Shah said that it was Henry Kissinger who wanted a higher price for oil. (136-7) In other words, war is a racket, as General Smedley Butler famously stated, and the new “War on Terror” (TM) of our day is not new, but an updated version of the old British strategy of staving off Russia. Little has changed a century later, as the major power bloc of the West, the Atlanticists still charge forward according to the Mackinder Heartland doctrine that the Western merchant/banking sea power must dominate and control the Eurasian “heartland” to ensure no Eastern rivalry.
Through the export of Opium, China was subjugated, and through export of Marxism, both China and Russia experienced the havoc of Western-born ideological materialism. Heartland versus Rimland. It is precisely this same utilitarian Anglo-empiricist, pragmatist philosophy that has ultimately turned on its own populace in a parasitical fashion unheard of for past empires.
Promising sensual and economic utopia, the Bolshevik export to Russia on the part of the Atlantic banking power is not the top-down social engineering strategy of the corporate elite upon the U.S. population itself. The great delusion is that the West is “free,” when it is entering the realm of greater enslavement than Sovietism experienced. The only difference is the foolish Western populace cannot grasp their enslavement is at the hands of Marxist corporations.
The central banks, the Fortune 100 and their shareholders love cultural Marxism and command and control, socialist economic models because it is the quickest way to consolidate wealth and transfer the actually valuable assets to the controlling oligarchy. In such a system, the opposition will inevitably all be titled “terrorists,” as the appellation is already being extended beyond radical Islamists. And after it extends beyond the average person, the conditioning will be so strong that any thoughts, words, actions or potential-pre-crime actions will also follow under the elastic notion of “terror.”
Terrorism is thus a social weapon, not of indigenous, individual “actors” and lone wolves, but stage managed dupes, patsies and tools of an international oligarchical cartel, as Orwell demonstrated in 1984 with the fictional villain of Immanuel Goldstein. Indeed, who funds these groups? (We saw who, above). The most obvious fact of the contradiction of the “War on Terror” (TM) is that it almost always works to further Washington’s domestic and geopolitical aims. Terror, then, is like Trotsky’s notion of perpetual war – perpetual war on the psyche of the globe (it’s a global war on terror), as a phase in the dialectical convergence on the path to global government. That is why terrorism serves western political aims. You can read more from Jay Dyer at his site Jay’s Analysis.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
July 20th, 2015 by olddog
By Joshua Krause
As America continues to descend into a vicious police state, many have wondered how it all came to this. The easiest answer to that question, is that we let it happen. No matter how brutal a regime may be, tyrants never come to power unless they gain the approval, or at least the indifferent consent of their people.
So the real question is, how come so many people seem absolutely complacent in the face of our crumbling cultural values, and the steady march of tyranny? Even worse, how can so many people revel in it? It seems like the number of people who truly value freedom are severely outnumbered by idiots and power tripping busybodies. Granted, the number of people who want to be free has grown in recent years, but they’re still few and far between when compared to the glut of grovelling masses that we share the world with.
Here’s the awful answer to that question, and the dirty truth that most people can’t bring themselves to admit. Most people love freedom, but only as an idea. They like the idea that they can do whatever they want, they admire the archetype of the rugged individualist, and everyone loves underdogs and rebels. In other words, people love the banners and symbols of freedom, but do they love freedom in practice?
I would argue that no, many of them don’t. As strange as it may sound, most people really struggle with having freedom. Let me provide an example, of which there are many in the field of marketing.
In the year 2000, two psychologists conducted a study on how the number of choices we have affects our behavior. They went to a supermarket and displayed 24 different gourmet jams on a table, and provided $1 coupons to see how much interest it garnered. They did the same thing the next day, but instead of 24 jams, there were only 6. The large display attracted much more interest, but the small display generated 10 times as many sales.
