Greenbackers and Hitler: another economic lesson

[Luke]

Cheerleader for Hitler's Economics by Gary North
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north891.html)

(Mind that arguments above do apply for other "war economy" proposals found on this pages like this one here, or this one here)

Ellen Brown is a lawyer by profession, a Greenbacker by confession, and a fan of Adolph Hitler's economics by consistency.

She is quite open about her support for National Socialism's economics, as I shall demonstrate. What is depressing is this: she is getting a respectful hearing in Tea Party circles. Her book, The Web of Debt (2006), is widely cited on the World Wide Web

The book does not initially appear what it really is: a call to set up a government-funded welfare state. But there are brief statements to this effect in the early pages. Only on page 234, halfway through the book, does she get to the point: the Nazi economy.

The German people were in such desperate straits that they relinquished control of the country to a dictator, and in this they obviously deviated from the "American system," which presupposed a democratically-governed Commonwealth. But autocratic authority did give Adolf Hitler something the American Greenbackers could only dream about – total control of the economy. He was able to test their theories, and he proved that they worked.

At this point, anyone with an IQ above 90 should begin to smell a rat.

The Greenbackers are big advocates of Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because he allowed the banks to suspend payments in gold in 1861. Then in 1862 and 1863, he signed into law a system of unbacked fiat money called Greenbacks. They see him as the creator – a would-be national savior who was thwarted by the bankers, who had him assassinated.

They never discuss the fact that Lincoln was an advocate of fractional reserve banking. They never mention that in January of 1863, he signed the bill authorizing a second issue of Greenbacks, but sent Congress a letter deploring the law. He called for a national bank act. Congress gave it to him a month later.

Hitler was the head of a political party. In English, it was called the National Socialist German Workers Party, or "Nazi Party" for short. It was not called socialist for nothing. To imagine that this system was anything other than socialism is to parrot the Party Line of the Left ever since 1923. "No, no, no: the Nazis were not really socialists." Well, if they weren't, their policies surely resembled socialism. They believed in centralized control over the economy, and when they got into power in 1933, they established that control. This control grew even tighter after 1939, because of World War II.

She does not draw the obvious conclusion, namely, that the centralized power of the government over money, business, and labor was basic to the power which that government imposed over the Jews and other minorities. It is almost as if his racial tyranny and military aggression were completely divorced from his economic views and the government's economic policies. It should be obvious that these policies were a package deal. Without the centralization of power over the economy, the German government could not have exercised the tyranny that it did exercise in all other areas of life.

[Carmody]

First is set up an international trading house, that eventually or initially involves itself in the financial transfer of currency. Ie, whatever it is that backs currency in the given 'distant from one another' economic entities. Ie sovereign countries or similar.

Now, when the international or transnational trading house begins trading with that economic entity from one to the next, it is automatically in a position where it's valuation of it's trades are HIGHER than the native value of the currency trade with the economic entity, or country. As well, since it is a hand in the middle it can decide the value of actions between the two given separate entities.

Since the transnational trading house is handling the go between aspect of the currency, it is in a position to alter the actual direction, feel and meaning of the trades that happen between. It can make, create, or break the valuation system. It makes sure it has a way of inserting itself or connecting itself to the given power structure in the given county so that it is either clandestinely (through the ripple effect) running aspects of the economy or it begins getting itself directly inserted into the economic aspects of the power structure. Ie, corporations handling the money supply.

This becomes corporations directly connected to the governing bodies. And the corporations are aiding the governing bodies directly and then slowly taking over the system.

In this way you end up with the origins of fascism.

Fascism, as a word, literally means 'when corporations clandestinely or otherwise collude with governing bodies to work for themselves against the will of the people.'

Thus at that point it is easy to see that Fascism is nearly a totally open and naked system within the united states. Open, naked fascism. This means, the shape of Nazi Germany and/or Fascist Italy is inches away in the United States right now.

But, not one part of the public wants Fascism. None. They know it's a nightmare for all, at the least. Except for the ruling powers getting what they want, fascism is a nightmare of the worst kind for the public.

Now, in order to bring in Fascism, it must be cloaked in the skin of something. Well, in working socialist structure (which we've never seen) the governing bodies create entities that work for the public good, large ones that help the public, as groups and as a big central group. Ie, department of health, and it handles all aspects of government integrating with the public in any way, that involves health, as a concept and actions surrounding that wide aspect.

In the case of Russia, the cloak of the name of socialism was left in place, for quite while. But in reality, it was still the same entities in charge. The transnational money houses.

