“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.” –J. Robert Oppenheimer
Before I get into the meat of this controversial subject, I want to cover a bit of background. …. The three topics are, Oligarchs, Propaganda, and Astroturf Terrorism. Since those three are critical to understanding our current situation, I am going to make this a stand alone article.
OLIGARCHS
This author has a very good definition which applies nicely to the Banksters and Mercantilists. He is correct, together they form the oligarchs who are intent on controlling the world.
An oligarch is someone who has amassed immense wealth and converted it into political and social authority…
The question is how does one become an oligarch? The suggestion is that some achieve oligarch status due to their shrewd business acumen. Many people are astute in business but that alone is not enough to rise to the oligarchy.In order to be an oligarch you have to be accepted by the other oligarchs. If oligarchs oppose you, your business will probably be crushed, or at least severely restricted, and access to political authority or social influence will be stifled…
PROPAGANDA
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William J. Casey, CIA Director.
This quote was originally spoken by Casey sometime in early February of 1981, at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, at which the White House policy analyst Barbara Honegger was present (who was then acting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President). She then relayed it to her Godmother, the Senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who made the quote public without naming the original source, through the Radio host Mae Brussel. — LINK
The primary tool that the Cabal (oligarchs) use against us is propaganda. This is why the EU and WEF are pushing so hard to clamp down on the truth and to get censorship re-installed in the USA and around the world.
Countering online disinformation is one of the biggest challenges democracies face today.
The European Union is listening to the concerns raised and taking serious action to counter the phenomenon. Here are 10 things the EU is doing to tackle disinformation: …The EU has a dedicated team, whose job it is to identify examples of disinformation targeting the EU and its citizens….
…The letter was sent by Thierry Breton and was dated August 12, 2024.
Thierry Breton is a French business executive, politician, writer and the current Commissioner for Internal Market of the European Union. In the letter, Thierry warns Elon Musk, “You have the legal obligation to ensure X’s compliance with EU law and in particular the DSA in the EU.”
Since when do Americans have to comply with EU law?
And what right does the EU have to censor OUR political candidates?
Speakers: Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, Vera Jourová, Jeanne Bourgault, Brian Stelter
Description:
How can the public, regulators and social media companies better collaborate to tackle disinformation, as information pollution spreads at unprecedented speed and scale?
WEF’s Global Risks Report 2025 downplays economic threats while pushing disinformation fears to justify tighter control and global governance.
And then there was the absolutely CLASSIC LIE of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to President Trump and VP Vance.
We’ve had free speaks for a very very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very very long time. – Starmer
Starmer gets the Trump stink eye.
Paul Joseph Watson showcasing Starmer’s lie. (9minutes) H/T Kea
In the USA, once the Central Bank was in place in 1913 the Cabal took over the media.
“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States. LINK
…Obama might have slithered out of the White House without a flashy “legacy” tag, but he sure did leave a mess. It’s as if he was the Dems and Deep State’s MVP, playing a long game we’re still trying to wrap our heads around. He wasn’t just about making policy changes; he was on a mission to infiltrate every corner of our sacred institutions and flip them inside out for his—and their—advantage. Just look what he did by weaponizing the intel community, churches, health care, and so much more… back in 2013, he made a move to ditch the Smith-Mundt Act, basically rolling out the red carpet for propaganda in our national media. This wasn’t just a small change; it was a game changer for how stories are told and sold to us to this day…
Limited Hangouts
This is an absolutely critical concept because it is used to derail the curious.
Paperback sample link. Want to know what happened to California? CIA put LSD in the food of Americans from 1953 to 1963… DARN! Amazon will not allow me to link to the page with the sample so you will have to look at the samples for the kindle version and the paperback. (They are different.)
After reading that, I realized that it was very similar to Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by former?? CIA Agent Kent Clizbe.Kent connected with me via Tony Heller’s site and gave me a free PDF of his draft over ten years ago. He even gave me his phone number!
In both cases our focus is directed towards the communists and NOT the Brits Fabian Society. Colonel Towner mentions the CIA uses the communists as their ‘Boogeyman’ in order to justify their regime change coups. The coups are NOT about ‘democracy’ but about helping the Transnational corporations, her ‘International Syndicate,’ acquire raw materials and cheap labor.
Whether these men know it or not they are purveyors of the type of propaganda called a ‘Limited Hang-out’
The best weapon you can have in the Second American Revolution is the ability to think clearly and critically. The Deep State has been working hard to keep Americans from real truth–from the inside job of 9-11, to the human trafficking and blackmail operations that keep our elected officials in tow, to the U.S. Patent Office theft of hundreds of patents from social media to free energy. What many people do not know is that it is legal to propagandize and terrorize Americans thanks to the NDAA…
One area of propaganda that you may not be aware of is something called controlled opposition, also known as limited or partial hangouts.
A limited hangout or partial hangout is, according to former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyVictor Marchetti, “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”…
….This question would go through our minds every time we would see a new false flag event plastered all over the media. Like many of you, we would think, “It has to be real, otherwise the government and participants would be engaging in treason.” But the narrative and the evidence never seem to match up.
…It even seemed that the “official story” that was “fed” to the news agencies was filled with holes on purpose. When 450 responders showed up in San Bernardino, including FEMA, ATF, Homeland Security, FBI, DoD, and all local agencies, within 14 minutes and had their lawn chairs and coolers set up while most of them walked around aimlessly with no worries in the world, we couldn’t take it anymore. We had always known that “false flags” usually precede severe military action and we couldn’t really imagine military action within US domestic borders since the military is not empowered to act against its own citizens.
Therefore, we decided to WAKE UP and study the false flag phenomena. Don’t presume to think this is just another conspiracy theory article. What you will read will chill you to the bone. We know this is a long article, but while you were sleeping much has been done to destroy your country. You need to see the immense work that is being done behind your back…
Astroturf Terrorism
‘Strategy of Tension’ It is important to understand this concept. The world we live in today operates on a strategy of tension. Most people do not know enough history to realize that if you look at a world map of 1910 and you look at a world map of 1950 there are a lot of ‘made-up countries’ that did not exist in 1910. — Colonel Towner
Colonel Towner goes on to say that after WWII when the maps of Europe and the Middle East were redrawn, incompatible groups were placed together in one country. This guaranteed conflicts within a country could easily be ignited.
….The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis
In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
Why?
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit….
I have already introduced Colonel Towner and Operation Gladio to the Qtree in other articles, this is another author who documents how Operation Gladio was revealed:
Operation Gladio was formally revealed in 1990 by the Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in an official statement to the Italian parliament. By then, Gladio had already been exposed in the courts and elsewhere, but Andreotti’s ‘official’ revelations widely exposed the unpalatable reality. Italian investigations, into the ‘Years of Lead‘, revealed NATO’s hand in a series of terrorist atrocities that had taken place in Italy throughout the 1950s to the 1980s. These included bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and mass shootings by terrorist organisations. There is no doubt that elements within the NATO deep state were routinely using false flag terrorism to control and manipulate public opinion and shape policy.
This is not the speculation of ‘looney conspiracy theorists,’ it is proven, well documented historical fact…
Following the end of WWII, both the U.S. and British intelligence agencies…
The co-option of Nazi technological and scientific expertise was enabled through Operation Paperclip. Top Nazi scientists, intelligence operatives, engineers and military strategists were either protected from prosecution or resettled in the U.S. and elsewhere. Authorised by President Truman in 1946, who stipulated that no committed National Socialists should be co-opted, the secret operation nonetheless supported many fervent Nazis….
Valierie pointed to this Book: “Destroying America: The CIA’s Quest to Control the Government.”
Meticulously sourced and rife with documentation from beginning to end, DESTROYING AMERICA details the CIA’s quest to control the government and shows how one Presidential Administration after another supported the egregious corruption in the CIA and government. It shows how Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are intricately involved in CIA corruption.
CIA officers and CIA “assets” have been targeted for the Presidency in Presidential races from 1964 to 2016, and there have been CIA officers in Congress since the earlyi950s.
Over the years, CIA officers in Congress have risen through the ranks to become some of the most powerful and influential members of Congress. They have ranged across the political spectrum from the far left to the far right…
An interesting side note based on information that Colonel Towner brought up. Obama’s mother worked for USAID. The CIA funded foreign students that they radicalized and used as part of their Werewolf Units in their home countries. Now think of Barack Obama, Sr. and Lolo Soetoro. BOTH were subversives. SEE: 2010
When I wrote about Mercantilism last week I mentioned merchant princes and bankers. I neglected to mention transport. You can not have trade without transporting trade goods from one place to another. If you look at American Indians, they had trade routes and used humans, canoes, dogs & camelids for transport. In Eurasia they were lucky enough to have donkeys, camels, horses, oxen and even elephants as beasts of burden. On top of that was the use of the wheel. However the favorite method was by water, to the point rivers were modified and canals were built. Even today water is a preferred method of transporting large amount of goods. And the corollary is you need SAFE trade routes.
Going back in time, to the Khazars and before, you have the Silk Road–a network of trade routes.
BY Umair Waseem[He seems to have other interesting articles.]
The Silk Road was a network of trade routes that connected the East and the West. It spanned across Asia, reaching parts of Europe and Africa. Over the centuries, it played a vital role in the exchange of goods, ideas, and culture. This historic route was not just about commerce; it was also about bridging distant cultures.
Origins of the Silk Road:
The history of the Silk Road traces back to the Han Dynasty of China around 130 BCE. The route started as an overland and maritime network. It connected the great cities of China to Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The earliest motivation was the need for silk.
The term “Silk Road” was coined by the German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in the 19th century. The term actually refers to the trade of silk, which was one of the most valuable goods traded along the route. However, many other products, such as spices, precious metals, and textiles, were also exchanged.
Key Trade Routes and Expansion:
The Silk Road was not a single road but a network of routes that connected regions….
The Role of Empires in the Silk Road:
There were a number of great powers that helped in the establishment and defense of the Silk Road. The first of these was the Han Dynasty of China, which established strong trade ties with Central Asia. This enabled the empire to dominate the eastern part of the Silk Road and ensure safe passage for goods and people.
The Roman Empire also played a crucial role in the trade along the Silk Road. Even though the Romans never managed to dominate the entire route, their demand for luxury goods such as silk helped propel the trade. The Persian Empire served as an intermediary between East and West, facilitating trade and communication.
The Mongol Empire, under Genghis Khan and his successors, revived the Silk Road. They provided protection and stabilization along the routes, which became a hotbed for merchants to once againtrade as they wanted….
Decline of the Silk Road:
…the Silk Road began its decline by the 15th century. The reasons why this occurred were several: the rise of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th century… Ottomans controlled much of the Silk Road in key parts that made it arduous for Europeans to access Asian markets.
….the discovery of the maritime trade route made it the efficient way to go. Maritime explorers began to explore sea routes to Asia bypassing the Silk Road totally as it had become an overland road. This led to a decline in trade patterned along the Silk Road accompanied by political instability and attacks….
So the Silk Road trade routes were very important to various empires in the Old World and ESPECIALLY to the people who made money off of trade, that is thebankers andthe Merchant Princes. I am going to leave the British East India Company and its tie-ins to another article.
The Brits, as a naval power, were very, very interested in the Middle East. They were also interested in an overland route thru the Middle East.
…the Treaty of Çanak offered security to the British against the entry of the Russian fleet from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. It also reaffirmed in full Great Britain’s capitulary rights (trading and consular privileges) in the Ottoman Empire, while its secret provisions provided that the British assist the Ottomans in the event of a French declaration of war against them.
In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt. This was intended to be a blow against the fast-expanding British Empire in India and a major extension into Asia of the war for global dominance between the British and French. Napoleon’s move highlighted to the British the importance of the region between the Mediterranean and India and particularly the large part of it ruled by the Ottoman Empire. In the next fifty years the British became preoccupied with strengthening their position in these lands by using their sea power in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf to frustrate their French and also increasingly their Russian rivals. This Special Subject [Course] tells the story of British activities in, attitudes to, and experiences of the Ottoman Middle East in this period, particularly in relation to Egypt, Syria, Arabia and Baghdad. The British could not seize these territories because their international strategy depended on trying to keep the Ottoman Empire alive,but most observers believed that it would shortly collapse and that it was essential to ensure political, economicand moral influence in advance of that point.The course’s ultimate objective is to trace the connections between political, cultural and religious activities in these territories: territories which were not just of strategic, diplomatic and naval significance but also of enormous interest to travellers seeking an understanding of classical and biblical history – and indeed adventure and exotic ‘Oriental’ experiences….
…a great discussion about British political and economic interests, leading among other things to the 1838 Anglo-Ottoman trade treaty (week 5); the invasion of Syria and Palestine in 1840-1 by British troops and agents,resulting in the protection of designated religious minorities…
OK, I want to stop here and look at what the Rothschilds were doing in the 1800s during this time period since they funded most of the European countries and their wars.
Do not forget one of the Rothschilds was a French Banker. The Bank of France was established in 1800. However Napoleon never trusted the Bank of France and he believed that France had to break free of debt.“..The Bank of England was quick to oppose him. By financing every nation in his path, they reaped enormous profits from the war. (Warning bells should be sounding for those of you drawing correlations between that and the international actions of the U.S. since World War II). Profit From War. Prussia, Austria and Russia all fell heavily into debt in their attempts to stop Napoleon….”
…Nathan knew Napoleon had lost the Battle of Waterloo before the English monarchy. With this information in hand, Nathan spread the rumor that Napoleon had won and that everyone on the English Stock Market should start selling their useless English money. Rothchilds’ agents were then able to purchase nearly the entire English Stock Market at incredibly low prices, thus controlling the entire English market before everyone found out that England, in reality, had beaten Napoleon. As of 2015, the English government is still paying back money owed to the Rothschild family from this Napoleonic fraud…
That article has since been re-written and updated as of Aug, 1 2024. All mention of the English government owing the Rothschilds money is gone. The current author is Jennifer L. Cook who got her start in editorial work in London as a researcher for three industrial relations journals. Her Education: University of California at Santa Cruz.
1858 — The Suez Canal was an immensely profitable investment by the Rothschild family. The family basically owned the British banking system and had funded all the British war efforts throughout the 19th century. Because the Suez Canal was built with slave labor, the Brits did not want their name associated with the building of it. Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, (Jewish BTW) had N M Rothschild & Sons act for the British Government instead. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild. LINK
1881 – Assassination of Tsar Alexander II in retaliation for his help during the US Civil War. It was also the start of the Jewish Pogram in Russia in retaliation for the Jewish Socialists murdering the Tsar.
1882 -1918 — The Rothschilds began to buy land in Palestine. The Rothschilds had international power as they lent money to all governments. By 1918, one-twentieth of Palestine’s fertile lands belonged to the Rothschilds. — Who sold Palestine?
Remember these Jews were refugees because Jewish Socialists, financed by the Rothschilds, had assassinated the Tzar and Russians took out their anger on the entire Jewish community. Also, exactly WHO owns Israel NOW if the Rothschilds bought the land?
The Fabian co-founders, the Webbs, founded the London School of economics with a bit of financial help from Nathan Rothschild. [ALL references are now gone…]
More recently Evelyn de Rothschild was a governor of LSU.
Although the following article is an ‘approved’ viewpoint, it has a few very interesting bits. Today I am looking at the Middle East connections.
Their Influence on European Industrialisation
Given their geographical banking control and massive wealth throughout the 19th century, the Rothschild family pioneered international high finance during the industrialisation of Europe and were instrumental in supporting railway systems across the world and in complex government financing for projects such as the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was another immensely profitable investment by the Rothschild family…
British recognized the canal as an important trade route, they objected to the use of forced Egyptian labour to build it, and perceived the French project as a threat to their geopolitical and financial interests.
So, over a span of eleven years, starting on December 15th, 1858 the Suez canal was built. The Rothschild’s basically owned the British banking system at the time since they funded all prior British war efforts throughout the 19th century. Thus, In 1875, the London banking house of N M Rothschild & Sons advanced the Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli. They effectively acted for the British Government, and paid a sum of £4,000,000 to purchase Suez Canal shares. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild, and according to legend, this was transacted on a gentleman’s agreement, with no documentation, a technically unsecured loan for a sum of over £550 million today.
Basically, England recognized the huge economical gain of purchasing shares in this trans-continental shipping route, but they did not want to be recognized for supporting the forced labour (slavery) that was implemented in order to build the canal….