Maybe you think that study is inconsequential, and I wouldn’t blame you for thinking that, but let me share another case that will clarify my point. One of the psychologists who conducted that study, did another study on the differences between end-of-life care in the United States and France. She interviewed parents in both countries who had children on life support. In France, the doctor makes the decision as to whether or not a child is taken off life support, and in the United States it is the parents’ decision.
She talked to these parents a year after their children had died. The American parents were much more distraught over their decision to pull the plug. They still had nagging doubts about whether it was the right decision to make, and they felt like they had “executed” their children. The French parents, on the other hand, didn’t feel nearly as bad about the situation. They were well on their way to coping with the tragedy.
The point I’m trying to make here is that most people don’t like having choices, despite how much they’ll argue to the contrary. The more choices they’re given, the more likely they are to not like the choices they have or make. There’s much more doubt about whether or not that choice was correct, which leads to some pretty counter-intuitive conclusions. You can measure how free you are by the number of choices you have, and most people claim to love freedom, but in many cases those people are happier when they have fewer, or no choices. I think most people are simply happier without freedom, which is unfortunate and sad to say the least.
And that is why so many people accept tyranny, and why it will always be a problem for the human race. Because tyranny is so much easier than freedom. It is acquiescence. It means giving up. Tyranny is for quitters, and it amounts to handing over the reins to someone else. Most people are happier when they don’t have a choice, and they don’t even realize it.
However, there is another way to look at this odd human behavior.
There was another interesting fact that was gleaned from that study. The American parents who had chosen to take their sick children off life support, still regretted their decision. But when asked if they would have had it any other way, most of them claimed that they would have still made the same decision. Their decision made them unhappy, they knew it made them unhappy, but when they were asked if they would have rather let the doctor make that choice, they all said no.
And that right there is an example of people who truly want freedom, and not just the rosy idea of freedom. Those who truly want freedom are willing to accept the painful struggle of having a choice in life, and prefer it to the ignorant bliss that comes with not having a choice. However, it was only applicable to that particular situation. Would those same parents prefer to have a choice in every other aspect of their lives?
Unfortunately, that kind of person is a rare bird these days. If you could ask everyone in the world about their ethics and political beliefs, you’d probably find a wide variety, but most of them would have one thing in common. There’s always some part of their lives that they are willing to relinquish to a “higher authority,” and that part differs depending on their ideology. Most people don’t really want the full freedom package.
So it’s up to the rare few who really want freedom, without compromise, to make it a reality for themselves. The human race will always teeter on the edge of a tyrannical abyss, because there is an inherent weakness in our species. We’re happier when we don’t have so many choices (or freedom), which means that accepting tyranny is easy for us. It takes all our strength and moral fiber to rise above it, because we default towards tyranny (which is defined by the lack of choice in our lives) when we stop caring. It’s our natural inclination.
Just as human weakness and apathy leads to ignorance, violence, and hatred, it also destroys freedom. And the political and financial elitists of the world want you to give in to your weaknesses, and fall back on those baser instincts. They want you to give up. They want you to yearn for a simple life, where your choices are taken care of by someone else. They want you to be a slave.
But do you really want that? Do you have the strength to make that choice?
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
July 18th, 2015 by olddog
By Eric Zuesse
http://www.esm.europa.eu/pdf/ESM Treaty consolidated 13-03-2014.pdf
That’s the treaty establishing (which was originally done in 2012) the ultimate lending-fund for what the EU now officially considers to be a permanent economic crisis in Europe, of member-nations that are experiencing “severe financing problems,” and that are therefore continually ripe for asset-stripping by aristocrats.
It’s called the European Stability Mechanism.
It’s anything but that. Here is what it actually does:
In other words: it establishes the European bureaucracy to serve global aristocrats, so as to help them asset-strip the European populations of corrupt member-nations. These bureaucrats get transferred back-and-forth between this bureaucracy and the big financial institutions (which also are dependent upon the same billionaires), so that these bureaucratic servants of the aristocracy can themselves gradually emerge as aristocrats, basically joining (now becoming principals, no longer merely agents of) the aristocratic financial war stripping the public.