Well, in order to have transnational corporations, the money lenders, to have them burrow deeply into control of the given county, the method of cloaking the fascist reality as 'socialism' is used. For true socialism is functional, in it's connectivity to a democratic system of government. In reality, socialist programs connected to democratic systems work, which is why the idea of socialism is paraded in the public's eye as the cover story for a totally naked fascism that is trying to hide itself from being seen as it moves into it's final phases.

The problem is that fascism is in place in order to bring gain to the transnational or international corporations, or in this case, the international money lending houses. And for that, they require WAR. For nothing tears a country apart more assuredly and more completely - than war.

Then, the war and the fascism turn into totalitarianism, which is what Germany and other countries involved in WWII were headed toward in a naked fashion, right at the end. They were turning toward a open system that began looking like Pol Pot's Cambodia in some ways. Things always get mixed up and some bits appear here and there in every system. Just looking at the overall 'cast' of the given situations, here.

And if you think of the system being that of a pyramid and at the top of the pyramid is the reptilians and those who associated with them in how we get to see them, then this is how the world is ravaged and kept under control.

This is why these international money lenders go out of their way to nearly instantly kill anyone who attempts to make and use their own internal currency system as that keeps that country out of the hands of the given entities..

In the Case of Germany it's rebuilding, and then the lie of WWII, it was the corporations and money lenders who were already inside and fully in control of the German system of governance, fiance and industry, so they allowed for the appearance of that to take place.

The money the money lending houses (which were internationally funded, BTW) got together on Jekyll island and concocted the plan to take over the US national money supply and created the federal reserve bank (a private company)..that was the moment that the powerful entity known as the United States began to get involved in crushing other countries and economies.

The USA has run a game of crushing other countries since that day. It has done it slowly and carefully, under the noses of their public, via control of the media at the same time so the public would not know. It was the very carefully crafted creation and use of a a 'country smashing machine' out f the US and it's citizens since the time of December 24, 11:45pm, 1913. (the congressional creation of the federal reserve system of the US owing money on every dollar created, thus never being able to ever get out of debt to the transnational banks).

And now that the American public and the rest of the world is tied to that inflated money supply system...that money system is being purposely collapsed, in order to collapse everyone and every individual in it. into a state of chaos and far for their lives, and the outcome of this. the reality if it is hidden from the public so they cannot see the shape of it and blame things that have nothing to do with the sum total situation. and that sum total is actually a magnitude higher up the chain of logic and sense...but this is hidden so the public does not see the shape of what is killing them.

This becomes the fear filled slide in to violent totalitarianism, the tearing down of the whole fabric and structure of organized stable society and culture, the one that unknowingly aided the top of this pyramid in tearing apart the rest of the world.

it goes back to the original money lending houses that traded internationally and could hence tell lies to the given person/country on the end of each transaction..as the transnational money lenders were the middle man who could hence, say and do anything they wanted. This is what we have today, but on a grander scale.

The problem with all of this is that it is near impossible or difficult to see the final point of all of it. And the final point of all of this rambling writing is that yes, the shape of it, yes the effect of it, yes the history of it can be seen..but the final point makes no sense, in human terms.

And that is the point that trips us all up. It leads to a place we don't know how to go to, which is how it can remain hidden. Our minds don't know how to deal with it.

[observer]

Blessings Luke,

It is not clear to me what your position is on this issue, or why you submitted such a 'slanted' article for discussion.

You have presented an article that draws some rather opinionated conclusions regarding the very serious issue of 'private ownership of our currency' - a situation that desperately need overhauling in the U.S. This article attempts to connect the atrocities of Hitler with government control of the Central Banking System. My personal response to this article is that it was written by an apologist for the global banking network.

I don't buy the connection. It all sounds to me like 'fear mongering' around the issue of governmental control of the Central Bank - a mechanism guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

This function of our government was usurped in 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act) by the New York Banksters (J.P. Morgan, Paul Warburg, Nelson Aldrich, et al.). The evidence will show that allowing the control of the money supply to slip into the hands of a few elite individuals LEADS to the atrocities committed by the Nazis. A review of the historical evidence will also show the very same elite families responsible for financing the Nazis into power are - in fact - the same elite families in control of the Central Banking System today. One can hide this template of control under the cloak of many names. This is how the diversion is successful.

In contrast to the conclusions of the article you have offered, Paul Warburg was the brother of Max Warburg. Max was instrumental in financing the Nazi Party in Germany. Do you see how gaining control of the nation's currency supply is the key to the formula of 'control of the Masses by the few Elite'?

If there WERE any gold at Fort Knox, than a government issued currency would surely be backed by that stockpile. Since most of the gold reserve was spirited-out of the country under the Johnson administration, there is little chance that a Congress issued 'greenback' can or would be backed by anything other than the 'good will' of the citizenry. Regardless of what backing a government issued currency would have, the key to ending this nightmare is to take the 'purse' away from the private individuals who are controlling it now - by any means available !!!