Napoleon invades Egypt
The Suez Canal was primarily built by France, with Ferdinand de Lesseps, a French diplomat, playing a key role in obtaining the political and financial support. Construction began on April 25, 1859, and the canal was completed and officially opened on November 17, 1869. With the US cotton coming back on the market after the Civil War, the price of Egyptian cotton fell allowing the Rothschilds to move in and take the Egyptian shares. (I lost that link)
The map below illustrates just how critical control of the Suez Canal is. As I go deeper into this please keep that map in the back of your mind.
In 1956, the president of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal, which had mostly been owned by British and French investors. This canal was a major part of ocean-going shipping and allowed ships to pass into the Mediterranean from the Red Sea, effectively linking Europe to the Indian Ocean and trade from Asia. Swiftly, Israel, Britain, and France moved to intervene and invaded Egypt. Against the background of the Cold War and the anti-colonialism movement, the aggressive actions by Israel, Britain, and France heightened tensions with the Soviet-backed Arab states in the Middle East….
In 1798, a French general named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, with some 30,000 troops. Napoleon’s successful invasion and seizure of Cairo, the capital city, was quickly noticed by the British. With Napoleon’s massive army helpless on land, the British destroyed the French fleet in the Mediterranean. Moving by land, France faced another crippling blow when the British allied with the Ottomans to thwart Napoleon’s plans to take Syria. After just over a year in Egypt, Napoleon returned home to France, where he began seizing power as a dictator.
British interest in Egypt began in the 1860s due to two events: the US Civil War (1861-65) reducing the amount of cotton exported to Britain from the American South, and the completion of the Suez Canal in 1869. Swiftly, Egypt moved to increase cotton production, which would be bound for the textile mills of England.
The Suez Canal also benefited the British, as ships could now pass through the Mediterranean to reach India. At this time, India was Britain’s most valuable colony. This began a political tug-of-war between Britain and France regarding which European power would “control” Egypt…..
Between the 1880s and World War I, Britain came to dominate more and more of Egypt’s affairs. Officially, Egypt was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and the outbreak of hostilities between the Allied Powers (which included Britain) and the Central Powers (which included the Ottoman Empire) allowed Britain to seize control of Egypt. This year, 1914, saw Britain seize the Suez Canal and declare Egypt a protectorate. After World War I, Egyptians began fighting for independence, which was granted in 1922. However, British troops remained in Egypt until 1929, when they withdrew. The Suez Canal zone, similar to the Panama Canal zone in Central America, remained under British military control….
July 1956: Egypt Nationalizes the Suez Canal
In July 1952, a coup overthrew king Faruk I of Egypt, and one of the main plotters was a young man named Gamal Abdel Nasser. Three years later, Nasser was Egypt’s undisputed leader and positioned his country as one of the leading nonaligned states, meaning it was neither a formal ally of the United States nor the Soviet Union. However, Nasser was not a true Marxist and focused more on Arab nationalism and decolonization than socialism. On July 26, 1956, he announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal. This violated a 1954 agreement that said the Suez Canal Company would not be transferred to Egyptian control before 1968.
On October 29, 1956, Israel began its invasion of Egypt on the Sinai Peninsula and defeated opposing Egyptian forces. The Israelis advanced toward the Suez Canal from the west using ground forces. This conflict between Israel and Egypt was not shocking, as Egypt had been one of the several Arab states to fight against Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. The United Nation’s creation of a new Jewish territory in November 1947, using the land of British Palestine, was seen as an encroachment on Arab sovereignty. In May 1948, just as the new nation of Israel declared its independence, war broke out between it and neighboring Arab states.
Israel won its war for independence, but intense hostility lingered. Egypt prevented Israel from using the Suez Canal, motivating Israel to wrest the canal from Egyptian control. As Israeli forces pushed toward the canal in autumn of 1956, a trap was sprung by Britain and France against the Egyptians. Having plotted ahead of time with the Israelis, Britain and France called for a cease-fire by both sides in the growing war. When Nasser rejected this cease-fire, as was anticipated, Britain and France had an excuse to engage militarily….
Remember the Brits had ALSO promised the SAME LAND to the Arabs as to the Jews in return for revolting against the Ottoman Empire.
Back in 1915, the British needed the help of the Arabs in defeating the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In a set of letters called the ‘McMahon–Hussein Correspondence,’ they promised the Arabs that if they rebelled against The Ottoman Empire (which had sided with Germany in the war), that they would get their own independent state (as depicted in the first map above). However, at the very same time the British made this promise, there was clandestine agreement in the works with France and Russia to carve up the Ottoman Empire amongst themselves. This was known as the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement.’ Suffice it to say, the territory promised to the Arabs was not a part of their bargain. Then to make matters even more confusing, there was a third – and completely separate agreement with the Zionist community called the ‘Balfour Declaration’, promising the Jews their own ethno-state within the borders of Palestine.
So with these three contradictory agreements all made at the same time, it was clear that somebody was going to get deceived. In the end, the British promises to the Arabs were a fraud.
The Arabs fought and died for the British, thinking that they would gain their independence as a reward for their sacrifice. Yet what ended up happening instead, is that the British and French marched into their territory and claimed the remains of empire for themselves.
And we wonder why there is a festering hatred for non-Muslims in the Middle East?
Also of interest is Arthur Balfourof the Balfour-Declaration that promised a Jewish homeland in the Middle East.
I think at this point you can see why the Brits had a vested interest in trade routes through the middle east. AND that they were willing to fight to get control of those routes. Given India has played a central role in this drama, I am going to use an article by Frontier India News Network
The Israelis are promoting a Red Sea-Mediterranean Sea waterway, the Ben Gurion Canal, as a rival to the Suez Canal. As per the Israelis, the distance between Eilat, a southern Israeli port and resort town on the Red Sea near Jordan, and the Mediterranean is not long and is in fact similar to the distance of the Suez connection between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
Although it poses a direct threat to Egypt’s Suez Canal but Suez Canal is shorter than the Israeli route and the Suez Canal rarely reaches 100 meters in height making it a better option. At the same time, Israel says this route is good for the ships which are unable to transit the Suez Canal due to restrictions on the size of the ship.
History of Canal proposals via Israel
In the mid-1800, the British considered the proposal of a canal to the Red Sea via the Dead Sea. In 1855, Rear Admiral William Allen FRS, an English naval officer and an explorer proposed an alternative to the Suez Canal titled “The Dead Sea – A new route to India.” But William Allen did not know that the dead Sea was much below sea level. His idea was that a canal that would connect the three water bodies, Red Sea, Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, would be cheaper than the projected Suez Canal. The US toyed with the idea of digging a canal opposite the Suez Canal in 1963. It was recommended in a memo submitted by Lawrence Livermore Patriot Laps in the US as a response to the decision taken by the Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal in 1956. The controversial plan was revealed to the world only in 1994. The controversial US proposal involved 520 nuclear blasts to excavate more than 160 odd miles through Israel’s Negev desert, instead of traditional methods. The contentious proposal also noted that the project will be aggressively opposed by the Arab states. The canal would connect the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Aqaba (also called the Gulf of Eilat) and thus the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
The Modern Proposal
The idea of Ben Gurion canal has surfaced at a time when the Abraham Accords have radically changed the political landscape of the sensitive region. On 20th October 2020, the unthinkable happened when the Israeli state-owned Europe Asia Pipeline Company (EAPC) and the UAE-based MED-RED Land Bridge inked an arrangement to use the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline to move oil from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean.
On 2 April 2021, Israel announced that work on the Ben Gurion Canal is expected to begin by June 2021. The initial reference to the Ben Gurion Canal was published about two years back in Hebrew language publications. As per the sources, Israel will build the canal from Eilat on the Red Sea to Mediterranean….
Incisive and carefully documented geopolitical analysis by Richard Medhurst pertaining to the building of the Ben Gurion Canal linking the Eastern Mediterranean to the Gulf of Aqaba.
The Ben Gurion Canal Project was initially a “secret” (classified) U.S. project formulated in 1963 by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNG, a strategic think tank (focussing on nuclear radiation) on contract with the U.S Department of Energy. The LLNG project was formulated in response to the nationalization of the Suez Canal in July 1956 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1956-1970). Its intent was to bypass the Suez Canal.
According to the “classified” document prepared by the LLNG (1963) quoted by Business Insider, July 2023, a strategic plan was envisaged:
“to blast an alternative Suez Canal through Israel using 520 nuclear bombs”.
The plan consisted in using 520 buried nuclear explosions “to help in the excavation process through the hills in the Negev Desert. The document was declassified in 1993”. I have not been able to consult the “declassified” LLNG document.
The declassified document is acknowledged in Richard Medhurst’s video.
This U.S. plan, first negotiated with Israel in the 1960s is of utmost relevance to unfolding events in Palestine.
It’s objective is to achieve US-Israeli Maritime Dominance against the people of the Middle East. In the context of a broader US-led Middle East War, the Ben Gurion Canal Project is part of America’s hegemonic military agenda. It is consistent with Netanyahu’s “Plan to Wipe Palestine Off the Map”:
The Ben Gurion Canal will give Israel in particular and other friendly nations the freedom from blackmail arising out of access to the Suez Canal.
Arab states have been leveraging the Red Sea to pressure Israel and in response, Israel has decided to gain more control of the Red Sea. These African countries have cultural and economic affinities with the Arab states. One of the main military benefits for Israel is that it gives Israel the strategic options as the Ben Gurion Canal will totally take away the importance of Suez for the US military if needed in the aid for Israel.
Israel aims to push Egypt further into a corner by eliminating Suez in the global trade and energy corridor and becoming a global trade and energy logistics center.
Experts are of the opinion that this situation will shake the strategic-energy balance of China’s Belt and Road Project initiative in the Mediterranean, along with the Strait of Hormuz, which is the transfer point of 30 percent of the world’s energy. The Ben Gurion Canal would have the solid backing of the West. (Eurasia Review, November 7, 2023, emphasis added)
President Biden is broadly supportive of the Israeli led genocide. Visibly what is at stake is a U.S. hegemonic project which seeks the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland and the appropriation of all Palestinian lands.
According to Yvonne Ridley:
“The only thing stopping the newly-revised [Ben Gurion Canal] project from being revived and rubber-stamped is the presence of the Palestinians in Gaza.As far as Netanyahu is concerned they are standing in the way of the project” (Yvonne Ridley, November 10, 2023, emphasis added)….
Puts an interesting spin on the current Gaza war does it not? And then you can add in this:
Insider insights into the creation of Hamas – and other designated terrorist groups.
* * *
“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.”– Benjamin Netanyahu (2019)
“In the visible dimension Hamas is an enemy, in the hidden dimension it is an ally.” – IDF Major General Gershon Hacohen (2019)
“Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet.” – Charles Freeman, US diplomat and ambassador (2006)
* * *
A. Why Israel helped create Hamas
Since the founding of Hamas in 1987, Israeli, American and Palestinian officials have repeatedly acknowledged that Israel did indeed help create and fund the Islamist group.
The point made by many of these officials is not that Israel “allowed” the rise of Hamas or that Hamas emerged in response to Israeli “occupation” of Palestine. Rather, their point was and is that Israel’s intelligence agencies actively helped create and finance the Hamas group.
As the officials cited below make clear, the overall goal of supporting Hamas has been to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state and avert the implementation of a two-state solution to the Palestine question. From Israel’s perspective, a two-state solution would reduce Israel’s territory to the internationally recognized pre-1967 borders, prohibit any future territorial expansion, and prevent the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.
More specifically, supporting the Islamist Hamas group has served several Israeli objectives at once: first, it undermined Yasser Arafat’s secular nationalist PLO; second, it helped prevent the implementation of the 1993 Oslo Accords; third, it undermined the Palestinian National Authority and isolated Gaza from the Westbank; fourth, it impeded Western support for the Palestinian cause; and fifth, it justified Israeli (counter-)attacks on Palestinian territory…
Given the above and the desire for the new canal, this Jerusalem Post article makes sense.
With that as background, these articles by a French socialist clicks into place.
First, what does he mean by ‘Straussians’?
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard is one of Leo Strauss’s acolytes. “…Strauss was a German Jewish émigré who arrived in the United States during the rise of fascism in Germany…. He instilled a cult-like devotion in his students—who became known as the Straussians…”LINK
by Thierry Meyssan French journalist and political activist of the Left.
March 7 2023
While observers predicted a war of Israel against one of its neighbors, the Hebrew State is not attacked from anywhere. It has opponents, but no enemy, except itself. Its political organization is not defined by any constitution and is therefore easy to overthrow. The Straussians, who are in power in the State Department and the White House, are now driving the change of its regime. [He is talking about Biden -GC] Demonstrations are taking place throughout the country to prevent the country from becoming, in the words of a former Mossad director, “a racist and violent state that cannot survive. But it is probably already too late...
Most of the Federalist Society’s adherents are just conservative or libertarian lawyers. They were only concerned with family law and economic law. However, within the Society, a small group became involved in international politics. It is this group that influences Israel today. In the United States, it first succeeded in making “American exceptionalism” triumph . [4].
This school of thought refuses to apply international treaties in domestic law; judges the behaviour of others harshly, but absolves Americans who do the same on principle; and refuses to allow any international jurisdiction to take an interest in its internal affairs. In short, it believes that, for religious reasons, the United States is not comparable to other states and should not be subject to any international law…. (See TheseTruthscomment from February 17, 2025)
The other major struggle of this Federalist Society group was to overturn the “non-delegation doctrine. American jurists believed that the separation of constitutional powers did not allow the executive to encroach on the privileges of the legislature and to define the criteria for the application of a law. Now, the opposite is true: the separation of powers prohibits the Legislative branch from interfering with the activities of the Executive branch. The Congress thus loses its power to control the White House. It is on the basis of this sleight of hand that President George W. Bush was able to launch a series of wars and to generalize torture.
The links between this Federalist Society group and the Israeli Likud are not new. In 2003, Elliott Abrams organized the Jerusalem Summit with the participation of almost all Israeli political groups. He said that there would be no peace in the world until Israel crushes the Palestinians’ demands…
Bezalel Smotrich sees the Arabs as wild animals that must be tamed by force. But the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, approaches the issue from a different point of view. For him, God gave the land to the Jews who must expel the Arab squatters from it. Regardless of the points of view, all members of the coalition agree on one thing: the government is sovereign and should not be restricted by laws. This suits Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is under judicial investigation.
What is going on in Israel is not just about Israelis and Palestinians.Elliott Abrams is a historic Straussian, even more so than the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and his deputy, Victoria Nuland. It is therefore foreseeable that if the “reform” of the Israeli justice system continues, the new regime will be fully aligned with the positions of the Straussians. For the time being, Israel refuses to send arms to Ukraine according to the principle of General Benny Gantz: “No Israeli arms should reach the mass murderers of Jews”. The risk of an alliance between Ukrainian “integral nationalists”, American “Straussians” and Israeli “revisionist Zionists” has never been greater [6]. The United States has just banned the Minister of Finance, Bezalel Smotrich, from visiting its territory. They still sanction his racist remarks, but for how long?
The recent general strike in Israel is not just a demonstration against the rhetoric that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists and that the IDF will release the hostages held in Gaza. It marks the beginning of a realization that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is not defending Jews. While Jewish Israelis are not yet aware of the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, they are becoming aware of the anti-Arab pogroms in the West Bank. Gradually, they are beginning to admit that their enemies are not their neighbours, but are among them. These are the revisionist Zionists.
….As a result, the question we’ve been asking since mid-November[1]is also starting to resonate with Israelis: what if Benyamin Netanyahu wasn’t incompetent, but an accomplice in the attack?
I think we can make a very good guess as to the answer, Yes Netanyahu was fully on board with allowing the attack and the ‘Standown’ of Israel troops. Given 9/11 that should sound very familiar. ….. Since a lot of this has to do with the Rothschilds, I want to also add para59r comments to the end of this article.
“…last Wednesday brought in some solid evidence that suggests the Rothschilds are SATANIC rather than benign.
I mentioned in last Wednesday’s article that I fell down an interesting rabbit hole, more like a rabbit warren, when looking in my notes for info on the John Maynard Keynes link to the Fabian Society.
This is the comment in my notes that started my latest journey.