Here are some key provisions of this “Treaty,” or Europe’s (or the EU’s) new constitution:
Article 34. Professional secrecy. The Members or former Members of the Board of Governors and of the Board of Directors and any other persons who work or have worked for or in connection with the ESM shall not disclose information that is subject to professional secrecy. They shall be required, even after their duties have ceased, not to disclose information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
Article 35. Immunities of persons. 1. In the interest of the ESM, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors, Governors, alternate Governors, Directors, alternate Directors, as well as the Managing Director and other staff members shall be immune from legal proceedings with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity and shall enjoy inviolability in respect of their official papers and documents. …
Article 36. Exemption from taxation. 1. Within the scope of its official activities, the ESM, its assets, income, property and its operations and transactions authorised by this Treaty shall be exempt from all direct taxes. …
It’s a “Mechanism” (basically, a government) to transfer to the aristocracy the public’s assets, which are the lands and pensions and healthcare and educational systems, which, in a democracy, are supposed to serve the public, but which, in an aristocracy, serve instead the billionaires. In Europe, aristocrats are still in charge.
For example, one confidential document, dated 11 June 2013, “Real Estate Based Asset Financing for the Hellenic Republic,” has this:
“The Hellenic Republic [Greece] holds a diverse collection of assets, many of which have been scheduled for sale as part of its commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank [the three members of ’The Troika’], and the Hellenic Republic. The sale of state-owned assets is a one-off opportunity to raise capital for the Hellenic Republic [to be able to repay banks, which had lent to Greece at an 18% interest rate — and thereby already enriched aristocrats heavily at the public’s expense — and now retrospectively taxpayer-guaranteeing those junk bonds, which global aristocrats had bought through those banks, granting these 18%-interest-rate junk bonds a retrospective AAA+ equivalent taxpayer-guaranteed status, courtesy of the politicians who were supposed to have represented the public].”
Furthermore: “This would help increase the privatisation proceeds beyond the amount currently forseen in the MoU. The majority of the real estate is undeveloped land, with substantial potential,” which “potential” won’t be enjoyed by the Greek public via a future improved Greek national economy and increased tax-income into the Greek Government, but instead enjoyed by global aristocrats, who will be buying that “undeveloped land” now, before its value soars — so that aristocrats will be in on the rip-offs of the Greek public, both coming, and, now, going.
The document specifies that, “A large part of the Greek real estate portfolio is suitable for tourist development, and given Greece’s climate and leisure and holiday potential this is the key source of potential value for investors.” In other words: whatever desperate Greeks will still remain in Greece after all of the stripping of the assets of the state, will now become available, at rock-bottom subsistence wages, to serve tourists, while the billionaire owners, throughout the world, will be reaping the profits, from that land (including the beaches and new hotels), and from their slaves there (serving those tourists). This is commonly called “the free market”: the more desperate and poor the public (the Greeks serving those tourists) are, the more profit the aristocracy (the owners of those resorts) will receive. After Barack Obama’s coup overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President in February 2014, Ukraine’s soaring debt is already being treated this way (being set up for privatization), even before Ukraine joins the EU (if it ever will). Similarly, privatization followed the junta that Obama protected (if he didn’t even place them into power) in Honduras in 2009.
There is nothing basically new about this. Benito Mussolini introduced privatization in Italy during the 1920s. Admiring his success with that wealth-transfer to aristocrats, Adolf Hitler then took it up in Germany during the 1930s.
Nowadays, this is called “libertarianism” in the United States, and “neoliberalism” in Europe. It’s just standard economic theory, being put into political practice. Another term for it is “austerity” (as the public calls it), or (to employ the economist’s euphemistic phrase for it) “fiscal consolidation.”