Of course, the whole Fort Knox debacle has been hidden from the American people, also - just like so many other things we SHOULD have all been told !!! I realize this issue is controversial, I might point-out, there still hasn't been an audit of the 'Fed' which would include an audit of the gold reserves at Fort Knox. As a result of there being no gold reserve, any (true) 'government of the people' attempting to convert the ownership of the Central Bank would be forced to use a fiat based currency.

In respect to what Hitler did with the power resulting from the Nazis seizing control of their currency, this is obviously possible with any 'network' in control of the 'purse strings'. All one need do is look what the Global Elite have done with 'power and control' over the past 100 years of their 'ownership' of the currency printing presses.

The trick to seizing control of the currency is to have enough checks in place to assure the 'will of the people' is adhered to. This will never happen as long as we have secret societies funded by those who control the currency at the foundations of our political structure.

The 'trick' is to figure-out how to put an end to THAT !!!

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society" - JFK

[Ahkenaten]

There are many varieties of fascism...........................and fascism does not differ much, in the final analysis, from socialism............in fact, in an effort to woo workers the Nazis called their party the national socialist party. The western nations did not seem overly concerned about the Nazis for some time regardless of the fact that Hitler was very clear from the beginning what his ideology entailed if anyone took the time to read his words or listen to what he said. It seems that a turning point in international relations occurred not necessarily when Germany became aggressively militaristic (Germany does after all have a long history of strident militarism) but when it became absolutely clear that the Nazis were not playing ball as usual with the banking cabal......................it may be that the Nazis refusal to play ball with the bankers was in fact the precipitating crisis. Joseph Farrell does an excellent job of analyzing this issue in Babylon's Banksters. There is after all the historical anomaly of Germany's miraculous recovery from its devastating economic situation post WWI......and there is evidence that the devastation of Germany's economy was directly caused by the banks. Would it not be ironic if the truly unforgiveable crime of the Nazis was not, as we have been led to believe, its ideological scapegoating of minorities of all stripes, but its refusal to be subdued by the banksters?

[Carmody]

That appears to be the case, in many ways. However, it is difficult to see the shape and direction of the given players through the mists of time and misinformation.

For those entities who move in such circles, this secrecy, hiding, and misinformation is critical to their capacity to do the things they wish to do.

In that respect, their snail trail, if you will..is relatively easy to find. You begin looking for things that are hidden from the public eye. and it begins to take shape from there. For their inter-group communications are generally in the open. Coded, for the most part, but in the open. But not in the public eye or presses.

[Luke]

Posted by observer (here)
If there WERE any gold at Fort Knox, than a government issued currency would surely be backed by that stockpile. Since most of the gold reserve was spirited-out of the country under the Johnson administration, there is little chance that a Congress issued 'greenback' can or would be backed by anything other than the 'good will' of the citizenry. Regardless of what backing a government issued currency would have, the key to ending this nightmare is to take the 'purse' away from the private individuals who are controlling it now - by any means available !!!
[...]
The 'trick' is to figure-out how to put an end to THAT !!!

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society" - JFK

Sure, and author of article many times said precisely that.

Posted by observer (here)
I don't buy the connection. It all sounds to me like 'fear mongering' around the issue of governmental control of the Central Bank - a mechanism guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

With all due respect, I suggest you read relevant articles of US constitution, which speciffically states NO banking system should be in place, only gold and silver currency issued by Congress. This is part that has been sabotaged from day one by ones like Hamilton. It finally got implemented by Andrew Jackson (with end of charter for second Bank of United States), and killed again by Lincoln. Current monetary situation is as far from what was codified by founding fathers as it could be.
Then again, Europe is under law prepared by banksters hand in hand with old nobility or new bureaucratic nobility, we do not enjoy even pretence of freedom US citizens have.

Posted by observer (here)
My personal response to this article is that it was written by an apologist for the global banking network.

It saddens me that reading with understanding is dying art. Calling free market economist a shill for banking system, talk about fail.