Nicely done, Gail, very neat. The nail rapped smartly on the head 3 times. I’ll raise you 137 years.
1st May, 1776, Rothschild commissioned a report on how to secure world domination: Go to youtube & put in their search box : Whistleblower Head of FBI tells all from NWO 1 hr 4 mins.
Or try the ref, it might work : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do_swOstGaI [It still does work surprisingly. – GC] Ted L. Gunderson, ex head of FBI in LA, would not shut up about what he’d learned. He wound up poisoned with arsenic.
Is the plan coming apart? http://www.usawatchdog.com & scroll down to the article: US Currency Weak and About to Crash. 02/12/2014 371 comments. ( which I haven’t had time to read. Karen is ex Chief Legal Counsel for the World Bank.
Is this lady the real deal, or is she full of it? Anyone?
In the comments on that article is this link from 2014,Philosophy of Metricswhich looks interesting.
ABOUT
Philosophy of Metrics is the methodology of understanding the world through patterns and processes. From the ancient philosophy of primitive man to the stock market today, there is a pattern in everything and anything. We but need to observe and recognize the macro and micro of it all.
One of the biggest patterns is the one of ignorance. We are subjected daily to methods of misdirection and direct obfuscation which serve to keep us blind to the realities that surround us.
Our modest intent is to lift the fog on the mysteries and allow some of these patterns to become visible, whereby we may better understand the world and our place within it.
I bring that comment up because it is the patterns and threads I am trying to follow since we now know our history as taught is bull schiff.
I would say she is a Limited Hangout (1) given the blurb from this Utube:
In 2007 Karen warned the US Treasury Department and US Congress that the US would lose its right to appoint the President of the World Bank if the current American President of the World Bank did not play by the rules. The 66 year old Gentlemen’s Agreement that Europe would appoint the Managing Director of the IMF and US would appoint the World Bank President ended in 2010 http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/201… Karen Hudesstudied law at Yale Law Schoolandeconomics at the University of Amsterdam .
She worked in theUS Export Import Bankof the US from 1980-1985 and in theLegal Department of the World Bankfrom 1986-2007. SheestablishedtheNon Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Associationandthe Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.
State governments and their political subdivisions can’t use bankruptcy. NOTE: A popular argument in movement circles contends that this whole nation was placed into bankruptcy in 1930 and Roosevelt devised a plan to get judicial approval of the “bankruptcy” via the decision in the 1938 Erie Railroad case. But how can such a legal theory fly in view of the decision in this case? — LIMITS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWERS – Constitution Org
“…at a town hall meeting I said since John F Kennedy was assassinated by the Jesuits, and we know this because Gambino when he got out of jail said that the mafia were told by the Jesuits to fire the kill shot. There was a a mafioso hidden in a sewer so as the limousine drove by that’s that’s the shot that killed John F Kennedy.
Did you know for example that we had a second constitution in 1871 after the debts for the Revolutionary War came due and we couldn’t meet those obligations?That’s when we got a second Constitution. So that the United States is incorporated as a company. The president of the United States is the chief executive officer and the Congress acts like managers of the company rather than representing the constituency. Rather than respecting our first Constitution. This is understood by a number of people. There’s a lot of documentation on this. Now people are starting to spread the world word. You’re not going to get this in your universities. You’re not going to be taught this in the schools…”
She is spouting chaff meant to divert attention away from the CIA in my opinion. Why? I think it is because of these two whistle-blowers getting traction and because of the rise of the Tea Party Movement.
“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. “
With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988. A native Grenadian, Budhoo received his degree from the London School of Economics. He joined the staff of the World Bank in 1966 and later shifted to the IMF, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) for African, Latin American and Caribbean nations. His 100-plus page open letter to Michel Camdessus, managing director of the IMF, titled “Enough is Enough,” sent shock waves around the world, making front page headlines in many countries (but not in the US).
Budhoo was the first person to break the IMF’s code of silence regarding internal affairs by exposing extensive statistical fraud carried out by the fund in Trinidad and Tobago during 1985-1987….
The other was Confessions of an Economic Hitman – describing how as a highly paid professional, John Perkins helped the World Bank. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies. Also note that the finger is pointed at the USA (to generate hatred of the USA) and not the REAL culprit, the globalists.
“….He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which—I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most—many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country.…” Democracy Now Org 2004
The IMF/World Bank uses Structural Adjustment Policies, SAPs, to open up countries to exploitation by corporations. Instead of a British Empire overtly colonizing the world — heavily criticized by a voting public — we have Corporate and Banking interests united in the covert control of whole nations in the name of profit….
(There have been 249 captures of this article by the Wayback!)
Structural Adjustment Policies are economic policies which countries must follow in order to qualify for new World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and help them make debt repayments on the older debts owed to commercial banks, governments and the World Bank. Although SAPs are designed for individual countries but have common guiding principles and features which include export-led growth; privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market.
SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care…
By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is.. that riots are a frequent result….
“…privatisation and liberalisation; and the efficiency of the free market...” Those are just the feel good words the Global Cabal uses to hide what they are actually doing. I will get into that in the next article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The second rabbit hole warren from this comment, — Ted L. Gunderson, Whistleblower Head of FBI — deserves its own separate article so I will address it next week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rabbit hole #3
The Lord moves in mysterious ways. He even drags an agnostic such as myself, to the truth, on Sunday no less.
I remembered an article talking of the Supreme Court case that allows the bureaucracy to MAKE law. The federal Register and 30 day comment period was the fig leaf for “consent of the governed” blessed by that Supreme Court case. A few days ago I went looking for that info and all I could find was the happy horse schiff from the Federal Reserve, March 14, 1936 — March 14, 2006
On December 10, 1934, at the Supreme Court, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States had been grilled during oral arguments in the first case to reach the Court challenging the constitutionality of the centerpiece of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” — the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). The critical constitutional issues at stake were mostly ignored that day while the Justices focused on the fact that the defendants, two Texas oil companies, had been charged with violating a provision of regulations that technically did not exist at the time the companies were charged. The defects in the case highlighted a fundamental problem facing a democratic government that was exploding with new agencies and new regulations. Amidst the ferment of orders and codes issuing from agencies, even individuals working at the highest levels of government found it difficult or impossible to keep track of all of them. And for the regulated public, this new body of “executive legislation” was inaccessible and virtually hidden. The next day, at the White House, where the great men of the New Deal [You mean Commie TRAITORS don’t you?…] had been arguing over the value of publishing a gazette containing the orders issued by Executive Branch officers, President Roosevelt laid aside his misgivings about possible misuse of the publication for propagandistic purposes and appointed a committee of the National Emergency Council to make a special study of the idea. Meanwhile, behind-the-scenes maneuvering by lawmakers and influential legal minds, including Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, culminated in the publication on December 11, 1934 of a Harvard Law Review article by, Ervin Griswold entitled “Government in Ignorance of the Law – A Plea for Better Publication of Executive Legislation.” The arguments Griswold made for orderly publication of the official actions of the Executive Branch were underlined when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Panama Oil case and forced the hand of the committee studying the issue for President Roosevelt. Congress passed legislation to create the Federal Register, and the President signed it into law (Pub. L. 74-220, July 26, 1935). The Act created a lasting partnership between the National Archives and the Government Printing Office. The Archivist of the United States, acting through a Division in the National Archives, was charged with custody of and, with the Public Printer, prompt and uniform printing and distribution of public documents in a publication designated the Federal Register…
In those notes on the Fabians, I had this but not the Utube I got it from:
Min 1:00 — 3:38
On the interpretation of two main clauses of the constitution, the first is the commerce clause which delegates to congress the authority to regulate commerce among the states. The second is the necessary and proper clause which provided for the congress to have the powers that are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers, the explicit powers and unfortunately those words have been given a broader interpretation than was intended by the framers.
On my website constitution.org and on my blog constitutionalism.blogspot.com
I have a number of articles that examine the problems arising from this misinterpretation and the arguments and evidence for why the clauses should not be interpreted in that way. But this evening I’m going to focus on the line of supreme court presidents that led to where we are today. There are 44 main supreme court presidents. There are many more cases than that, but most of those others cite one or more of these 44 cases. So if one were to overturn these 44 cases, and in fact you wouldn’t need to overturn all of them, if you overturned the first few the rest would fall because the later ones are based on the earlier ones. But for the sake of completeness if one were to propose amendments to the constitution to overturn these bad precedents, which are about the only way they are going to get overturned, then it would be necessary to unravel them fairly specifically. And the way to word such an amendment is not at all obvious, it requires a good deal of analysis and thought and i hope to assemble teams of experts to work out the wording. For how to do that in the meantime i have proposed my own wording if on constitution.org you will find a link to constitutional amendments…
So I tried to find the video but could not and instead I fell down a very interesting rabbit hole leading to
His videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/JonRoland1787
Gee! I think those are the Droids I was looking for! And WOW what a treasure trove of information on the Constitution. Linked below are just two of the goodies at that website.
Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.— Frederick Douglass, civil rights activist, Aug. 4, 1857
Any power that can be abused will be abused. — Tyranny Law #1
Abuse always expands to fill the limits of resistance to it. — Tyranny Law #2
If people don’t resist the abuses of others, they will have no one to resist the abuses of themselves, and tyranny will prevail. — Tyranny Law #3
Usurpations
Usurpation is the exercise of powers by an agent which have not been delegated to him by the principal. In a constitutional republic like the United States of America, acts by officials are legitimate only if they are consistent with and based on a constitution, a body of laws which are superior to all subsequent statutes and other acts of officials, which embodies all delegations of power, and which may recognize certain rights to further define the limits on the powers delegated. It is a fundamental principle that all acts of officials not derived from the delegated powers of the constitution are null and void from inception, not just from the point at which a court may find them unconstitutional. Every person who has an encounter with the acts of officials has the duty not only to obey legitimate official acts, but to help enforce them, but, when there is a conflict among acts of officials, to enforce the superior one, which, when an act of an official is in conflict with the constitution, means enforcing the constitution and not the act in conflict with it. Judges and other citizens do not decide constitutionality, but discover it, and every person who is involved with any act by an official has a nondelegatable duty to make a determination of the constitutionality of that act. This determination is called constitutional review, and, when exercised by a judge in a case, judicial review.
Since the ratification of the Constitution for the United States and each of its properly ratified amendments, there have been numerous acts by officials, including statutes, regulations, executive orders, court rulings, and ordinary decisions and actions taken while on duty and under color of law, which have been unconstitutional, and in many cases, in violation of civil rights of persons and of constitutional laws. We will try to identify some of the worst of such violations of the Constitution, and discuss how compliance with the Constitution can be restored.
Then follows over 50 links to other articles and documents.
…. His Constitution.org site also had this with 25 articles referenced:
The doctrine of nondelegation is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of legislative powers to executive branch officials, but may be more broadly applied to questions of improper delegations of legislative powers to judicial officials, improper delegations of judicial powers to legislative or executive officials, improper delegations of executive powers to legislative or judicial officials, improper delegations of legislative or judicial powers to clerical subordinates within their branches, or improper delegations of legislative, judicial, or executive powers to private parties, or improper delegations of private powers to public officials. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.
Finally, there is the broadest application of all, the nondelegation from the people of a power to any officials in a constitution, the principle of which is set forth in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
An example of one of the documents referenced in this article:
Congress sometimes has a habit of passing laws with very broad mandates, then leaving it up to administrative agencies to fill in all of the policy details later.
In the 1930s, the Supreme Court blew the whistle on this practice,finding several times that Congress could not give away lawmaking powers vested in it by Article I of the Constitution. In 1935 in Schechter Poultry Company v. U.S., for example, the court struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which essentially delegated legislative powers to administrative agencies and private parties to write rules to govern the American economy. Congress had given only the vaguest guidance as to how to do it–ensuring “fair competition.”
The principle that Congress could not delegate away its Article I lawmaking powers to administrative agencies came to be known as the “nondelegation doctrine.”
Six Decades of Dormancy
For six decades the nondelegation doctrine has pretty much been asleep. In 1980, in Industrial Union Dept AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist summarized the three main functions of the nondelegation doctrine: it guarantees that key social policy decisions will be made by Congress, it ensures that administrative agencies get an “intelligible principle” by which to exercise their discretion, and it guarantees that courts reviewing administrative actions will have ascertainable and meaningful standards against which to judge them.
But no court has dared question a legislative enactment as a violation of the doctrine for a long time –that is, until the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rendered its decision last year in American Trucking Association v. Environmental Protection Agency. There, the court found that the EPA’s “construction of the Clean Air Act. . . in promulgating the NAAQS (National Air Ambient Quality Standards) effects an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.” The court said that, in delegating so much power to the EPA to decide clean air rules, “it is as though Congress commanded EPA to select ‘big guys,’ and EPA announced that it would evaluate candidates based on height and weight, but revealed no cut-off point. The announcement. . .is fatally incomplete. The reasonable person responds, ‘How tall? How heavy?'” With this vivid analogy, the nondelegation doctrine sprung back to life.
Revived or Put Into Deeper Sleep?
Or did it? The problem with the D.C. Circuit’s so-called “revival” of the nondelegation doctrine is that it looks a lot more like a burial. The court’s tortured formulation of the problem makes no sense. It is not the EPA’s construction of the statute that effects an unconstitutional delegation; it is Congress’ statute itself. EPA’s construction of the statute cannot determine, much less cure, its constitutionality. Yet, having made this fundamental error, the court follows through on it by remanding the case to the EPA to come up with an “intelligible principle” that will, amazingly, somehow magically cure the statute of its unconstitutionality. But how can an agency rewrite a congressional statute to make it constitutional?….
Between 1877 and 1937 (between the formal end of Reconstruction and the formal constitutional ratification of the New Deal), the American system of governance was transformed with momentous implications for twentieth-century social and economic life. Nineteenth-century traditions of self-government and local citizenship were replacedby a modern approach to positive statecraft, individual rights, and social welfare very much with us today…. By “The Creation of the American Liberal State” I mean to suggest that the period from 1877 to 1937 was not just an “age of reform” or a “response to industrialism” or a “search for order” (Hofstadter 1955; Hays 1957; Wiebe 1967). Rather, it was an era marked by the specific and unambiguous emergence of a new regime of American governance — the modern liberal state…. the very origins of modern social-scientific inquiry in the United States were wholly coincident with and participatory in the construction of the new state-centered socio-economic policies of the progressive era…
The Progressive Discovery that Law Obstructs Politics
It is easy amid the rapid shifts in contemporary intellectual fashion to forget the long and pervasive hold of “progressive historiography” on American thought during the first half of the twentieth century (Hofstadter 1968; Benson 1960; Horwitz 1984). From the turn-of-the-century through the late New Deal, American political and economic development was interpreted primarily through the filter of intellectual categories developed in contests over progressive reform in the early twentieth century….
The confrontation between FDR’s New Deal legislation and Supreme Court constitutional review breathed new life into the progressive critique of law. In 1938… Benjamin Twiss began his Lawyers and the Constitution: How Laissez Faire Came to the Supreme Court (1942) as a direct response to the “revolution of 1937″ and as a direct attack on the “Four Horsemen” of anti-New Deal judicial apocalypse: Justices Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Butler. Twiss’s story about law and the New Deal re-deployed the stock figures and simple morals of a mature progressive historiography…
Behind the progressive mythology of negative laissez-faire constitutionalism lies an alternative story of law’s positive force in producing a modern state in America. And contrary to oddly influential European proclamations of the weakness and incompleteness of that state, the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity. That entity, which has wielded staggering global influence in the twentieth century, was patently not the simple outgrowth of possessive individualism or the protection of private rights of property and contract or a governmental willingness to “leave alone.” It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding…
“..the obvious empirical reality is that the story of the twentieth-century American state is about the creation of a most powerful geo-political entity… It was the product of a continuous and energetic process of statebuilding….”He leave out the tiny little fact that the USA was transformed into the British Empire’s Front Man and Cannon Fodder after the passage of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We have been fighting Banker Wars ever since.
“All Wars Are Bankers Wars” (45 minutes)
One of the references cited in the above article is this 1938 book:
Court over Constitution: A study of judicial review as an instrument of popular government by Edward S. Corwin 1938.
I am not about to buy the book but I did find this thanks to Yandex. Brave only had one pointer. It was to “Good Reads’ with no info. Not even a review.