What Mussolini and Hitler started, is now being put into practice increasingly around the world, but it is no longer overtly called “fascism.” Mussolini and Hitler were defeated in WW II, and so the label “fascist” needed to be changed, but the aristocracy, which financed fascists’ rises, has by now emerged victorious (in the U.S. and not only in Europe), using deceit (including these new labels), instead of relying upon mere bombs and guns. There are enough fools (‘libertarians,’ or believers in ‘the free market,’ etc.), so that victory comes far cheaper via such deceits (mental coercion) than via violence (physical coercion — coercion against the body). (But, of course, war, too, can be profitable.)
The entirety of the ‘Greek bailouts’ is bailouts of the aristocracy, not of the public; it’s just like America’s ‘Wall Street bailouts,’ which bailed out the banksters instead of the cheated MBS investors and homeowners. The ‘Greek bailouts’ were actually loans, not ‘bailouts’ at all; and after the loans turned sour, taxpayers were forced to buy them from the aristocrats, who were the ultimate recipients of the actual bailouts. The lenders never bailed anybody out, but instead were bailed out by the public. However, in the Greek case, the people who are blamed are the Greek public, who are being stripped. After all, such blame-the-victim is the natural response, for believers in ‘the free market.’ But it would be like blaming the stripped pension funds, and the underwater homeowners, for having caused the bailouts of Wall Street. Calling them ‘bailouts of Greece’ is the reverse of what they actually are, which is an ongoing stripping of the Greek public. (Other European publics should be angry against the aristocrats they’re bailing out, not against the Greek public, who never benefited from those loans, and who aren’t the people that socked away some or all of those borrewed funds into Swiss or other accounts abroad.) It’s like blaming a raped woman for having been raped. That’s conservative, in the extreme. It’s fascist.
The EU’s dictatorship is by the aristocracy, against the public. It’s just like the U.S. dictatorship — competing parties, both or all of which represent the aristocracy, against the public; none representing the public, against the aristocracy. Conservatives support it, because they support the aristocracy. (A reader replied to this, “it isn’t just the doctrinaire conservatives that support the new aristocracy it is the majority of the public”; but the majority of the public is conservative, they’re devoted to myths; so, that’s not contradicting my assertion, it’s just restating the tragedy.)
This is why inequality is high, and soaring. Democracy is disappearing.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
July 17th, 2015 by olddog
By Nick Giambruno
62 years later, the aftermath is still troubling global politics.
Operation Ajax was a pivotal moment in US and world history. It was the first time the CIA overthrew a government.
Yet even today the US government would rather not talk about it. That’s why it remains an unknown story for many Americans.
The year was 1953. The objective was to oust Mohammad Mossadegh, the elected leader of the Majlis, Iran’s parliament. Mossadegh was not a communist or a radical Islamist. He didn’t follow any objectionable ideology. Instead, he was a secular nationalist. But he was inconvenient. Like many Iranians, he was proud of his Persian heritage.
(Until 1935, Iran was still known as Persia.) Persia once was an imperial civilization, like Rome. Twentieth-century nationalists channeled that glorious past, and they were keen on independence. So it’s no surprise Mossadegh was earnest about ridding the country’s politics of foreign influence.
At the time, Great Britain was the most active outside power in Iran. For decades the British had enjoyed a sweetheart oil deal struck with a former, corrupt Iranian leader. It allowed them to control Iran’s petroleum industry and, by extension, the country’s entire economy.
To nationalists like Mossadegh, this was intolerable and infuriating. It would be like China getting a sweetheart deal from President Obama for control of the US auto industry. No red-blooded American would stand for such a thing.
It was the early 1950s. The smoke from World War II, a war that killed over 60 million people, still lingered. The horrors were fresh in everyone’s mind.
Access to oil had been a decisive factor in that war. Had Hitler succeeded in securing his supply in 1942, the world might look very different today.
It was a concept not lost on the British. If any country wanted to win a big war, it needed oil. Lots of it. It was a matter of life and death.
Iran was a major source of oil for the British. Access to it was a strategic military asset of the highest order. One the British would not give up for any price.