One need to understand that 1913 act was just last final act of banksters hijacking government. The process was started by Lincoln, man heart and soul bought and paid for by railway companies that expropriated indigenous people to make their infrastructure.
Lincolns Greenback was tool allowing unbridled government spending at the expense of all taxpayers. It allowed Total War. This is why war atrocities like Sherman March were possible - before greenback, no one could afford such campaign of destruction. It is generally interesting to see how many concepts implemented by Nazis stemmed from ideas coming from US - and not by accident.
What Hitler (or to be more precise- those who put Hitler puppet in spotlight) was use system designed in US, and take it to next level. Even death camps can be traced to (confederate this time) Andersonville of Belle Isle "camps"

Point is: Greenback was fiat currency. Fiat currency favours governments, and allows it to create programs it could not follow when constrained by normal economic circumstances. It allowed banksters to inflate their power ad infinium. It allowed atrocities such as Total War and current Perpetual Crisis. Hitlers theory and practice was direct implementation of techniques designed by US ruling elite from late XIX century. He was as much system puppet as Lincoln was.

Sad joke is, people that supposedly praise freedom are hoodwinked by clever "feel-good" rethorics to follow scheme that is as far from freedom as it could be. This is what Gary North wrote. This is why I posted this article. If you choose to call truth "slanted" because it falls out of "comfort zone".. well, I suggest thinking it over again.

[observer]

Posted by Luke (here)
It saddens me that reading with understanding is dying art. Calling free market economist a shill for banking system, talk about fail.

Hello again Luke,

Allow me to state, for the record, that I am in no way a supporter of the tea party movement, nor have I any sort of historic understanding of what the ‘greenback’ movement represents to you or Mr. North. I do, however, find a lot of what Ron Paul says to be of sound political logic.

I can see no reason why you would choose to insult my intelligence with statements such as the above quote. I would ask you to re-read my comment #3 and point-out to me exactly where I made any statement in support of Ellen Brown's brand of Greenback-ism. Since you were the one who chose to turn my comment into a personal attack, It would seem to me, the individual guilty of incomprehension of what was written is the party making that accusation.

With no formal economic training, it is my understanding the term 'greenback' refers to a currency issued by the Congress of the United States as opposed to a currency issued by a privately owned Central Banking System. I believe, here in the U.S., most individuals use the term 'greenback' with this understanding - with no reference to what method is being used for a 'backing' of these greenbacks. My only historic reference to the term ‘greenback’ was that it was something President Lincoln and President Kennedy attempted to develop. I first perused Mr. North's article with the understanding that the United States needs a change in the way it issues currency.

Nowhere in Mr. North's article do I see even a remote suggestion of how to fix the privately owned Federal Reserve situation as it currently exists. I don't even see where Mr. North acknowledges there is a problem with the current Central Banking System. His entire article is a biased attack on people calling for a change by equating them to Third Reich Nazis. This is the issue that I am 'calling-out' Mr. Brown on.

Keep in mind, there is no gold left in Fort Knox to back a Congressional Issued Currency. This possibility is the foundational reason Ron Paul has been calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve System. It is suspected the only gold left in Fort Knox is 'coin grade' gold with a high copper content. (gold with a 'red' appearance) Nowhere in Mr. Brown's article do I see where he stipulates to the 'no gold at Fort Knox' issue. (even though you contend this is spoken of "many times" in Mr. Brown's article)

Posted by Luke (here)
Sure, and author of article many times said precisely that.

Nowhere do I see Mr. North stipulate to the fact that the Federal Reserve Banking System is nothing more than the identical fiat system that he is condemning the Nazis for using.... condemning Ellen Brown for suggesting we have Congress do the same.

In fact, Mr. North's entire article is an attempt to stifle the Congressional Issued Currency (greenback) movement by condemnation of what the Nazis did with their fiat money - never making mention that this is exactly what is being done by the elite globalists (Nazis) currently in charge of this nations money supply (A.K.A. The Federal Reserve System). Is this what you are referring to as "free market" economics? Well then, this is why I would categorize Mr. North as a global banking network apologist.

Nowhere do I see Mr. North condemn the secret society network that supports the International Banking System. So pervasive is this 'network' that it effects business on even a local level in every community within the U.S. (You left the part about secret societies out when you quoted what I said - this was the most relevant point of my comment.)

In my comment #3, I clearly indicated a gold backed currency was the most desirable situation - issued (not by the Federal Reserve, but by the Congress of the United States). How would you suggest we dump the Federal Reserve System and have Congress 'mint the coin' where there is no precious metal to use for the minting? My guess would be Mr. Brown would opt for the status quo. No where do I see Mr. Brown suggesting we get rid of the fiat-based Federal Reserve System. On the contrary, he condemns those trying to get rid of that system by equating them to Nazis. Where in the article does he equate the Federal Reserve System to those same Nazis - even though the 'Fed' is using the exact same tactics (fiat money)?

Playing a 'word game' with the meaning of Article I, Section 8, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution is in no way to be construed as the 'intent' of what I was talking about when I said:

Posted by observer (here)
"It all sounds to me like 'fear mongering' around the issue of governmental control of the Central Bank - a mechanism guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution".