In trying to find more about that book I was led to:
It is noteworthy that whenever Marbury v. Madison is discussed in works on constitutional law, text books or case books, reference is invariably made to Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of judicial review in Federalist No. 78 as an early indication that the principle was regarded as a fundamental part of the system of government set up under the Constitution. Surprisingly, these works, almost without exception, fail to refer to the Antifederalist Letters of Brutus to which this number of the Federalist Papers constitutes a response. This is a regrettable omission since No. 78 cannot be properly understood except in the context of Brutus’ charge that the Constitution provided, not only for judicial review, but for judicial supremacy….
What concerned Brutus, in the first instance, was the use to which the court would apply judicial review in the service of national consolidation and how this would threaten the independence and survival of the states.The judicial power, Brutus warned, would operate to affirm and legitimate all the invasions of state power committed by the national legislature. “The real effect of this system of government, will … be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power.”
….Brutus went on to point out another crucial distinction between the British and American systems of government – the ability of Parliament to severely restrict the broader impact of an unwarranted and inappropriate judicial interpretation of the constitution – a power entirely lacking to the U.S. Congress.
The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature. In England the judges are not only subject to have their decisions set aside by the house of lords, for error, but in cases where they give an explanation to the laws or constitution of the country, contrary to the sense of the parliament, though the parliament will not set aside the judgment of the court, yet, they have authority, by a new law, to explain a former one, and by this means to prevent a reception of such decisions. But no such power is in the [U.S.] legislature. The judges are supreme-and no law, explanatory of the constitution, will be binding on them.
The end result was that,
(t]here is no power above them to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself.
Thus one can understand why George Soros targets judges and state attorneys general. People who fly under the radar of most people but who wield tremendous power.
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
I am going to again post the URL of another Constitutionalist, “Publius Huldah” the nom de guerre of Joanna Martin, J.D.
(1) Footnote: LINK to article about Victor Marchetti, former senior CIA official, who wrote a book exposing CIA deceptions. The CIA remove 399 passages, nearly a fifth of the book. That article defines ‘Limited Hangout’ thus:
Notice The British Empire vs The Ottoman Empire in the first map on the left. I thought about the promises the Brits made to the Arabs if they revolted against the Ottoman Empire. I did a bit of digging and decided I am going to explore WHY the Brits/Rothschilds were so interested in destroying the Ottoman Empire in the next article. Looks like double crossing the Arabs and adding Israel to the mix was a feature not a bug.
YOU HAVE BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY BRAINWASHED AND YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW IT! And yes I mean all of us. I finished writing this and realized I had gone about it all wrong. Therefore I am changing the order and add a lot more information. (So what else is new?)
Our puppet masters are well aware that “…emotions drive more than 80 percent of our decision-making, while logic makes up the rest.… Social psychologists have discovered that emotional response to a given stimuli is milliseconds faster than cognitive or thinking response…” AND “… anger [along with fear] is one of our strongest and most powerful emotions…” In other words they know how to manipulate the public.
False Flag events are REAL events orchestrated by governments or non-state actors to elicit a specific response from the public — Fear & Anger. To make sure the specific response by the public is achieved AND directed toward the selected target, propaganda is used. It is all about getting the public’s buy-in to the Cabal’s narrative and has NOTHING to do with the truth.
So, what is fifth generation warfare and why does it matter?
5th-Gen warfare is an extension of Asymmetric and Insurgent Warfare strategies and tactics, whereby both conventional and unconventional military tactics and weapons are incorporated and deployed,including exploitation of political, religious and social causes.This new gradient of warfare uses the internet, social media and the 24 hour news cycle to changecognitive biases of individuals and/or organizations. It can be conducted by organized or unorganized (ergo decentralized) groups; it may be led by nation states, non-nation state actors and organizations, non-governmental organizations or even individuals. A key characteristic of 5th Gen warfare is that the nature of the attack is concealed. The goal is to disrupt and defeat opponents by creating new cognitive biases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHO CONTROLS THE PROPAGANDA WE CONSUME?
This is key to understanding how we are being manipulated and BY WHOM. Please put your emotions on hold and look at this without the religious overtones. However if you do want to introduce religion…
Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie….
Revelation 3:9:
I do not think the Cabal is ‘Jewish’ but instead are Lovers of Money and POWER who use the Jewish religion as cover especially in the USA. (Just try criticizing George Soros.)
…One item stands out as a person listens to the International Bankers and reads their books. They believe money is what makes the world go round. If you have money, you can do anything. Money is “God”, and it is worshipped and served. Even after these families accumulate more than can be spent, these devotees continue selling their souls for this false but powerful god. The great poet-philosopher Heinrich Heine (a Banker’s son) said, “Money is the god of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.”— As quoted in Sampson, Anthony. The Money Lenders. Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, Ltd., 1985, p.37.
…According to eye-witnesses, who were prominent enough to visit one of the British Rothschild homes, the Rothschilds worship yet another god too, Satan. They set a place for him at their table.(8a) The Rothschilds have been Satanists for many generations. LINK
BELOW: “Marina Abramovic posing with Lord Jacob Rothschild, who is also a lover of the “arts.” The painting behind them just happens to be “Satan summoning his Legions” (1797), by Sir Thomas Lawrence.”
Just as we Americans are duped by the US government, the Jewish people are duped by theirs. In both cases atrocities are committed in our name as the true villains hide. You do not need The Khazar-Rothschild Continuum and the Hidden Hand of History (Burning Platform) to explain the present situation, all you need is the love of Power, Wealth, AND WAR!
Yeah, seems the Rothschilds OWN Charlies and have owned England since 1815.
1858 — The Suez Canal was an immensely profitable investment by the Rothschild family. The Rothschild’s basically owned the British banking system and had funded all the British war efforts throughout the 19th century. Because the Suez Canal was built with slave labor, the Brits did not want their name associated with the building of it. Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, (Jewish BTW) had N M Rothschild & Sons acted for the British Government instead. Disraeli was a close personal friend of Lionel de Rothschild. LINK
1881 – Assassination of Tsar Alexander II in retaliation for his help during the US Civil War. Start of the Jewish Pogram in Russia in response to the assassination carried out by socialist Jews.
1882 -1918 — The Rothschilds began to buy land in Palestine. The Rothschilds, who had international power as they lent money to all governments, wanted the refugee Russian Jews to be allowed to settle in these lands. By 1918, one-twentieth of Palestine’s fertile lands belonged to the Rothschilds. — Who sold Palestine?
If the people settling in Palestine were Russian Jews, perhaps the scientist who looked at their DNA was correct and they are more closely related to the Khazars than to Middle East people. Remember these Jews were refugees because Jewish Socialists had assassinated the Tzar and Russians took out their anger on the entire Jewish community. Also, exactly WHO owns Israel if the Rothschilds bought the land?
Among its major contributors: the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, and Mrs. Ernest Elmhirst, the widow of J. P. Morgan partner Willard Straight, who founded the socialist. magazine New Republic. — The Fabians, the Round Table, and the Rhodes Scholars
The Fabian co-founders, the Webbs, founded the London School of economics with a bit of financial help from Nathan Rothschild. [ALL references are now gone…]
More recently Evelyn de Rothschild was a Governor of LSU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE TAKE OVER OF THE USA
Cartoon by Robert Minor [a Communist] in St. Louis Post-Dispatch (1911). Karl Marx surrounded by an appreciative audience of Wall Street financiers: John D. Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Morgan partner George W. Perkins. Immediately behind Karl Marx is Teddy Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive Party.
…J. W. McCallister, an oil industry insider with House of Saud connections, wrote in The Grim Reaper that information he acquired from Saudi bankers cited 80% ownership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank- by far the most powerful Fed branch- by just eight families, four of which reside in the US. They are the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.
CPA Thomas D. Schauf corroborates McCallister’s claims, adding that ten banks control all twelve Federal Reserve Bank branches…
…They are J.P. Morgan Company, Brown Brothers Harriman, Warburg, Kuhn Loeb and J. Henry Schroder. All of them maintain close relationships with the House of Rothschild, principally through the Rothschild control of international money markets through its manipulation of the price of gold…. Although these firms are ostensibly American firms,.. the fact is that these banking houses actually take their direction from London. Their history is a fascinating one, and unknown to the American publicoriginating as it did in the international traffic in gold, slaves, diamonds, and other contraband.
There are no moral considerations in any business decision made by these firms. They are interested solely in money and power.
1913 – Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is an international NGO formed in NYC. It opposed McCarthyism during the Cold War. (Can’t have the Commies and other traitors exposed now can we? Nor people like George Soros criticized.)
“In March, 1915,the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of themto control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States…
1950 — February 17, 1950,James Warburg confidently declared to the United States Senate:
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” James Paul Warburg (1896-1969) was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, and a nephew of both Felix Warburg and Jacob Schiff, both associated with Kuhn, Loeb & Company which financed the Russian Revolution through James’ brother Max, banker to the government of Germany. [Mastermind of the Federal Reserve]
“Some of these young soldiers I remember – it’s not nice to say – they put [the Palestinian villagers] in a barrel and shot at the barrel, and I remember the blood in the barrel.”
Qibya is one of the saddest and most difficult events in Israeli history. A military unit enters a village, and when the raid is over, 43 homes had been demolished, and 69 civilians – mostly women and children – had been killed.
1954 — AIPAC
AIPAC was founded in 1954 by Isaiah L. Kenen, a lobbyist for the Israeli government, partlyto counter negative international reactions to Israel’s Qibya massacre of Palestinian villagers that year. –WIKI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ISRAEL LOBBY DOMINATES CONGRESS & THE SENATE
Many Democrat congressmen, senators and bureaucrats have duel Israeli citizenship LINK & LINKThat list includes David Plouffe.
I can not find my reference to the Democrat connection to AIPAC. but here are some alternate references:
Building on a successful playbook from 2022, AIPAC and other aligned groups are picking their targets — many more of them this time.
A California Democrat running for Rep. Katie Porter’s seat suddenly became the target of an unexpected barrage of negative ads from the nation’s premier pro-Israel group this year. So he emailed a former Michigan representative, Andy Levin, for advice.
Levin was ousted from his House seat in 2022, after the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent $4 million against him. Levin was one of a handful of Democrats targeted by AIPAC last cycle, when the group went after a range of progressive candidates in mostly open House primaries over their criticism of Israel….
Congressman Thomas Massie reveals to Tucker Carlson that his Republican colleagues have an “AIPAC babysitter” to ensure they vote in the interests of Israel at all times.
“It’s the only country that does this,” Massie adds.
“Everybody but me has an AIPAC person — like your AIPAC babysitter, who is always talking to you for AIPAC,”Massie said. “They’re probably a constituent from your district but they’re firmly embedded in AIPAC.”
“Every member has something like this?” Tucker Carlson asked.
“Every Repub–, I don’t know how it works on the Democrat side, but that’s how it works on the Republican side,and when you come to DC you go have lunch with them and they’ve got your cell number and you have conversations with them.”
“That’s crazy,” Carlson responded.
“So, I’ve had four members of Congress say, ‘I’ll talk to my AIPAC person’ — that’s literally what we call them, ‘my AIPAC guy,'” Massie said, laughing. “‘I’ll talk to my AIPAC guy and see if I can get them to, you know, dial those ads back.'”
“Why have I never heard this before?” Carlson said.
“It doesn’t benefit anybody,” Massie said, “why would they want to tell their constituents that they’ve basically got a buddy system with somebody who is representing a foreign country, it doesn’t benefit the congressmen for people to know that so they’re not going to tell you that.”
…AIPAC is one of the leading forces behind the Israel lobby,joined in recent years by the ascending Christians United for Israel. Other Jewish “pro-Israel” organizations are niche affairs, representing particular constituencies on the left or right. But it’s AIPAC that is the registered lobby on Capitol Hill, and it is AIPAC whose clout on matters relating to Israel exceeds the clout of the National Rifle Association on matters related to guns; while the NRA’s sway is almost entirely over Republicans,
AIPAC has historically drawn its support from both parties. Is there any place but AIPAC that not only gets Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in the same room, but also gets to hear them in near total agreement?
But there’s something strange, too, about AIPAC. Consider Vice President Mike Pence’s
“Every freedom-loving American stands with Israel — because her cause is our cause, her values are our values and her fight is our fight.” [Excuse me bull schiff! Why should US blood and money go to defend another country when we have major problems here at home? –GC]
The Department of Justice released the Anti-Defamation League’s Basic Field Training Course (PDF). The course is mandatory for all FBI New Agent Trainees (NATs) and New Intelligence Analyst Trainees (NIATs). This release follows a decade of Freedom of Information Act requests and denials by the Department of Justice (PDF) and evasion by publicly funded content contributors.
The ADL course is developed and conducted by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) instructors. It selects materials from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) and Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. Marcus Appelbaum, Museum Director of Law, Justice and Society Initiatives in 2014 resisted any public review of the curriculum, stating, “Unfortunately we do not randomly send out the curriculum.” Appelbaum also denied that any of the large amounts of U.S. taxpayer funding supporting the museum paid for the curriculum.
The ADL course facilitates a discussion of the USHMM video
The Path to Nazi Genocide by asking trainees to watch and then consider “the challenges that police officers faced, and decisions they made in Germany during the Nazi era.” The video depicts the rise of Nazi Germany from WWI to the final WWII liberation of concentration camps replete with emaciated images of the dead and barely living.
The final question the video puts to agents in training is why the word “genocide” had to be coined in the aftermath. “As the world struggled to understand what had happened, a new word, genocide, was needed for these crimes — crimes committed by ordinary people from a society not unlike our own.”
And the influence extends to our military too. See the 133 page FOIA document obtained from the Department of Defense entitled: AFSS 0910 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND TREATMENT INCIDENTS (EOTI) LESSON PLAN
The whole document was obtained by Judicial Watch. August 22, 2013 ARCHIVED DOC
LESSON EMPHASIS
This lesson will focus on awareness and current issues requiring the attention of future Equal Opportunity Advisors. It will also provide information that describes sources of extremism information, definitions, recruitment of DoD personnel, common themes in extremist ideologies, common characteristics of extremist organizations, DoD policies, and command functions regarding extremist activities. ……
RECOMMENDED READING
Seven Stage Hate Model, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin March
The following references are additional sources for current extremism information:
• Anti-Defamation League – www.adl.org [The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people ]
• Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism – www.hatemonitor.csusb.edu [The Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino is a nonpartisan research and policy center ]
• Know Gangs – www.knowgangs.com
• Political Research Associates – www.publiceye.org
• Southern Poverty Law Center – www.splcenter.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE SAMPSON OPTION
In the early ‘90s, legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed the “Samson Option,” a secret Israeli nuclear deterrence strategy.
…John F. Kennedy had run-ins with the Israel lobby early in his presidential campaign. He was visited by Abe Feinberg and eventually given $500,000 for his campaign. Feinberg is an important Jewish figure to have on side as his vote swayed the opinion of many Jewish businessmen in the USA at the time. Simultaneously he had a foot in Israeli politics, campaigning for the Zionist cause. Kennedy had needed the funding but was uncomfortable about the level of control Feinberg and other Zionists wanted to have over the President’s Middle East foreign policy.
Kennedy was committed to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. It was one of the planks of his moral case for presidency and it sat well with a war-weary public. He would routinely pressure Ben-Gurion about inspections of the Dimona facility only to be stonewalled….
I quote here from Seymour Hersh’s eye opening ‘The Samson Option’ – an unparalleled research into Israeli nuclear ambitions with an array of primary sources in the US and Israeli intelligence services.
“Ben-Gurion took no chances: the American inspectors – most of them experts in nuclear reprocessing – would be provided with a Potemkin village and never know it.
The Israeli scheme, based on plans supplied by the French, was simple: a false control room was constructed at Dimona, complete with false control panels and computer-driven measuring devices that seemed to be gauging the thermal output of a twenty-four megawatt reactor (as Israel claimed Dimona to be) in full operation….
Thus the semi-secret nuclear reprocessing could continue under wraps, the Kennedy government none the wiser. Following Kennedy’s assassination Israel had a much easier time under Lyndon Johnson. He would not only look the other way on the nuclear weapons issue, but would go on to approve missile and fighter jet deliveries to Israel. At the heightened speed of processing Israel could produce enough enriched Uranium for 4 or 5 nuclear warheads per year, from the late 1960s. Ben-Gurion’s successor, Moshe Dayan, continued in this stead following some pressure from the Zionist lobby in Israel and globally to keep Israel ‘safe’ by arming herself with nukes….