Mossadegh understood this. He concluded that the only way to claw back the oil industry was to nationalize it. On May 1, 1951, he did just that.
Shortly afterward, he stated: Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced.
Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. The British were not about to give up. They hatched a plot to regain their influence in Iran. But they couldn’t do it alone. They would need help from the US. But the US just wasn’t interested. So the British undertook a campaign to paint Mossadegh as a communist.
The Brits played America’s Cold-War fears like a piano. They convinced the US government that the commies were making inroads in Iran. Given that Iran was just south of the expanding Soviet Union, the story was plausible… but not true. In the end, it worked. The Americans came on board.
Operation Ajax was born. The objective: overthrow Mossadegh’s elected government and replace it with something more pliable.
MI6, the UK’s foreign spy agency, and the CIA would organize the coup. Kermit Roosevelt, a grandson of former US President Teddy Roosevelt, was the CIA officer in charge. The goal was to return the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (also known as “the Shah”) to power.
(In Farsi, the Persian language, “shah” means “king.”)
The CIA and MI6 used classic methods of subterfuge. They paid Iranian goons to pose as communists and wreak havoc in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and vandalize its business district. The police couldn’t restrain them, and the violence grew.
The coup plotters knew such events would disgust ordinary Iranians, who were fearful of communism. It would cause them to demand action. That action would include the Iranian military stepping in.
As part of the plot, the CIA and MI6 had corrupted key Iranian generals for just this moment. As if on cue, the generals took charge and deposed Mossadegh’s government.
The Iranian people didn’t resist. Instead, they cheered. They thought the military was saving them from a violent communist revolution. Mossadegh’s government was out of the way. The coup’s operatives in the Iranian military had seized power. The path had been cleared for the Shah.
The Shah knew he owed his position to the US and UK. What they giveth, they could taketh away. The Shah was more than willing to do whatever the US and UK wanted him to do.
Operation Ajax was a success… but it would not be an enduring one. The Iranian people would eventually figure out what really happened. Many of them would come to despise the Shah as a puppet of a foreign power.
To maintain his position, the Shah became more despotic… which only fed the opposition. In 1979, 26 years after Operation Ajax, a popular uprising overthrew the Shah. A power struggle ensued, and Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamist forces prevailed.
The Islamic Republic of Iran was born. This time, it was an anti-American government that came to power. Decades of animosity followed, and it continues to this day. It’s unthinkable to most that the Islamic Republic of Iran could offer any sort of investment opportunity. Many find the mere mention of the country distasteful.
There’s another country that most would have considered unthinkable to invest in at one time. Many got hot under the collar just at the mention of its name too: the People’s Republic of China.
If you had followed their thinking, you would have missed out on one of recent history’s most powerful economic booms. That’s precisely why you should ditch the conventional wisdom when it comes to thinking about profiting from Iran. If you don’t, you could be letting a once-in-a-generation opportunity pass you by.
Recently, I discussed investing in Iran with legendary investor Jim Rogers. He told us: I bought Iranian shares in 1993, and over the next few years, [they] went up something like 47 times, so it was an astonishing success. That was then. Now, additional sanctions make investing directly in Iran off limits to Americans and most Europeans. But that could soon change.
The conclusion of the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program means the economic floodgates will open. Persia will once again be open for business. It would be a big deal: Iran’s $370 billion economy is by far the largest still excluded from the international financial system. Iran has the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves (10% of the world’s total) and the second-largest proven natural gas reserves (17% of the world’s total). A tremendous amount of wealth is waiting to be developed.
Iran’s economy is not all about natural resources. The country is home to advanced nanotechnologies and the Middle East’s largest car manufacturer. Its young population of 78 million yearns for iPhones and other Western products, and there’s enormous built-up demand. That demand is getting ready to explode like Mt. St. Helens.
European and Asian companies have been scrambling to Tehran to line up business deals. In short, the opening of Iran is a massive opportunity. Even if the West doesn’t lift the sanctions, Iran will simply turn to the East to do business. Either way, the Iranian economy is on course to experience one of the greatest booms in recent history. It’s on a scale the world hasn’t seen since the opening of China.