Intent or not, I interpret that Article to mean the Congress should control the money supply, not a privately owned banking network. A network owned - by the way - on the most part by foreign investors. This is the meaning of my above quote, but instead of understanding what was written you chose to scold me on a finite detail.

If you were to re-read what I said, you will see that I made the connection between the supporters of the rise to power of the Nazi Party with the very families involved in the current evolution of the Central Banking System in the US. I connected those supporters with the secret societies that run the globe. "Free market economics" aside, this is the 'total package' that must be ended before there can be any further progress. - by whatever method is possible - including the use of fiat money if that is what it will take.

I stand on what I said regarding Mr. Brown being an apologist for the Global Banking Network. And, with regard to your suggestion that I lack reading skills, I would counter: on the contrary, I believe I have read Mr. Brown's article with much more insight than you are willing to give credit for. I would suggest, perhaps, my observations are in direct conflict with your paradigm.

[Luke]

Dear Observer, I see you have lots of misconceptions about what compromises reality and it's economic part
1. Tea Party. There is no one Tea Party, you can see at least two movements: one is that following Ron Paul ideas of sound economic policy, miniarchism and pacifism, and other that compromises followers of Caribou Barbie and the like,that allow war on terror (including waterboarding) and cutting taxes while supporting government as such(talk about complete illogical mashup). People like Lew Rockwell and Gary North often gave support to congressman Ron Paul, while being opposed to economical idiocy proposed by the other tea party. More about it here: Prepare To Be Betrayed by Lew Rockwell
2.

Posted by Observer
My only historic reference to the term ‘greenback’ was that it was something President Lincoln and President Kennedy attempted to develop

Again- common misconception. Greenback, that is debt without interest paper, was introduced, as "Demand Note" in April of 1861 by Lincoln, and changed to "United States Note" on February 25, 1862 and was in effect till January 21, 1971. Difference between Demand Note and Federal note was that demand note could be used to pay state tariffs, and US note couldn't (at least in beginning) .. Point is, greenback scheme was tool to rip off people who worked for government, to be precise- soldiers (bankers were handed interest bearing treasuries all the time). Instead constitutional money you were given IOU from govt that if you went for all the loops, you could redeem in hard gold and silver, and this was made as hard as possible. Debt debt debt, dammit! And "Kennedy Greenback" is urban myth, as as you see from above greenback existed till Nixon put dollar out of gold standard. Also note this: Historical Error #19: The International Bankers Defeated Lincoln in 1863 With the National Bank Act. I would gladly know who put that obvious BS in "common knowledge pool".
3.

privately owned Federal Reserve

.. and again, misconception. FED is not privately owned. It is fascist style cooperation between US treasury (serving as de-facto US.Bank) and other big banks.. which informally existed from 1863, from "First National Bank Act", only formalized in 1913. And again, Lincoln child, or rather those who put Lincoln in power. You can read it here, in Murray Rothbard's article on on cartelization
4. What Gary North proposes instead of FED- issued dollars? Same thing as any sane libertarian: anything people decide to use, with noting that historically people chosen gold and silver. In words of Ludvig von Mises :"money is the most marketable commodity." North articles on "What is Money" can be found here
5. "Biased attack" .. pointing out that somebody tries to sell genocidal theory in guise of solution. Read carefully: it is a package deal: full employment and public works always funded by fiat money lead to total war. Civil war, WWI and WWII are fine examples of that. Governent given free hand will first build bridges to nowhere and after that fails it will build up army and seek places to conquer. This is how system works. Game is rigged, casino always wins. Just watch what Japan will do after their failure to stop yen appreciation re USD.
6. "Congressional Issued Currency (greenback) " FYI greenback was never issued by congress. Congress issues constitutional money - gold and silver minted coins , as decreed in your constitution. Greenback was always issued by US. Treasury, as it is and always was debt paper, congress only voted on amount of debt taken, as it is today (it's called budget).The Constitution prohibits any state from issuing legal tender money unless it is gold or silver (Art. I, Sect. 10).
7.Neither Federal Reserve nor any form of central bank, corporation, state issued monopoly or state-funded contractor never were part of free market, as it is "voluntary mutual exchange of goods between sovereign individuals". Think you can extrapolate from that?
8. Banking families etc: again cause and effect: who was duped in creating system that profits those psychos? we did. Who give, day after day, energy to support this system? We do. Who would benefit from unchecked government spending that would stem from greenback scheme? Psychos in power.
And Finally:

Posted by observer (here)
I can see no reason why you would choose to insult my intelligence with statements such as the above quote. I would ask you to re-read my comment #3 and point-out to me exactly where I made any statement in support of Ellen Brown's brand of Greenback-ism. Since you were the one who chose to turn my comment into a personal attack, It would seem to me, the individual guilty of incomprehension of what was written is the party making that accusation.