Israel says they have nuclear missiles aimed at cities all over Europe, which they curiously and insanely regard as ‘hostile’, this being the preferred choice of target of the Israeli Air Force. Israel routinely calls the USA ‘anti-semitic’ too. Does anything strike you a being a little odd about that?….
During an interview with Alan Hart, the then Israeli premier Golda Meir twice stated that Israel was prepared to destroy the whole world with nuclear weapons if Israel ever faced military defeat...
…In an interview with Alan Hart of the BBC, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir actually threatened the entire world with nuclear Armageddon. She verified the “Samson Option” without batting an eye, much less flinching …
Hart: “I recall the words spoken to me many years ago by Golda Meir, Mother Israel, when she was prime minister. At a point during an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme, I interrupted her to ask, “Prime Minister, I want to be sure I understand what you’re saying … You are saying that if Israel was ever in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?”
Meir “without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American Presidents according to need” replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Should we believe Alan Hart and share his conviction that Mother Israel meant exactly what she said? Yes, because we have similar reports from other reliable sources. For instance, I remember reading Robert Fisk’s book The Great War for Civilisation in which Fisk, a keen-eyed and objective observer, mentioned watching high-ranking American diplomats like Colin Powell and Madeline Albright acting deferentially, even fearfully, around Israeli leaders. If we consider the normal operating mode of American politicians—hubris—that seems hard to believe, unless Israel was threatening to use nuclear weapons. When I put two and two together, it seems to me that Israel may have warned American diplomats, “Unless we are allowed to have our way with Arabs, and the world acquiesces to our brutal, unjust treatment of them, we are willing to unleash a nuclear Armageddon on the world.”
And it seems those American diplomats also believed the threat of the Samson Option.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu uses a cartoon diagram of a bomb while delivering his address to the 67th United Nations General Assembly session, September 27, 2012.
Israel’s development as a full-blown nuclear power by 1969 could not have come at a more fortuitous time, in terms of the American presidency. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger approached inauguration day on January 20, 1969, convinced that Israel’s nuclear ambitions were justified and understandable. Once in office, they went a step further: they endorsed Israel’s nuclear ambitions.
The two American leaders also shared a contempt for the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty, which had been so ardently endorsed in public by Lyndon Johnson. Nixon, midway in his campaign against Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, dismayed the arms control community by urging the Senate to delay ratification of the NPT until after the election. He went further a few days later, telling newsmen in Charlotte, North Carolina, that he specifically was concerned about the NPT’s failure to permit the transfer of “defensive nuclear weapons,” such as mines or anti-ballistic missile systems, to non-nuclear powers. Government arms controllers were hugely relieved in early February 1969 when Nixon formally requested the Senate to take up the treaty and then stated at a news conference that he would do all he could to urge France and West Germany— known to have reservations—to sign it: “I will make it clear that I believe that ratification of the treaty by all governments, nuclear and non-nuclear, is in the interest of peace and in the interest of reducing the possibility of nuclear proliferation.”
In the secrecy of their offices, however, as only a few in the government knew, Nixon and Kissinger had simultaneously issued a presidential order to the bureaucracy undercutting all that was said in public. The classified document, formally known as National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM) No. 6, stated that “there should be no efforts by the United States government to pressure other nations, particularly the Federal Government of Germany, to follow suit [and ratify the NPT]. The government, in its public posture, should reflect a tone of optimism that other countries will sign or ratify, while clearly disassociating itself [in private] from any plan to bring pressure on these countries to sign or ratify.”
[So in other words,we are doing the exact opposite of what we are telling the American People we are doing DC]
“It was a major change in American policy,” recalled Morton H. Halperin, then Kissinger’s closest aide on the National Security Council staff. “Henry believed that it was good to spread nuclear weapons around the world. I heard him say that if he were the Israelis, he would get nuclear weapons. He did not believe that the United States should try and talk them out of it.”.…
We really need POTUS Trump and the Abraham Accords!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Given the information above, I am in agreement with Tonawanda.
No doubt, the all purpose response of name calling, a form of “shut up” with implied threats, is what can be expected to the information he presents.
But it is information he presents, information which can be evaluated and assessed in a rational/reasonable manner.
Unz has the same impression I had of the exploding pagers, that the scheme was a brilliant operation indistinguishable from barbaric terrorism. Unz goes into some depth about the extensive use of assassination and terrorism by the Zionists before the founding of Israel, and by Israel itself. The exploding pagers were not assassination.
Unz is a very cautious and scrupulous man. He provides sources and documentation for his assertions, and he honestly admits to speculation when he is speculating.
It would take a year to read and comprehend the archives at Unz.com, but the effort is well worth while with respect to an assortment of topics where the official narrative on a given topic turns out to be a series of lies, distortions and brainwashing.
On our side, we have been discovering for years how we have been lied to by our alleged government (run by TPTB) about a variety of topics. We are at the point where nothing is believed if it originates from the “government” or from their media/institutional frontmen.
The distinction has been made here and on other sites between the American people and the “government” who claims to act on our behalf. One of the fascinating aspects in this regard was Tucker’s interview with Putin, who disclosed his understanding that what the American “government” did was not endorsed or supported by a vast segment of the American people.
That distinction is a good one IMO when applied both here and in other countries.
Let me be very clear that I am condemning WAR especially Nuclear War and not the Jewish people. The IDF stood down allowing the murder of innocents just like our Air force stood down during 9-11. In both cases it was ALL ABOUT starting a war.
Saudi Arabia has informed the United States of the termination of negotiations to normalize relations with Israel, media reported, citing a source in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office.
The source claimed that the Netanyahu government had rejected “conciliatory gestures” towards the Palestinians and acceptance of the demands of the right wing bloc undermined any possibility of rapprochement with the Palestinians and Saudi Arabia itself.
The Israeli leadership is “at a loss” over Riyadh’s decision to halt any negotiations with Washington on normalizing relations, the source added…
It is my opinion that factions within Israel never wanted peace in the first place. They wanted WAR! AND they want the USA to fight that war for them.
We, the undersigned American Jewish clergy, are deeply concerned about reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu will demand of President Obama, at their meeting at the White House today, that either the United States attack Iran, or else, Israel will...
Most of the people of the State of Israel oppose Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military threats against Iran. They fear the consequences of an attack on Iran. As Jewish leaders, we too believe that the path of wisdom towards achieving peace and stability in the region is through dialog and engagement and not through acts of war. We call on the United States government to safeguard the interests of the people of Israel and Iran…
….the latest high-profile demonstration demanding the United States end its opposition to a cease-fire in Gaza.
The rabbis—whose action was organized by Rabbis for Cease-fire, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, Jewish Voice for Peace, and IfNotNow—displayed banners with messages for U.S. President Joe Biden: “Biden: The World Says Cease-Fire,” and “Biden: Stop Vetoing Peace.”
The protest came weeks after the U.S. alone vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for Israel to end its bombardment of Gaza, which has killed at least 23,210 people, injured more than 59,100, and left thousands more missing and feared dead under rubble, as the population of the enclave faces starvation and disease stemming from Israel’s blockade…
If you do not have time for the entire video, please listen to the first 7 minutes AND especially the couple of minutes from 23 to 25 minutes.
These two rabbis explain WHY the Torah says Israel should NOT EXIST and that religious Jews are bullied, attacked and even murdered by the SECULAR Zionists if they try to speak up.
Funny how we hear about the idiots supporting HAMAS, but not the JEW CALLING FOR PEACE, not to mention the Orthodox Jews like those above saying establishing Israel was AGAINST GOD’s COMMAND! …
TRANS is clearly not an organic, ground-up movement. It seems to have some shadowy, top-down implementation, that speaks to a non-human or anti-human origin. When people call it demonic, I have to agree. If people called it alien, I would not dismiss the charge.
One of the first people to note how much of a role BILLIONAIRE FAMILIES have in the TRANS agenda, was Jennifer Bilek. People don’t generally remember her name in that regard, but she is the one who exposed the deep role of the notorious Pritzkers in promoting TRANS.
The Billionaire Family Pushing Synthetic Sex Identities (SSI)
The wealthy, powerful, and sometimes very weird Pritzker cousins have set their sights on a new God-like goal: using gender ideology to remake human biology
This Substack hosts a very UN-SEXY YouTube video that I cannot recommend enough. The video is overly talky, repeatedly tangential, repetitive, progressive-centric, and “TERF-jargony” (trans-excluding radical feminist), and yet it contains information that really breaks open the entire TRANS conspiracy.
If you want to understand WHY Matt Walsh vs. sex surgery profiteering was so instantly successful in Tennessee, and why the FIGHT BACK by MK trans shooters was necessarily centered there, this explains it.
If you want to understand why TRANS has become enshrined in Jaydolph Inslee’s Washington state and Pritzker’s Chicago madhouse, those too.
It even explains why TRANS is slowly creeping up on Ohio, and WHO is responsible for the importation (DePat is gonna guess this one).
Like I said, this is an important video. Enjoy!
W
PS – this lady is definitely on the mark – the “antisemitism defense” is already in play.
It is time to provide a summary analysis of the former employers and related principals in Goober Gump’s journey from the equipment company through the beginning of the team’s control of its fates a decade later.
I will not divulge confidential financial information from past employers, just discuss the practices that were good or bad, or, that led to them making the decisions they did BIMD. I have provided other links to their publicly reported financial reporting going back in time to when we first began. In addition, you can use the link below to the FDIC website to see the current reporting of every active bank in the system.
In the spirit of Stephen Covey and his 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, of which I fully endorse, the autopsies will provide my view of win-win and win-lose in the final results.
I have also added a section on the current banking issues of the day relating to bank examinations. I will try to not get down in the weeds too far with my comments.
Patti Steele is the CEO of the rebranded and expanded First Volunteer Bank of Tennessee based in Chattanooga. It is now known as Builtwell Bank. BIMD the privately held bank holding company was named Community Group (CG). The majority owner’s name was Robert Anderson, a long term solid, executive banker from South Carolina whose family were the primary operators and in ownership of a larger South Carolina bank. Robert left the SC bank and purchased a small community bank in the rural community of Marion, TN outside of Chattanooga. From that start and with that bank’s President, Sherman Barnette, he began purchasing small rural community banks in east TN. They added a financial services subsidiary led by my former CEO a few years after forming their holding company for the purposes of doing small business government guaranteed lending. It required state banking regulatory and SBA approval to exist as a service company for the affiliated banks in the CG system as it was the first of its kind in the southeastern U. S. region. During my employment CG grew to about $350 M in total assets size.
Patti was in operations at the holding company level and on the Board when I was employed there. She was the heir apparent, professional and competent with their business model. She reported to Sherman, who reported to Robert. Sherman was a sharp, good ole boy community banker. Robert was a more formal, cordial, old south plantation type with a leadership style from the past. We got along well with each other as we shared a mutual understanding of big banks as well as a love of golf. I had a good relationship with all of the senior leaders. Patti was very competent at what she did, however, her interests were clearly linked to breaking the glass ceiling even BIMD. It seemed to drive her ambitions. In recent years her Board additions have been less than inspiring and more toward feministic purposes, which reveals her politics. They did not add tangible value to the Board or business operations. It is something to keep an eye on as it can lead to losing focus of the bank’s primary purposes, which is to make money for stockholders and service the customer base well. As long as ownership remains focused on those two truths, they should be fine.
The financial services subsidiary I worked in no longer exists. When we exited, it went into decline and died. Its demise coincided with the merging of banks from being operated as affiliate banks, which is reflected in the link below during the fiscal year ending 12/31/2001. In the financial services subsidiary’s place they expanded the reach of their residential mortgage company to serve their now, 30 locations. BIMD there was only one mortgage originator in the system. While merging the bank system in the late 1990s/early 2000s, they renamed all individually named banks to First Volunteer. They have grown through acquisition of other small rural banks in other areas including northern GA over the ensuing two decades. They are old school community bankers with conservative practices, who have served their internal desires and customers well overall. They are now at $1.8 B in assets with a conservative 70% loan to deposit ratio and stay at a ballpark level of 10-11% on Tier One Capital; which is solid. They paid out a strong dividend in excess of $8 M in 2022, to the privately held ownership.
My autopsy reveals they continued to grow through acquisitions at a measured pace while becoming who they desired to be and still are. Our subsidiary’s presence in the holding company was implemented to fuel higher profitability for a season of time so that they could purchase more small rural banks. That was a legitimate choice of ownership and it served them well. It also confirmed that our analysis was correct when they hired the SCO who began tightening credit. Our common goals and interests were diverging, so it was time to go. They would have never accepted nationwide or even a larger eastern footprint delivery of what we did. The higher compensation being paid to the team that delivered it, which was prevalent within the industry, would have created internal division. It simply would have been too big of culture shock to the rest of their employees and Board.
However, at that time it was win-win between us. They signaled their change in direction, which gave us time as a small team to change ours. We both won with the changes.
Sierra Tahoe Bancorp was the owner of SierraWest Bank, which came into existence by name a couple of years before we joined them. Its predecessor bank was called Truckee River Bank, which was also very involved in government guaranteed small business lending in the area. The bank grew into the Reno, NV area via acquisition, which led to the name change and was similar to the name of the acquired bank.
Despite the bank’s emphasis on our line of business, Truckee River had a spotty record as a government guaranteed lender until my division CEO was hired a couple of years before our arrival. They did not do it well and had numerous losses and issues with the SBA. He addressed the issues along with his excellent SCO, who was also a fine human being. It all turned around at that point with the division being the primary driver of the bank’s net income and asset growth. The theme of good people, good results, was one that was repeated throughout my work life for many years.
When BancWest, parent of Bank of the West, announced the acquisition of SierraWest, the later had grown from just south of $600 M when we joined them to over $900 M in assets in three years. There were no hiccups with the acquisition as it closed as projected in mid-1999, less than six months after announcement. Which explained why SierraWest allowed Bank of the West to be involved in the credit approval process prior to the completion of the transaction, a reality that led to our early departure as a team.
Since SierraWest did not sell from a distressed position, there is very little financial autopsy needed. The intent to sell was known to us in our region at employment. The bank was profitable and fit BOW’s expansion desires geographically. However, the sale to BOW did impact our futures and forced several members of our region to find alternatives. This led to the second best career move I ever made, with the first being entering this line of work with CG.
I could care less about BOW, then or now. Let Canadian bankers now deal with the effects that the criminal bankers in France created. Based on how Canada operates today, they will continue to be the money launders they have been.
As a result, I rate it as a win-lose-win with eyes wide open. A calculated risk to work there that paid off in unknown ways prior to making the move. SierraWest employees, its stockholders and our team highly benefitted from the relationship. The sale to BOW was a loss for our team. However, we seamlessly recovered with a much bigger win.
Bank #3 – 1999
Imperial Bank was the one. It just made sense as it targeted its efforts and did not try to be all things to all people. However, it had an Achilles heel. By virtue of being a NYSE traded business bank involved in the finance of venture capital related enterprises (think SVB) as well as the entertainment industry (think boom or bust movies) in two of its three primary lines of business, its annual net income was volatile. As a result it was watched by regulators closely. Provided below is summary financial data over a period of years for those interested in more details. As an example of its growth, total assets went from $3.4 to $7.5 B in just five years. You typically cannot grow a bank that fast (unless you are a cabal constructed SVB type bank) with income drivers in volatile lines of business and not have hiccups in net income, liquidity and capital formation due to overall economic pressures. Every boom or bust cycle will be reflected in your financial statement results.
By the time of the transaction with Comerica, the bank had grown to over $8 B in assets. The article below is an excellent summary of the reasons behind same and acquisition. I will not regurgitate it. The acquisition made great sense to Comerica.
The founder and Chairman of Imperial, who was active daily in its management, had hit 81 years of age. It was time. If he had waited until after 9/11 occurred, the bank would have probably gone under at some point. With the acquisition Comerica entered the Top 20 banks in asset size in America. They have doubled in assets since then, but dropped to #38 in asset size today.