Opportunities like this don’t happen every day, every year, or even every decade. But for the average American, Iran is at the bottom of the list of potential investment destinations. That’s what more than 30 years of hostility and charter membership in the “Axis of Evil” will do. The sentiment couldn’t get any worse.
As a contrarian, that’s just how I like it. But only if there is a solid reason to believe that the negative sentiment is misplaced. In the case of Iran, I am certain that it is.
In the not-so-distant past, I used to live in the United Arab Emirates… right across the Persian Gulf from Iran. Being there gave me the chance to see the country firsthand. On the Ground in Iran Hands down, Iran is the most fascinating country I’ve ever been to.
I’ve been to almost every country in the Middle East. Iran stands out for a number of reasons. Unlike most other states in the Middle East, Persia is not an artificial construct. By race, religion, and social history, it is a nation.
And European bureaucrats didn’t dream up Iran by drawing zig-zags on a map. The map reflects the geographic reality of a country with natural, fortress-like, mountain borders. For an American, getting there isn’t easy. But that’s part of the allure. You can’t simply hop on a flight to Tehran from New York, like you would to Vancouver or London. You can’t enter the country unless the Iranian government has granted you permission in advance. And they take their careful time.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran. There is no Iranian embassy or consulate in the US at which to apply for a visa, but there is an Iranian interests section in the Pakistani embassy in Washington, DC, that can handle such requests.
I was living near Dubai at the time, so it was easier for me to go to the Iranian consulate there. But you can’t just drop in to the Iranian consulate and apply for a tourist visa. You have to work with an authorized service to assist you in the process, which is what I did. After I submitted my paperwork and waited a number of weeks, and then waited another couple of weeks, the Iranian government approved my application.
I immediately noticed that the Iranian visa in my passport was not the kind of cheap stamp you often get from Third-World countries. Instead it carried holograms and other anti-counterfeiting features. Things that are associated with documents from developed countries. It was a clue that Iran, a seemingly isolated and underdeveloped place, was more sophisticated than I had expected.
Sanctions have disconnected Iran from the international financial system. Your ATM and credit cards won’t work there. You need to bring cash (US dollars or euros work best) and exchange it for Iranian rials. Iranians also have increasingly returned to gold as a store of value and medium of exchange. This is no surprise. People in all corners of the globe have used gold this way for thousands of years.
As soon as my flight landed in Tehran, my Iranian “tour guide” greeted me. The Iranian government requires that minders accompany Americans at all times. It’s a result of the Iranian government’s not-necessarily unreasonable paranoia. They’d like to prevent Operation Ajax 2.0.
Having a mandatory tour guide wasn’t all bad. Mine was a dual American-Iranian citizen named Ali. Ali had spent a lot of time in California and spoke perfect American English. He took me everywhere I wanted to go. At the end of some days, Ali would let me go off on my own.
This gave me the chance to explore Tehran’s affluent northern suburbs and legendary bazaar. No matter where I went, everyone was genuinely kind and hospitable… even after figuring out I was American. Not what you would expect for a place known for its “Death to America” chants.
It became obvious the average Iranian harbors no hatred for Americans. (For more on what life is really like in Iran, I’d suggest you watch travel writer Rick Steves’ video, Rick Steves’ Iran.)
The trip to Iran helped solidify my belief that the country is the ultimate contrarian opportunity. It revealed the reality hiding behind the frenzied sentiment of conventional thinking. It was just waiting for the right catalyst. And now that catalyst is at hand. The conclusion of the nuclear negotiations and the relaxation of sanctions will release all the massive, built-up economic potential. The rationale for profiting from the opening of Iran is clear. Finding a practical way to do so is not.
There is a way, however… and a good one. One that is easily accessible through any brokerage account to US investors and is completely legal for them. For all the details click here to check out the latest issue of Crisis Speculator.