Reading with understanding excercise:

Posted by observer (here)
My personal response to this article is that it was written by an apologist for the global banking network.

Posted by Luke (here)
It saddens me that reading with understanding is dying art. Calling free market economist a shill for banking system, talk about fail.

I dare you to point a place where I called you supporter of greenback scheme or Ellen Brown, please.
I do addressed your calling a person that is furthest from being "apologist for the global banking network", who is well known in libertarian circles, a shill for banking system . That and only that.
I know it is sometimes hard to read carefully, especially when you expect personal attack. It is how our brain is wired - we attack at even slightest possibility is there.. because we are 100% sure we were attacked.
Please review the text you felt offending few times, keeping check on emotional side, this will save you lot of grief in the future

[sjkted]

Large scale wars are not possible without fiat currency, because without it the government is in the same situation as individuals. If an individual has something expensive they want to buy, the money must come from income, savings, or from a loan. Prior to WWI, many wars were financed by bank loans. The wars were always extremely unpopular, because the government would always increase taxes to cover the cost of the loan payments. There would also be major political problems for the politicians, as the people would know how much the war was costing them directly. Once the war costs got too high, the people would strike, look to overthrow the government, etc.

In modern times, people may complain about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while some other people think they have some merit. If these wars were financed by bank loans, I guarantee you nobody would support the war and the politicians would by lynched in the street and thrown out of office.

So, having a fiat currency where one can steal value from the people slowly over time and perform numerous accounting tricks and acts of deception is the only pretext for having large-scale wars, as the costs ultimately have to be borne by the taxpayer and there is no rioting in the street just yet.

--sjkted

[Luke]

Sjkted:
You know, I just love them synchronicities.
Today on LRC: Mercantilism and Inflation by Murray N. Rothbard
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard227.html)
Murray Rothbard on the state's invention of paper money.

The postmedieval state acquired most of its eagerly sought revenues by taxation. But the state has always been attracted by the idea of creating its own money in addition to plundering directly the wealth of its subjects. Before the invention of paper money, however, the state was limited in money creation to occasional debasements of the coinage, of which it had long managed to secure a compulsory monopoly. For debasement was a one-shot process, and could not be used, as the state would always like, to create money continually and feed it into state coffers for use in building palaces, pyramids, and other consumption goods for the state apparatus and its power elite.

The first more familiar form of government paper began five years later, in 1690, in the British colony of Massachusetts. Massachusetts had sent soldiers on one of their customary plunder expeditions against prosperous French Quebec, but this time had been beaten back. The disgruntled Massachusetts soldiery was even more irritated by the fact that their pay had always come out of their individual shares of French booty sold at auction, but that now there was no money for them to collect.

The Massachusetts government, beset by demands for payment of their salary by a mutinous soldiery, was not able to borrow the money from Boston merchants, who shrewdly considered its credit rating unworthy. Finally, Massachusetts hit upon the expedient of issuing 7,000 pounds in paper notes, supposed to be redeemable in specie in a few years. Inevitably, the few years began to stretch out on the horizon, and the government, delighted with this newfound way of acquiring seemingly costless revenue, poured on the printing presses and quickly issued 40,000 more paper pounds. Fatefully, paper money had been born.

Note Massachusetts connection, it is also important in American eugenics program.

In England, private banks of deposit were inspired to proliferate (especially checking accounts) under this umbrella, and the government was at last able to expand the public debt to fight its endless wars; during the French war of 1702–13, for example it was able to finance 31 percent of its budget via public debt.

[observer]

Posted by Luke (here)
I dare you to point a place where I called you supporter of greenback scheme or Ellen Brown, please.

Dear Luke,

You started a Thread with little (or no) commentary of your own in support (or denial) of the article you offered. Hence my opening statement in my first comment:

Posted by observer (here)
Blessings Luke,

It is not clear to me what your position is on this issue, or why you submitted such a 'slanted' article for discussion.

The article you offered by Mr. North was a scathing condemnation of Ellen Brown's brand of greenback-ism. An individual of whom (prior to reading Mr. North's article) I had never before encountered.

I wrote a comment (#3) that (after a second look) sounded to me very much like I was supporting Ellen Brown with my opinion, when, in fact, that was the furthest from my intention.