As a result, I rate the situation as I did with Bank #2. It was no surprise that our employer sold. It was a total win for both banks. However, Comerica simply did not have the credit culture and leadership team in our line of business. We did not drive their net operating income (NOI) up high enough to justify a real commitment in their minds. Comerica chose to reward themselves as the victors instead of the people who operated our line of business smarter, more productive, while making much more money at it. At Imperial we were not the volatile income producers. We were the second highest provider of ROI in the bank, year after year. The transaction was win-win for the banks and win-lose-win for our division and my team. It was also a very short sighted decision by Comerica to go about it as they did with our division. Like many other bigger banks, they still have no idea on what they missed.
Bank #4 – 2001
When we arrived on the scene with Temecula Valley Bank, it was a small, five year old community bank in the rapidly growing SoCal area. It had the highest 5 star rating for financial condition by industry rating agencies including being rated the #1 small bank in America by same. The Chairman/CEO wanted to use our line of business to fuel growth of bank operations into the real estate markets of the area as well as branching. He had good knowledge of what we did and how we did it from his previous stint as CEO of a larger community bank in the region for many years.
We knew how to scale and ramp up our operation to accommodate the smaller size of the bank. Despite its size, the management team was competent and they contracted their operations system platform to one of the larger, national providers. They could deliver on their promises.
That they immediately changed the rules to the game upon our arrival created tension and was a major red flag. I am sure bank examiners may have been concerned with the scope of our operations due to the bank size as well as there may have been pushback from the Board initially. Regardless, they lied. However, we were able to leverage ourselves into a better situation and became a successful, expanding operation.
The Achilles heel of TVB was its arrogant Chairman/CEO. That ‘I’m smarter that you’ attitude passed to the executive level credit officer, other senior management and Board. They never believed the good times would stop, until it did. With the industry overbuilding real estate in SoCal markets, their hellbent desire to play the dog and build the brand was a train wreck waiting to happen. When liquidity began to be an issue with closing transactions a couple years into our arrival, Mr. Arrogant began to significantly use brokered deposits to add to the deposit base. We could see the handwriting on the wall for our efficiency and success. When banks buy brokered deposits, which is limited by regulators, they pay higher interest rates than market to attract them. The deposits are usually CD’s with longer termed fixed rates called “hot money”. So, what do you think happens when interest rates as a whole decline due to Fed decisions? You earn less interest on loans while paying out higher interest on deposits. Not the formula for banking success I would choose.
So for your banking lesson of the day, add in what happens when the economy cools and there are less borrowings. You now have locked in higher than market fixed rates with hot money and insufficient loan demand to offset it with interest income. The core local business customer balances go down as they use more of their own funds to lower interest expense. When the hot money matures, it leaves unless you price it high again to retain. If it leaves, you lose serious liquidity with a high concentration of real estate development and construction loans on the books that are not being paid off from less property sales due to the local economy cooling. If the hot money is retained you need income drivers to offset the declining interest margins between deposits and loans. All while at the same time, you as Mr. Arrogant, have increased your operating expenses through the increased numbers of branches, related facilities costs/expenses, and increased staff payroll relating to the branches.
This makes any bank any where totally dependent on generating more fee income and reducing its operating expenses to survive if they plan to be prepared to take advantage of an economic rebound in the future. Instead of making things better for our division to provide the high premiums, fee and servicing income, Mr. Arrogant did the opposite. He had also reduced our ability to make non-real estate secured business loans that would have added diversity to the loan portfolio, which was a major desire of the regulators. He doubled down on making real estate loans in SoCal while expanding the branch network. For awhile he could brag about how smart he was… until he couldn’t with the debt market and general economic crash of 2008.
Our regional team left in the fall of 2003. My former division CEO left about six months later to begin operations of the company he started. We left TVB a few production officers in our region who were lesser performers, who began sending their loans to the credit area in Temecula. They never reopened a regional credit and loan closing operation in the east. They hired a less accomplished replacement for our former division CEO in mid 2004. He lasted a few years before leaving as the bank started into serious decline. The top credit officer retired and was replaced by a rogue, possible criminal that Mr. Arrogant hired. The bank had grown to $1.4 B in assets by this point, ten times the size it was when we were first hired. The debt market melt down of Wall Street had occurred and with it the national economy. So, let’s see what the FDIC’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) wrote in their official autopsy. This is highly worth your time to read as a behind the scenes view of how it all works. Please at least read the opening summary.
I am confident this could be used as a case study in banking schools nationwide of what not to do. It was complete vindication for us and our line of business. With the collapse and closure in 2009, Mr. Arrogant was relieved of his duties. The force of his personality and cronyism kept him in the seat for far too long. The stockholders and employees lost out as a result.
The experience was another win-lose-win from my viewpoint. Despite the early lies, we were able to restore the pre-employment agreement and go on to be successful. When the bank first began experiencing liquidity issues, we had sufficient time to negotiate our way into an even better situation. However, we did not expect it to become necessary when we first arrived there. With the stock options and solid plan forward, we thought it would be a long term stay. We did not count on the insatiable greed and arrogance of Mr. Arrogant and crew taking over as it did. Which is a shame, but very common in the industry.
Bank Examinations
This section was not originally planned to be in this story. However, current conditions merit its inclusion. It was pertinent BIMD and especially so today.
Bank examiners are people like all of us. They have special knowledge and training. They also have personal goals, ambitions, families, friends, strengths and weaknesses. The have various levels of competency. During my years of being employed in banking, I only met a couple who had made the profession a career. I saw a good number who used it as a stepping stone into careers in banks, investment banking, insurance, rating agencies such as Moody’s/S&P/Fitch and so on. That made their motivations and attention to detail suspect at times.
I have experienced examiners openly lobbying for jobs in our credit and audit departments. I had a couple who became cheerleaders for us within their agencies. With our departure from TVB and acceptance of employment with the Tennessee bank, one state banking commission official told our Chairman/CEO that he should lock me and my key management up on long term contracts, to not let us get away, with me standing there with the two of them. I had one FDIC examiner tell me that we were not making enough loans for sale to the debt markets about six months before the crash.
Think about what my last statement infers. He was stating that we were not churning enough, not making enough money. I learned later he told our ownership and CEO the same thing in their exit interview. At that point our division was providing 80% of the NOI of the total bank; making more money than ownership believed possible a few years before. But here is the lead FDIC examiner stating we were not doing enough.
As a result of these experiences, it never left my mind that sprinkled throughout these regulatory and rating agencies were globalist cabal operatives even BIMD. It is incestuous by nature. If the banks do not do much business, the examiners have nothing much to examine. That exposes them to extreme boredom as well as job loss eventually from RIFs. Rating agencies have a similar issue. If they rate a bank, company, debt issue, securitization, etc. too critically, their client will never use them again. As an example our favorite rating agency for what we did was Fitch. They attempted to understand the business and as a result, the underlying loans in our pools. The other two majors were useless for our purposes BIMD.
So the key for both the bank and the examiners is to maintain an arms length, mutually respectful harmony between them, which happened frequently in my younger years and rarely in my later years. The later situation leads to excesses that can be nudged forward or destroyed by the examiners. Add to it that through the years I saw very few gray hairs remaining as examiners. If the role was truly a life’s profession, that a person could make a rewarding career of it; then there would be more talent and more experienced people in the role. That was not the case. The revolving door led to lower cost, less experienced personnel. As the years rolled by I saw fewer who did not fraternize with the leaders of the banks they examined. Occasionally you would see one later employed by a contract audit or management consulting firm to place their stamp of approval on a client bank or its loan portfolio as the recognized expert in the field.
There will be more discussion on this in future stories.
If you reviewed the OIG report on TVB, you could simply replace their headlong pursuit of real estate financing with what SVB did with their emphasis on higher risk lines of business in the Silicon Valley among other places. Neither took their foot off the gas pedal and pushed the brake pedal until it was too late. The end result was the same along with many of the contributing factors. It is a situation that keeps repeating year after year, bank after bank, and as a direct result of Federal Reserve and politician aided booms and busts.
The FDIC and California bank examiners had every reason and justification to pull the plug on Mr. Arrogant’s practices long before they did. But they did not, just like SVB. If we knew of serious issues as key officers of the bank in 2003, they had to know when they completed their next exam in 2004 after performing their stress tests, financial and operations reviews. These were duties they continued to perform annually until TVB failed five years later. They even categorized TVB as “Well Capitalized” from 2006-2008. Yet, they failed the next year. Yeah, OK.
I don’t view what I witnessed over 30+ years in this area as accidental, incompetency related, or an inconsistent application of regulations. I see it is as a system feature. Consider the huge implications.
Conclusion
i have disclosed a lot from Goober’s banking employment adventures over about a nine year period. With each new employer the team grew and became better at what they did. They were never forced out or terminated by the employer. Even in the more strained or incompetently managed situations where they chose to leave, the leaders wanted them to stay. They left because conditions changed from decisions made by ownership and/or executive management that signaled that it was time to look around. There was never an employment situation that they accepted when they were not prepared in their minds to walk away, while at the same time hoping they would not have to anytime soon.
They felt like Abraham and family as he moved from place to place at the Lord’s direction while experiencing inexplicable events. They learned to accept that was in the DNA of the industry. It did not have to be, it just was. With their move to the TN bank and control of operations, they all hoped that would end and they could do something that would last long term.
Trudeau is threatening to confiscate bank accounts. Steve Cortez and others has been warning of coming Stagflation. Steve has been a part of Wall Street as a trader and strategist for almost two decades. Others such as Clif High warn of a coming dollar collapse.
Ed Dowd, a former Blackrock Portfolio Manager, reports on Falling Pharma Stocks And Coming Financial Collapse. Edward has said elsewhere how COVID-19 may have been used to cover global debt, and how he predicts a financial collapse is ahead of us.
… the bilateral currency swap agreement on 22 March 2012. The agreement allows exchange of local currencies between the two central banks…’” thus cutting out the US Dollar as the exchange currency.
The China-Australia Currency Swap Agreement.
Given these circumstances, I thought a discussion about Central Banks and the US dollar was appropriate. I hoped the Q tree could benefit from having this information all in one place.
“Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow. Ordinary tyranny, oppression, excessive taxation — these bear lightly on the happiness of the mass of the community compared with fraudulent currencies and the robberies committed by depreciated paper. Our own history has recorded for our instruction enough, and more than enough, of the demoralizing tendency, the injustice, and the intolerable oppression, on the virtuous and well disposed, of a degraded paper currency, authorized by law, or in any way countenanced by government.”
Daniel Webster (1782 -1852) Statement to the Senate in 1832
With encouragement from Senators Clay and Daniel Webster, Mr Nicholas Biddle, then President of the Second Bank of the United States, applied for a renewal of the Bank’s charter in 1832. President Jackson vetoed the renewal, stating “. . . It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our citizens, chiefly of the richest class. . .” LINK
So it should not surprising that Senator Aldrich (R) read that Webster quote at a New York City dinner speech on October 15, 1913 on the eve of the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. He was NOT advocating AGAINST a Fractional Reserve Currency but rather FOR IT! — SEE: aIV Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science #1, at 38 (Columbia University, New York (1914))
For those who might not know the history of Fractional Reserve Banking see: The Magic of Fractional Banking. In essence it is counterfeiting.
One of the biggest victories achieved by modern economists and modern central bankers is changing the definition of inflation. Inflation used to mean an increase in the money supply – full stop.
Money is metal coins, currency (Bank IOUs) and credit (fairy dust created out of thin air) or even beads and obsidian arrowheads. Money needs to be durable, accepted and dividable which is why precious metals were often the choice.
Money is a generally accepted, recognized, and centralized medium of exchange in an economy that is used to facilitate transactional trade for goods and services.
Capitalism is a private individual’s wealth, labor and resources reinvested to produce more wealth.
Capitalism is an economic system in which capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market.
E.M. Smith aka Chiefio, who trained as an economist, gets into the definition of capitalism and other definitions surrounding capitalism: Monopoly, Monopsony, Oligopoly, Collusion And Economics 1“Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism” is a short comment by EM describing the continuum between straight capitalism and Communism.
One of the best explanations of the Federal Reserve is by G Edward Griffin. A Talk by G. Edward Griffin-The Creature from Jekyll Island. Unfortunately Griffin is a member of the John Birch Society and is therefore attacked on that basis by the defenders of the Fed. So I am presenting more rigorous sources.
Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939… Most of the evidence quoted was the result of interrogation by Mr. “Gerry” McGeer, K.C., a former mayor of Vancouver, who clearly understood the essentials of central banking. Here are a few excerpts:
Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange? Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459)
Q. When $1,000,000 worth of bonds is presented (by the government) to the bank, a million dollars of new money or the equivalent is created? Mr. Towers: Yes.
Q. Is it a fact that a million dollars of new money is created? Mr. Towers: That is right.
Q. Now, the same thing holds true when the municipality or the province goes to the bank? Mr. Towers: Or an individual borrower.
Q. Or when a private person goes to a bank? Mr. Towers: Yes.
Q. When I borrow $100 from the bank as a private citizen, the bank makes a bookkeeping entry, and there is a $100 increase in the deposits of that bank, in the total deposits of that bank? Mr. Towers: Yes. (p. 238)
Q. Mr. Towers, when you allow the merchant banking system to issue bank deposits which, with the practice of using the cheques as we have it in vogue today, constitutes the medium of exchange upon which I think 95 per cent of our public and private business is transacted, you virtually allow the banks to issue an effective substitute for money, do you not? Mr. Towers: The bank deposits are actual money in that sense, yes.
Q. In that sense they are actual money, but, as a matter of fact, they are not actual money but credit, bookkeeping accounts, which are used as a substitute for money? Mr. Towers: Yes.
Q. Then we authorize the banks to issue a substitute for money? Mr. Towers: Yes, I think that is a very fair statement of banking. (p. 285)
“Banks typically have 3% of their assets in cash in order to meet customer needs. Since 1960, banks have been allowed to use this “vault cash” to satisfy their reserve requirements. Today, bank reserve requirements have fallen to the point where they are now exceeded by vault cash, which means lowering reserve requirements to zero would have virtually no impact on the banking system. US banks are already operating free of any reserve constraints. The graph below shows reserve requirements falling to zero over the last fifty years….”
E.M. Smith and other economists, such as Steve Bannon and those he has on the War Room as well as other financial experts are trained (and believe in) Keynesian Economics (IMF.) I prefer Mises and have had arguments with E.M to that effect. (He has started to come around a bit.) It should be noted that Communist spy Harry Dexter Whiteof the US Treasury and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keyne are the two who saddled the world with the IMF and World Bank via the 1944 Bretton Woods system. I mentioned recently Structural Adjustment Policies, the noose the IMF & World Bank Banksters put around the neck of countries that go bankrupt. There is another Economic Philosophy not connected to the Communists and Fabian Socialists. It was developed by Mises.
This is very long so I want to highlight a few critical points.
#1. Because money is not capital, he [Mises] concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges.
An increase in the quantity of money can no more increase the welfare of the members of a community, than a diminution of it can decrease their welfare. Regarded from this point of view, those goods that are employed as money are indeed what Adam Smith called them, “dead stock, which . . . produces nothing”
#2. New money does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people’s bank accounts or under their mattresses. [New] Money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money.
It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the mine owners and the groups most closely connected with them
[This is a critical point and the reason Bankers can steal our wealth]
This indicates a fundamental aspect of Mises’s monetary theory that is rarely mentioned: the expansion or contraction of money is a zero-sum game. Mises did not use this terminology, but he used the zero-sum concept. Because the free market always maximizes the utility of the existing money supply, changes in the money supply inescapably have the characteristic features of a zero-sum game. Some individuals are made better off by an increase in the money supply; others are made worse off. The existing money is an example of a “fixed pie of social value.” Adding to the money supply does not add to its value.
MISES ON GOLD
…the attempt by modern governments to regulate in any way an international gold standard is always a political ruse to undermine its anti-inflationary bias. “The international gold standard works without any action on the part of governments. It is effective real cooperation of all members of the world-embracing market community. . . . What governments call international monetary cooperation is concerted action for the sake of credit expansion”
“Now, the gold standard is not a game, but a social institution. Its working does not depend on the preparedness of any people to observe arbitrary rules. It is controlled by the operation of inexorable economic law” (p. 462)…..
. . . The role played by ingots in the gold reserves of the banks is a proof that the monetary standard consists in the precious metal, and not in the proclamation of the authorities (p. 67).