This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.
July 15th, 2015 by olddog
By Michael Rivero
In the good old days, after George Washington and the boys won the war to free us from the bank of England’s predatory and impoverishing practices, they set up a “revolutionary” economic system. The government created and issued all the public currency, spending it into circulation to purchase what the government needed, then after the currency circulated through society to fuel commerce, was taxed back to the government to balance the books.
Banks existed, of course. But they were kept off to one side, and use of the banks was optional for the people of the United States. It was possible to go through one’s entire life without dealing with a bank if one chose to do so.
This system not only reserved the choice whether to use the bank to the people, but it was a stable system, because as debt increased, the people could voluntarily choose to stop borrowing from the bank! That was one of the most important freedoms won during the revolution; the freedom to say “no” to the banks!
Then, in 1913, a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President changed the structure of the nation’s economy and stole your freedom to say “no”! The economic system was reverted to a mirror of that same system the nation fought a revolution to be free of. The power to issue money was taken away from the government and given to the bankers and from that day onward, ALL money in circulation was created as the result of a loan at interest from the bankers to the government, to business, and to the people. There is no exception. Every dollar paid in salary, spent to purchase food or gas, or paid in taxes, began as an interest bearing loan. There is no money in circulation in the United States that did not start out as a loan at interest from the bankers at the privately-owned Federal Reserve system.
From that moment on, the freedom of the people to refuse to borrow from the banks and to refuse to pay interest was stripped away. To participate in the commerce of the United States at all means being forced to use money loaned at interest, to the profit of the bankers and the impoverishment of the public. Your freedom to say “no” was stolen by Congress in 1913, without your permission and before you were born.
When you have lost the freedom to say “no”, when you have no choice but to pay a percentage of your earnings as interest to the bankers whether in private debt or taxes to cover the gargantuan debts by the US Government itself, you are a slave to the bankers. And because more money is owed to the bankers than actually exists, because of the interest charged on the loan that created the money, the debt-slavery is permanent! No matter how hard you work, no matter how much you sacrifice, the debt can never be paid off. The system is intentionally designed to trap the nation’s population permantly in unpayable debt, to make them slaves to that debt and to the bankers. This is the purpose behind the design of the Federal Reserve, the International Monitary Fund, the European Central Bank, and indeed every private central bank issuing the public currency as a loan at interest. This is why today every nation is drowning in created debt, and slaved to the private bankers. That is the reason for ever increasing taxes and decreasing benefits; to pay the bankers their unpayable interest on the public currency.
For that enslavement to succeed, your right and freedom to refuse that bank’s interest-bearing money must be stripped away. The government must force you to use that private central bank’s currency, loaned to you at interest, via the Legal Tender Laws. Therein lies your slave chains. You are ordered by the government, on pain of prison, to use the banker’s money, and to pay the interest charged by the bankers through your taxes.
Free people have the right to say “no.” Free people have a right to decide for themselves what medium of exchange they will use and to choose not to involve the bankers!
There is no freedom without the freedom to say “no.” Slaves cannot say “no” when ordered to surrender the products of their labor to their masters.
You are a slave.
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” — Woodrow Wilson 1919
Slavery exists only because the slaves have been taught to believe that slavery is the way the world is supposed to be. Beliefs are chains used to enslave free people. No chains of steel ever bound a human tighter than the chains made of the beliefs with which we are indoctrinated while young in the state schools and the churches.
Slaves used to be held prisoner by their belief in rule by divine right. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that divine right is only an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
Then slaves were held prisoner by their belief in rule by chattel ownership of one’s body. Then the slaves regained their freedom when they realized that one person owning another is an illusion created by the enslavers to trick the people into obedient servitude.
Today the modern slaves (that is YOU) are held prisoner by their belief in compound interest; that they owe money that never existed to repay money created out of thin air. And you modern slaves will regain your freedoms when you realize that private central banking is just another illusion created by the enslavers to trick you into obedient servitude.