Your response to my comment was written like you too assumed I was supporting Ellen Brown - in the tone of a personal scolding of points-of-fact (constitutional issues) and a personal attack on my reading comprehension skills. From the tone of your comment (#4), I made the assumption that you also had interpreted my original comment as if I were supporting Ellen Brown. Therefore I wrote in my reply comment (#7) the following words:

Posted by observer (here)
I would ask you to re-read my comment #3 and point-out to me exactly where I made any statement in support of Ellen Brown's brand of Greenback-ism.

Allow me to state - for the record - I'm not interested in entertaining any more of your opinions regarding your perceptions of my skills or intelligence which you have so far continued in both of your rebuttals to me:

Posted by Luke (here)
(from comment #8)
And Finally: [....]
Reading with understanding exercise: [....]

Originally Posted by Luke (from comment #4)
It saddens me that reading with understanding is dying art. Calling free market economist a shill for banking system, talk about fail.

Also - for the record - I'm not interested in 'splitting hairs' with you on points-of-fact. Never mind there are at least four professional researchers (see links below) who would argue your most recent comment:

Posted by Luke (here)
3. ....privately owned Federal Reserve .. and again, misconception. FED is not privately owned.

• Just who would you suggest owns the shares in these banks that are the partners of this this 'privately owned' "fascist style cooperation" ?
  
• Who would you suggest controls the votes in Congress, and controls the Presidency with regard to the government's participation within this cooperation?
  
• How would you, or [edit] Mr. North suggest we fix a broken system with parts that don't exist (the 'gold at Fort Knox' issue)?

Nowhere in either of your responses to me have you addressed the 'core' issues that I have brought-up in either of my earlier comments:

• The issue of no exchange grade gold at Fort Knox.
  
• The issue that someone has come forward and suggested a 'reasonable' way to fix the problem using exactly the same mechanism that the world banksters are using in the current global system.
  
• The issue that Mr. North blasted the 'greenback' movement with scathing comparisons to Nazi Germany while never mentioning the system he is defending (my assumption) is running in exactly the same fashion.
  
• And, the biggest issue of all, the understanding that the entire system is manipulated - from the very top - by a network of secret societies that are supported in every detail by the elite global banking network.

I would love to hear your conclusion on these matters without the personal attacks on points-of-fact, and my reading comprehension skills. Lets see if we can come to some remedy of the very sick Federal Reserve System without the personal character judgements....

Links in support of the Federal Reserve System is a 'privately owned corporation':

[edit - additional link] Phenomenon - The Lost Archives - Monopoly Men -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...8146731148727#
(listen through to at least the twenty minute mark)

Documentary: The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America - http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...56183936&hl=en

Otto, Jack - Forbidden Knowledge: History of the Khazar Empire and the Illuminati - http://vimeo.com/13718766

Mullins, Eustace - "The World Order - A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism" -
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...WorldOrder.htm
[edit - add comment](If you don't have the patience to read through the entire book, go to, Chapter 1.1: "Mayer Rothschild and the Five Arrows", and click on *Rothschild Interests in America)

I couldn't find a link to G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve", but here's a link to a review of that book:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/so...pol_cfr_04.htm

If you go to page 190/191 of David Icke's book, "The Biggest Secret":

Chapter Nine, "Land of the Free -
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bi...stsecret09.htm

(Scroll-down to the paragraph starting with: "Most Americans believe the Constitution was compiled to ensure freedom" [less than half way down the page])

[Fredkc]

Re. this section by David Icke:

Most Americans believe the Constitution was compiled to ensure freedom, but it was carefully worded to create loopholes through which the Brotherhood Agenda could be ridden. For a start it says that if the President vetoes a bill passed by Congress the legislation goes back to the House of Representatives and the Senate and to override the presidential veto it has to be voted through again by a majority of at least two-thirds in both houses.

This means that you only have to control the President and one third of one house and you stop any legislation becoming law. What more powerful weapon could you have within a ‘free’ society to defend your status quo and stop challenges to your power? Patriots believe that the creation of money by the private banks is unconstitutional in the United States because the Constitution says that Congress must create the currency. But it doesn’t say that. Article One, Section 8, says that: “Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.”

It does not say (on purpose) that only Congress shall have that power, nor that they have to use that power. Section 10 says that no State shall coin money and that gold and silver coins shall be the only payment of debts. So paper money must be unconstitutional? No. An area of Maryland was given to the new Congress to create the District, not the State, of Columbia for the new federal capital called Washington DC. Within this district is the privately-owned central bank of America, the Federal Reserve, which issues the nations paper currency. The District of Columbia is effectively isolated from many of clauses in the Constitution which apply to the States.

"This means that you only have to control the President and one third of one house and you stop any legislation becoming law."

Actually this isn't a very good line of reasoning. Getting a veto-proof majority in the house is more like herding snakes. Numerically it has only happened three times in history; 1965, 1935, and just after the civil war, and this precludes some congressional fop voting his conscience, rather than his party.