In order to effect the acceptance of fiat money or credit money, the State adopts a policy of the abolition of its previous contractual obligations. What was previously a legal right of full convertability into either gold or silver coins is abolished by a new law. The State removes the individual’s legal right to exchange the State’s paper notes for gold or silver coins. It then declares that the new, inconvertible fiat paper money or bank credit money is equal in value to the older redeemable notes, meaning equal to the value of the actual coins previously obtainable through redemption. But the free market determines otherwise. The two forms of money are not equal in value in the judgment of the market’s individual participants. Gresham’s law is still obeyed….
Gresham’s law
The State can set legal prices, meaning exchange ratios, between the various kinds of money. The effects of such fixed exchange rates are identical to the effects of any other kind of price control: gluts and shortages. The artificially overvalued money (glut) replaces the artificially undervalued money (shortage). This cause-and-effect relationship is called Gresham’s law.
MONEY:
Mises therefore defined money as the most marketable commodity. “It is the most marketable good which people accept because they want to offer it in later acts of impersonal exchange” (Human Action, p. 401.).
Money serves as a transmitter of value through time because certain goods serve as media of exchange.
Money transmits value, Mises taught, but money does not measure value. This distinction is fundamental in Mises’s theory of money.
Mises was adamant: there is no measure of economic value.
….Mises concluded that money is neither a consumption good nor a capital good. He argued that production and consumption are possible without money (p. 82). Money facilitates both production and consumption, but it is neither a production good nor a consumption good. Money is therefore a separate analytical category.
“It is illegitimate to compare the part played by money in production with that played by ships and railways. Money is obviously not a ‘commercial tool’ in the same sense as account books, exchange lists, the Stock Exchange, or the credit system”
Because money is not capital, he concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value. If you fail to understand this point, you will not be able to understand the rest of Mises’s theory of money. On this assessment of the value of money, his whole theory of money hinges….
This theory regarding the impact that changes in the money supply have on social value is the basis of everything that follows. Mises offered here a unique assessment of the demand for money. He implied here that an individual’s demand for production goods or consumption goods, when met by increased production, confers an increase in social value or social welfare.
If a producer benefits society by increasing the production of a non-monetary good, later finding a buyer, then society is benefitted because there are at least two winners and no losers.
Therefore, if a producer of gold and a buyer of gold both benefit from an exchange – which they do, or else they would not trade – yet society receives no social benefit, then the analyst has to conclude that some other members of society have been made, or will be made, worse off by the increase in the money supply. This analysis would also apply to decreases in the money supply.
There are two conceptually related issues here: (1) money as a separate analytical category, neither a consumption good nor a production good; (2) changes in the money supply as conveying neither an increase nor decrease in social value.
With that as a background in economics, we look at the Federal Reserve Bank through the eyes of Congressman Wright Patman (D) in 1964 before President Nixon had to close the gold window.
Again this is very long, which is why I have posted excerpts. However if you want to understand our Central Banking System this is a very good document to read.
President Lincoln said :
“Money is the creature of law, and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of the National Government. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of the Government, it is the Government’s greatest opportunity.” [pg 16]
This is very important. Although US citizens can not exchange Federal Reserve notes for treasury gold, official and semi official foreign banks can.
Behind the Federal Reserve notes is the credit of the U.S. Government. If you happen to have a $5, $10, or $20 Federal Reserve note, you will notice across the top of the bill a printed statement of the fact that the US government promises to pay not the Federal Reserve promises to pay. Nevertheless most Americans to do not understand what the US Government promises to pay: American citizens holding these notes cannot demand anything for them except (a) they can be exchanged for other Federal Reserve notes or (b) that they be accepted in payment of taxes and all debts public and private. Certain official or semiofficial foreign banks may exchange any “dollar credits” they may hold-that is, deposits with the commercial banks-for an equal amount of the Treasury’s gold. Americans themselves may not exchange them for gold . [pg 19]
Of the 19 Federal Reserve officials 12 are elected by bankers so HOW the money supply is increase and WHO gets the interest on the US treasury bonds can get very interesting.
The Federal Reserve officials can always decide to create a large portion of any increase in the money supply themselves, though, of course, a larger portion of the supply will always be provided by the private banks under present law. Still the larger portion of Reserve-created money, the more the U.S. Treasury benefits-because all income of the Federal Reserve after expenses reverts to the Treasury. Thus the Treasury receives a good share of the income earned from the Government securities purchased in Reserve money-creating operations.
On the other hand, if the Federal Reserve officials decide that the increase in the money supply they want is all, or substantially all, to be made by the private banks, the private banks acquire and hold more Government securities than in the first case, and the interest payments on these securities go into bank profits. So, whether the Federal Reserve officials decide to favor the U.S. Treasury or the private banks does make a difference-millions of dollars of difference-in the amount of taxes you, I, and all other taxpayers must pay. After all, one of the biggest items of expense of the Federal Government is the interest it must pay on its debt. [pg 36]
[JUMPING FORWARD IN TIME]
“…Although the money in the Federal Reserve is not in anyway “owned” by private banks they get paid interest on it…. In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:”
“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”
[An incorrect but ] typical explanation runs this way: John Jones deposits $100 in cash with his bank. The bank is required to keep, say, 20 percent of its deposits in reserves, so the bank must deposit $20 of this $100 as reserves, with a Federal Reserve bank. The bank is free to use the other $80, however, to make loans to customers or invest in securities. The expansion of money thus begins. This kind of explanation not only leads to misunderstanding, it also leads to misguided Government policies and rather constant agitation on the part of bankers for other such policies. Many of the smaller bankers who are, on the whole, not as well versed with the mechanics of the money system as they might be, actually believe that they have deposited a portion of their money, or their depositors’ money, with the Federal Reserve. Thus they feel they are being denied the opportunity to make profitable use of this money. Accordingly, there is always agitation to have the Federal Reserve pay the banks interest on this money which they think they have “deposited” with the Federal Reserve.
Furthermore, they are quite certain that the Federal Reserve System has “used” their money to acquire the Government securities which the Federal Reserve may buy in the process of reserve creation. Believing this, the bankers naturally feel that they are entitled to some share of the tremendous profits which the System receives from interest payments on its Government securities. Many bankers know better. The leaders of the bankers’ associations certainly do. But some of these leaders have not hesitated to play on general ignorance and misunderstanding to mobilize the whole banking community behind drives that are nothing but attempts to raid the Public Treasury.
The truth is, however, that the Private banks, collectively, have deposited not a penny of their own funds, or their depositors funds, with the Federal Reserve banks. The impression that they do so arises from the fact that reserves, once created, can be, and are, transferred back and forth from one bank to another, as one bank gains deposits and another loses deposits. [pg 37]
Under Secretary of the Treasury Robert V. Roosa, formerly a Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while testifying before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1960, described the misconception as follows:
“There is another misconception which occurs much more frequently-that is, the banks think that they give us the reserves on which we operate and that, too, is a misconception. We encounter that frequently, and, as you know, we create those reserves under the authority that has been described here.”
The writer [Wright Patman] has had a couple of personal experiences which ‘have provided some amusing confirmation of the fact that the source of bank reserves is not deposits of cash by the member banks with the Federal Reserve banks. having seen reports that the Federal Reserve System had, on a given date, Government securities amounting to a proximately $28 billion, I went on one occasion to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York where these securities are supposed to be housed, and asked if I might be allowed to see them. The officials of this bank said, yes, they would be glad to show them to me; whereupon they opened the vaults and let me look at, and even hold in my hand, the large mound of Government securities which they claimed to have and which, in fact, they did have.
Since I had also seen reports that the member banks of the Federal Reserve System had a certain number of millions of dollars in “cash reserves” on deposit with the Federal Reserve bank, I then asked if I might be allowed to see these cash reserves. This time my question was met with some looks of surprise; the bank officials then patiently explained to me that there were no cash reserves. The cash, in truth, does not exist and never has existed. [pg 38]
When the Federal Reserve purchases a $1 million Government bond and gives some bank credit for $1 million in its reserve account, that bank also credits the bond dealer’s checking account with $1 million. I n other words, to acquire $1 million of reserves, the bank also assumes a liability to pay its customers $1 million. If the transactions stopped here, the bank would, of course, come out even, neither gaining anything nor losing anything. But the fact that there is now $1.million more of bank reserves than existed before means that the private banks as a group can create $6 million more money than existed before. In other words, by acquiring this $1 million more in bank reserves, the private banks have the privilege of creating another $6 million of bank deposits, in the process of which they acquire $6 million in interest-bearing securities or loan paper, less an allowance for leakage into the cash (currency) balances of the public. [pg 43]
What amount of Government securities have the private banks acquired with bank-created money?
On January 31, 1964, all commercial banks in this country owned $62.7 billion in U.S. Government securities. The banks have acquired these securities with bank-created money. In other words, the (banks have used the Federal Government’s power to create money without charge to lend $62.7 billion to the Government at interest.
On January 29, 1964, commercial banks had total assets amounting to $304.7 billion, and all of these had been paid for with bank-created money, except $25.4 billion which had been paid for with their stockholders’ capital. In other words, less than 10 percent of the banks’ assets have been acquired with money invested by stockholders in the banks. [pg 46]
The make-up of the Federal Reserve Directors changed in favor of the bankers
The Federal Open Market Committee. There are 19 participants in this powerful body, 7 appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Once appointed, however, a man serves for a period of 14 years, and cannot be removed by the President or by any other official body, except for cause. The other 12 men in this select group are elected to their places through the votes of private commercial bankers. there are 12 voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee. The voting members consist of 7 members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, plus some 5 of the 12 Federal Reserve bank residents. [pg 65]
Because of this, the balance of power over the money supply lay securely, it was thought, with the public side of the System through authority of the Board of Governors. But when the move toward the alternative open-market technique of control was given legislative blessing by Congress in 1933 and 1935 and a full-fledged central bank thereby created the balance shifted radically toward the private, commercial banking side of the System. [pg 72]
.
.
“ownership” of the fed reserve: Confusion due to stock and elected board members: The position of the Federal Reserve officials thus seems to be clear :
The Federa1 Reserve banks are not owned by the commercial banks. The viewpoint of the individuals quoted above has also been borne out by the presidents of the Federal Reserve banks in hearings before the House Banking and Currency Committee. However, officials of the Federal Reserve banks are sometimes inclined to take the opposite position. [pg 78]
Do bankers believe that they own the Federal Reserve banks. Yes. [100% of the “stock” is owned by the private banks. Also after instigating “the Accord” It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only to raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do”….Therefore the Federal Reserve is not answerable to the President or Congress or the electorate, nor even to a government audit or even Congressional funding!]
The original act required that the banks invest 6 percent of their capital stock in the Federal Reserve banks.
Why was the Federal Reserve Act written to require member banks to invest in the so-called stock of the Federal Reserve banks?
The framers of the Federal Reserve Act gave many reasons, but the main, reason was this: it was expected that the Federal Reserve would issue money, not mainly against Government securities as is now the practice, but against commercial and industrial loan paper-“eligible paper” as the reader knows.
It was in view of these considerations that Congress, in framing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, required member banks of the Federal Reserve System to put a certain percentage of their capital into the .’stock” of the Federal Reserve banks; this “stock” was a safeguard against a misuse of the Government’s credit which was being delegated to these banks. The 1013 act placed on the member banks, furthermore, a “double liability” for their “stock” in the Federal Reserve banks. In other words, if a Federal Reserve bank failed, the member banks would lose not only their invested capital, but an equal amount of capital which they would also forfeit. [pg 79]
The 1933 act also prohibited commercial banks from making stock market loans, and investment banks from accepting public deposits. This was an effort to prevent a wave of stock market speculation like that of the twenties by keeping commercial banking and investment banking separate and distinct. [pg 84] [Clinton got rid of that and other limits on the banks.]
What changes were made the Banking Act of 1935?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was made permanent, and the Board of Governors was given power to change reserve requirements. The act of 1935 had other important revisions :
(1) The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was changed. Membership no longer included the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency, and the number of members was cut from nine to seven. The name, the Federal Reserve Board, was changed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The reorganized Board, with its increased powers really gave us a central bank for the first time, in place of a system of individual Federal Reserve banks which were largely on their own.
(2) Also of primary importance in creating a true central bank was the establishment of the Federal Open Market Committee to determine purchases and sales of Government securities for the entire System.
(3) Another change made by the 1935 act related to loans of the Federal Reserve banks. This act allowed the Federal Reserve banks to extend reserve bank credit on any type of credit which the commercial bank possessed.
4 ) The 1935 act also contained provisions concerning regulation of bank holding companies. [Pg 84]
Private banks enjoy a very special relationship with the Federal Government. After all, most business firms employ private capital or privately owned resources to produce a product or provide a service which can be profitably sold in the marketplace. Most business firms pay for the raw materials and services they receive, and, furthermore, in the case of most kinds of business firms, the business itself is a risk-taking venture. The firm succeeds or fails in competition with other business firms.
But the conditions under which private banks operate are very different. In the first place, one of the major functions of the private commercial banks is to create money. A large portion of bank profits come from the fact that the banks do create money. And, as we have pointed out, banks create money without cost to themselves, in the process of lending or investing in securities such a Government bonds. Bank profits come from interest on the money lent and invested, while the cost of creating money is negligible. (Banks do incur costs, of course, from bookkeeping to loan officers’ salaries.) The power to create money has been delegated, or loaned, by Congress to the private banks for their free use. There is no charge.
On the contrary, this is but one of the many ways the Government subsidizes the private banking system and protects it from competition. The Government, through the Federal Reserve System, provides a huge subsidy through the free services the System provides for member banks. “Check clearing” is one of the services; i.e., the collection and payment of funds due one bank from another because of depositors’ use of their checkbook money. The costs of this service alone runs into scores of millions of dollars.
The gross expenses of the combined Federal Reserve banks totaled $207 million in 1963, most of which was incurred as a cost of providing free services to the private banks. Other Federal agencies also receive services from the Federal Reserve. But these are not free. The System received about $20 million for “fiscal agency and other expenses” in 1963.
In addition, the Federal Government provides private banks with a large measure of protection from competition, and the hazards of failure. … This means, in brief, that nobody can enter the banking business by opening a national bank, unless the proposed bank is to be located where it will not cause an inconvenient amount of competition to other banks already in business. [pg 89]
In mid-August of 1950, however, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate and short-term Treasury bills jumped toward 11/2 percent, although there were requests from the Secretary of the Treasury and the President for the System to continue a low-rate policy. It was later revealed by testimony of some of the Federal Reserve officials to committees of Congress that the Open Market Committee had held a meeting on August 18 and decided not only t o raise the discount rate, but to “go their own way” on the Government longer term bond rate as well, despite what the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of the Office of Defense Mobilization might do…. Since the signing of the so-called accord, in March of 1951, this event has been widely interpreted as an understanding, reached between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that the Federal Reserve would henceforth be “independent.” It would no longer ” peg Government bond prices. It would raise or lower interest rates as it might see fit, as a means of trying to prevent inflation or deflation.
These are understandings which have been grafted onto the accord over the years. Certainly, no such understandings were universal at the time the accord was signed. ….
At the end of 1951, then, the Federal Reserve had both self-proclaimed independence, as a result of the accord, and an operational policy which aimed at maximum credit effects through minimum changes in interest rates….. the Federal Reserve people were quite sure that they could do a better job of running the country than the President, and with only slight increases in interest rates. …
It then added another string to its bow- the “bills only” policy. … Henceforth when the Treasury issued bonds or medium-term securities, it was to dump these issues on the market and watch the natural consequences-first a drop in bond prices, then a gradual recovery as the market absorbed the bonds. Any private rigging or manipulations of the market were to go without interference from the Federal Reserve, as were any speculative booms or panics short of a “disorderly” market. The “bil1s-only” policy had only one reservation: The Federal Reserve would buy long-term bonds in the event that the Open Market Committee made a findings that the market was disorderly. [ full details starting on pg 103]
The [Eisenhower ] administration announced at the outset that it would re1y on monetary policy exclusive1y for its economic regulation and would respect the complete independence of the Federal Reserve to carry out these policies as it saw fit …..
Thirteen years have now passed since the accord and the liberation of the Federal Reserve. What have been the results? The major result is shockingly obvious. Interest rates have climbed steadily, with slight interruptions, during the entire post accord period. (See table 3.) The period has been marked, then, by a continual shift of income to the banks, other major financial institutions, and individuals with significant interest income. The rest of the country provided this income. …
Another result of post accord monetary policy is that the U.S. economy has unwittingly become a low investment economy… The Federal Reserve has chosen the high interest, slower growth option for this country.
In fiscal year 1963, the U S Government paid out approximately $10 billion as interest on the national debt. The budget deficit for the same year was $8.8 billion. Much political hay was made with the deficit. It was potential inflationary dynamite, ran the ”no deficit” claim. And these same people strongly supported tighter money and higher interest rates to prevent the otherwise inevitable inflationary explosion. Yet if these people were really worried about the deficit they should have been rabid partisans of a low-interest policy. For it can be shown that last year’s deficit would have been $5 billion less if the Government had not been forced by Federal Reserve policy to pay increasingly more on its outstanding debt. I n fact, the total national debt would now be $40 billion less if the interest rates of the early 1940’s had prevailed in the postwar period.
Moreover, the system eludes even the audit control exercised by the General Accounting Office, whose function it is to make sure that other Federal agencies not only handle their financial affairs properly but also pursue policies and practices that are in accord with the law. The system provides for its own auditing; clutching its mantle of independence, it has stoutly resisted repeated congressional suggestions that the General Accounting Office perform an annual audit.[ pg 121]
Congress has never given authority for determining monetary policy to the Federal Reserve System-and certainly not to a committee within the System containing members who owe their selection to private bank interests. This basic authorization has not been changed by any amendments to the Federal Reserve Act made to date. Yet two evolutions have taken place within the Federal Reserve System, in one instance, without authorization, and, in the other, directly contrary to the expressed intent of the Federal Reserve Act. In brief, the Federal Reserve’s “monetary policies,” as they are practiced today, were never authorized by law…There is little doubt in the author’s mind that if any legal challenge were ever raised to the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies, the courts could hold them unconstitutional.
The First Annual Report of the Board of Governors after passage of the 1935 act opened with a statement that the act “places responsibility for national monetary and credit on the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee”-although the act contained no reference whatever to monetary policy nor any provision which indicated a change in the convertibility concept on which the 1913 act was drawn. In brief, the Federal Reserve’s “monetary policies,” as they are practiced today, were never authorized by law.
The monetary powers, as has frequently been pointed out, are reserved to the Congress by the constitution. There is no doubt that it is within the prerogative of the Congress to delegate these powers either to the executive branch of the Government or to an independent agency. But it is not within Congress’s constitutional means to delegate these powers without prescribing policy objectives and clear guidelines detailing how the powers may be used. Inevitably, the Supreme Court has held unconstitutional those grants of powers made without any spelling out of the specific objectives and limitations placed on their use [pg 128]
This second change, whatever else it accomplished, did open the door to private banker influence in the formation of monetary policy. T h e regional bank presidents have become policymakers. At the very least, the type of man chosen to become the president of a regional bank affects the bent of Open Market Committee thinking. Now the private bankers have the dominant voice in choosing the regional bank presidents. They are hardly likely to choose and retain man as presidents whose approach to monetary matters does not in general conform to their taste.
I hope you take the time to read these excerpts and do not blow your blood pressure too high.
“Capitalists with government help are the worst of all economic phenomena.” — A. Rand
Rand was wrong, the absolute worst economic phenomenon is “Capitalists with government help ALL paid for by counterfeit money printed by the Robber Baron Bankers”
….interest on any loan of fiat money (meaning money made out of nothing)…. [is a] dead short across the productive element of society. Money being taken from people who are working hard providing the material and the labor. They don’t even know that this is being taken from them and it’s in this huge river of wealth flowing into the banking cartel…. You are led to the question of where is this river flowing? Where’s it going? Get a picture of this that it’s all going into a lake somewhere and maybe there’s a dam and the wealth is building up and somewhere they’re getting it all. Getting it no, they’re spending it. They’re not accumulating it at all. What are they spending it for? The answer may surprise you. They’re not buying more yachts and mansions with this money, they’ve already got all of those they possibly want…. When a person has all the wealth that you could possibly want for the material pleasures of life, what is left? Power. They are using this river of wealth to acquire power over you and me and our children. They are spending it to acquire control over the power centers of society…
And they did so. In 1913, they passed the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment. The 16th was passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress’s right to impose a Federal income tax. ”…the income tax amendment became part of the Constitution by a curious series of events culminating in a bit of political maneuvering that went awry.….”
After that, it didn’t take long for the Elite to jump into action. In 1915, they grabbed control of the leading newspapers. It was even reported in the Congressional Record two years later:
This classic 1911 cartoon by the internationally acclaimed Communist cartoonist Robert Minor needs to be resurrected and posted on the front pages of every regime Establishment newspaper, beginning with the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post… Sadly, the cartoon desperately needs to be updated for 2021 with the knelling, decrepit usurper Joe Biden surrounded by the leading honchos of Big Tech, Big Pharma, Wall Street banksters, and top CEOs of the Woke Fortune Five Hundred, eagerly lined up to French kiss the ass of Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping.
When you look at it Communism, is nothing more than feudalism in a new dress and fresh lipstick.
Karl Marx does not even hide this.
“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment….” – The Communist Manifesto
I am pretty sure the City of London and US Federal Reserve are also tied to the Chinese Communist party but that Deep Dive is for another day.
At first I thought control would be through RFID chips, (See ChiefIO’s August 2013, Experiments in Mobility and Anonymity) and digital currency, all thanks to OH!Bummercare.
I read the Obama ‘Health’ ‘Care’ bill (HCA) and here are some of the goodies I found:
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill a Government committee (good luck with that!) will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.
Pg 42 of HC Bill The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you.
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (Americans will pay.)
Pg 58 HC Bill Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances and a National ID Healthcard will be issued!
Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will have access to ALL Americans’ finances and personal records.
Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank accts for funds transfer.
However there was another goody buried in the bill that had NOTHING to do with healthcare and is now coming back in a different version… ON STEROIDS!
Section 9006 of the health care bill — just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document — mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year. The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year. Right now, the IRS Form 1099 is used to document income for individual workers other than wages and salaries… The bill makes two key changes to how 1099s are used. First, it expands their scope by using them to track payments not only for services but also for tangible goods. Plus, it requires that 1099s be issued not just to individuals, but also to corporations…. http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/
(This section got repealed ASAP after Sam’s Club et al realized the amount of paperwork they were in for.)
However the interesting tidbit was this:
”…the IRS has stated that even for transactions covered by the law, they intend to exempt purchases made with credit cards….”
Can you say DRIVE PEOPLE TO DIGITAL CURRENCY???
CLEARING UP 1099 CONFUSION
The NEW 1099 Law – IRS Form 1099-MISC
This 1099 law (Section 9006 of the health care bill passed earlier this year) is scheduled to go into effect January, 2012. Under this law you will have to report ALL purchases of goods and services over $600 (including smaller purchases aggregated over the full year.) Yes, that includes your retail clients, your fellow dealers (no more corporate exemption), office supply stores, show travel providers (hotels & airlines), etc.
Small businesses and associations (including ICTA) have protested this provision so fervently that Congress – and even President Obama – have acknowledged that it is a problem. Potential fixes include repeal of Section 9006 (ICTA’s strongly preferred solution), raising the dollar amount threshold to $5,000, exempting businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and exempting transactions paid for via credit or debit cards. However, the administration is extremely sensitive to the word “repeal” as applied to any part of the health care bill.
Humans will be DESIGNED – Made In China 2025 – CHINA WOULD DOMINATE THE TEN INDUSTRIES NEEDED for the FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Five or six converge for the ‘Singularity’ –> Immortality for ELITES. Think organs-ON-Demand FROM CHINA https://rumble.com/vkkmze-ccp-enforcing-live-organ-harvesting.html
and now Human – Computer interface to control the serfs.
…The meeting has been described as an “exclusive gathering of technology, corporate, finance, government, academic, ecclesiastic and media leaders … to catalyze awareness and establish the best path forward with humanity and technology in harmony.”…
And yes, that is Francis Collins, FauXi’s old boss.
2:20 Joe Allen:….imothy O’Leary talked of creating an electronic religion in the 60s…Already been enacted via 2nd life the very popular simulation space…… D.J. Soto who founded the First VR Church, founded in 2015, 2016. the way it works is you put on your oculist goggles, you are in a virtual sanctuary space surounded by cartoonish avitars, and listening to his vapid sermon behind the pulpit. ….What does he hold sacred… In 2019, he held a gender bending transracial baptism in which he was depected as a buff black man, and a man at the other end is depicted as a cartoon girl, and there were homo-erotic jokes cracked throughout the entire thing. But when I confronted Pastor D.J. Soto about this via email, he came back with, I would do it again in a heart beat, you just have to be more open minded. He has also floated the idea of having cartoon jesuses in 3-D virtual space that congregates can interact with directly. And this isn’t just off in the corner, these people have been boosted by NewsWeek, BBC, Wired Mag. And that should raise flags already….
?Vintage? Scriptures talk about an Astro plane which is an Immaterial Plane of Existence. We are technologically realizing that deeply ancient notion of an immaterial plane of existence. plane A metaverse is a persistent social virtual world where one can live, create, work, and play. DEEP FUTURE Mind Uploads a la Permutation City Metamind group or Hive Minds Exploratory Van Neumann metaverse-ships From Felipe Van ?Medervelda? Virtual reality pioneer. Speaking @ Transvision 2021.
April 2, 2021 – War Room Previews ‘Unholy Saturday of Transhumanism’ Special (7 min.)
Includes TWO 48 minute War Rooms ON TRANSHUMANISM PLUS AN ESSAY By JASON JONES & JOHN ZMIRAK AUTHORS OF ‘The Race to Save Our Century [a book that ] pointed to the causes of the genocides in that epoch in various forms of “Subhumanism.”
Transhumanism and the connecting of the serfs to computer Will-he Nil-he certainly would explain Graphene Oxide in the Clot Shot and the MASSIVE PUSH to get everyone vaccinated wether it kills you or not.
It also explains the Magnetic Shot Hoax used to discredit the addition of graphene to the shots.
…Since graphene oxide “is considered to be the world’s thinnest, strongest and most conductive material”, how would this function in the body? Could it transmit frequency into and out of our bodies? Well according to other studies, graphene oxide is a “high-efficient interconnector in radio-frequency range”, in other words, it “has high potential for transmitting signals at gigahertz ranges” … “0.5–40 GHz. Radio- frequency transmission”. This would include 4G, 5G, and other wifi and microwave frequencies. So now we have many more questions than answers….
Wherein we postulate that the real driver of James Comey and Spygate comes straight out of CHINA-PWNED BANKSTERISM – that the Clinton relationship to China may actually be “handled” via HSBC, and that the fact that the entire international cast of Spygate is nearly perfectly matched by the amoeba-like shadow of HSBC is no accident.
So WHO or WHAT is HSBC?
AND I QUOTE:
HSBC Holdings plc is a British[6] multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. It was the 7th largest bank in the world by 2018, and the largest in Europe, with total assets of US$2.558 trillion (as of December 2018). HSBC traces its origin to a hong in Hong Kong, and its present form was established in London by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation to act as a new group holding company in 1991.[7][8] The origins of the bank lie mainly in Hong Kong and to a lesser extent in Shanghai, where branches were first opened in 1865.[1] The HSBC name is derived from the initials of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.[9] The company was first formally incorporated in 1866.[10]
HSBC has around 3,900 offices in 65 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe, North America, and South America, and around 38 million customers.[11] As of 2014, it was the world’s sixth-largest public company, according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine.[12]
HSBC is organised within four business groups: Commercial Banking, Global Banking and Markets (investment banking), Retail Banking and Wealth Management, and Global Private Banking.[13][14]
HSBC has a dual[15] primary listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the Hang Seng Index and the FTSE 100 Index. As of 6 July 2012, it had a market capitalisation of £102.7 billion, the second-largest company listed on the London Stock Exchange, after Royal Dutch Shell.[16] It has secondary listings on the New York Stock Exchange, Euronext Paris, and the Bermuda Stock Exchange.
I had NO IDEA that this company that hired James Comey was CHINA-RELATED until I began writing this post. The reason is that I never see Hong Kong, Shanghai, or China ever mentioned when HSBC is being talked about. ENGLAND and EUROPE are usually hinted at. Thus, to me, HSBC was always just some “European” bank. But yet – well – Hong Kong and China – possibly being almost the same thing to the ChiComs per their propaganda – are IMPORTANT at the very least in HSBC.
My revelation about Comey and his relationship to HSBC being CRITICAL in understanding Spygate stems from my recent time in Paris, mentioned earlier in my post about the cab driver there.
When I was in Paris, I saw very EXPENSIVE signs and ads for HSBC almost EVERYWHERE – so much so, that I assumed it must have been some kind of FRENCH BANK. Well, not quite. But nevertheless, the main impact of all these signs was to IMPRESS ME with the POWER of HSBC.
How could Comey even THINK of resisting that stuff?
I mean, seriously – how do you TALK BACK to this shit when you’re just a guy like me on the internet who CAN – [ barring some minor attempted outsourced GUNPLAY, “vide infra” ] – much less somebody who actually WORKED FOR IT?
HSBC – whose fortunes are largely controlled by the CHICOMS – wants to take away your GUNS? Hey – it might actually HAPPEN. And if a few Americans are killed in the process…… Well….. Not thinking these people really CARE all that much.
Suddenly, the idea that Comey had WORKED for HSBC, began to make me think that maybe they were still INFLUENCING HIM – even if only in his LATENT WORLDVIEW.
And then something CLICKED. HSBC was even MORE connected to one of my weird little GUN SET-UPS – which I have assumed were FBI-related – than even “Epstein-related corporate entities”.
“Mmmmmmmm-hmmmmmmm.”
Suddenly, things began making sense. What if the FBI has been TAINTED by HSBC after Comey’s time there? What if it’s not “THING 1” but rather “THING 2” that has been mucking with the FBI from the inside?
CHYYYNNAA – and maybe LONDON, too.
Perhaps not right NOW, with Director Wray in charge, because Wray has been very aggressive in taking on the China threats which Mueller and Comey tended to ignore. But IF the HSBC taint in the FBI was deep and subtle, it would explain a lot.
And then there is this:
HSBC Money-Laundering Case Haunts Mueller’s Prosecution of Manafort
Why Mueller, Comey, Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder let HSBC walk on criminal money-laundering crimes in exchange for $1.9 billion fine
Now – before you think this is “all there is” (bad enough that it is), allow me to suggest that you simply so a web search on “Comey” and “HSBC”. You will be shocked at not only how much scandalous material arises – you will see that “Clinton Foundation” features in almost all of it.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=comey+hsbc&ia=web
Just click that link and PICK OUT one or two articles.
There is NO WAY that either James Comey or Andrew McCabe should have been allowed to TOUCH the Clinton email case. “Recusal” is not strong enough. They should not have been allowed to even TALK about it.
Bill Priestap should have had the final say on it. MAYBE – and “maybe” is probably more honest – given that Priestap’s wife is some kind of connected financial and Israeli intelligence private investigation MEGA SECURITY RISK. (Sorry – I don’t want to sort through all her employers, REAL AND COVER, right now….)
You know who should have been put in charge of the FBI investigation? Who should have “negotiated” with Loretta Lynch?
A RANDOM “rank and file” FBI agent, whose name was drawn from a HAT on live TV.
Be that as it all may, I find it very odd that an “English” (COUGH, COUGH) global bank that is rooted in CHINA and which does mega business with the CLINTON FOUNDATION and the CLINTONS was the employer of JAMES COMEY for many years. A bank which is geographically and culturally connected to nearly EVERY player in SpyGate.
So – what do you all think?
Is #SpyGate really a “derivative” of #HSBCgate?
Maybe the “banksters” are FAR CLOSER than we have thought.
In order to be an oligarch you have to be accepted by the other oligarchs. If oligarchs oppose you, your business will probably be crushed, or at least severely restricted, and access to political authority or social influence will be stifled…
I’ll raise you 137 years. 
And WOW what a treasure trove of information on the Constitution. Linked below are just two of the goodies at that website.