The intent was to give pause to the process, and judging by history it has worked fairly well. It is probably the reason most nefarious orgs now spend their bribe money equally between the parties.
______________________

“Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.”

While this is the correct language, much hair-splitting is possible. For instance, given the fact that the document was meant to be both "inclusive" and "comprehensive", it can be argued that no authority to create the Federal Reserve, etc existed.

You see, Congress has the power to control the value of money, but they lack the authority to legislate this responsibility away.

This notion of the document being both inclusive and comprehensive is important. In plain English it means:
'If'n it ain't there, then they have no authority to consider the matter. If'n it is, then only within the boundaries described."
__________________________________

more misc. thoughts as they bubble up,
Fred

[observer]

Posted by Fredkc (here)
[....] Getting a veto-proof majority in the house is more like herding snakes.
[....] and this precludes some congressional fop voting his conscience, rather than his party.

The intent was to give pause to the process, and judging by history it has worked fairly well. It is probably the reason most nefarious orgs now spend their bribe money equally between the parties.

Thank you for addressing the issues, Fred,

I would agree with this part of your statement wholeheartedly, if there were a President in the past one hundred years, or a Congress where at leas one third of its members were not a Trilateralists, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a member of The Club of Rome, a member of the Bilderberg Group - all secret society 'clubs' totally funded and supported by the international banking network - or a 'shill' for one of these secret organizations. The fact is, there is not a single incumbent (beyond one term) politician in Washington who is free and independent of any of these organizations. Who do you think is telling these politicians what to do?.... all 'snakes' by any other name !!!

My point is, there will never be a 'fix' of the Federal Reserve System until we all live in a "free and open society" (quote JFK - as earlier referenced)

P.S. I really liked your comparison to, "snake herding". LOL

[Luke]

Ok now we are getting somewhere

Let's start with FED issue: we got state-private corporation, which bridges two domains that under no circumstances should meet.
Sole reason for creation of FED was to shield banks from effects of mass runs. Runs only do happen when clients think bank lent more money than it had on books ie. commited a fraud. So, from day 1 FED purpose is to to shield bankers from effects of their malpractice using public money. After 97 years in existence, that is precise what it is doing. G. Edward's Grifin book you linked is considered to be the the compendium on that mindjob.
He also describes how this crazy system works: we have Board of Governors of Federal Reserve, whose 7 members are appointed by president and confirmed by senate,making it government agency, then you have Federal Open Market Committee, which is Board + 5 of twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York president always sits on the Committee, and the other presidents serve one-year terms on a rotating basis. Now Federal Reserve Banks are private entities, their shares are held by member banks.
Visually:


Ofcourse from free market point of view this system is abomination, that used high words to hide fact that it's only purpose is socializing costs of failures, while privatizing profits.
Effect of this system works is 98.5% depreciation of the dollar (in 1913, 1 0z of gold was worth $20.64, today:$1354, so 65.6 current $ is roughly equal 1 1913$) Even with greenback, dollar value in whole XIXc was stable (there were panics and inflation, but on long run they flatlined)

What to do with it? Only sane thing is dismantle the damn thing, and make sure no future generation will make such mistake. But to do that you must dismantle whole global financial system. Problem is, this financial system is completely interleaved with real economy, thus creating giant amount of distortion, to the point we do not know which businesses are viable and which exist only because financial loopholes. Derivative system, unfunded liabilities and such are 70x bigger than real economy!

Hazard guess, every single industry in the world has broken/hacked feedback.
And "financial markets" are keeping us hostage, because if we just take them out, whole house of cards that is our world goes down. Including water supply. And guys with agendas are working diligently do make sure we would be more and more dependent on the system. Those clubs are just public faces though.

How to deal with that? You simply cannot address single issues like FED, Debt or Fort Knox gold. Whole system is shot. It also have means to eliminate opposition physically, but also means to paint every single one of us as a criminal. With amount of laws given you simply cannot obey them all, and this is by design. Not to mention people "persuaded" to testify against you. The moment you would be viable danger, you would be painted worldwide as next Stalin and child molester too.

So we have parasitical system that is pretty much entrenched. But it has weak spots.

First: it needs consent of the people to exist. That is why it keeps them distracted 24/7. It needs people to believe it exist for their benefit. People my b**h about FED or Trilaterals, but as long as they believe system is essentially good, it only need "honest folk in power".. they win.
Just as with Jefferson, he tried to make sure that Hamiltonian scheme would not take ground, yet clauses were made that served as footholds to erode core ideas into system we see. All done legally.

Second: they perceive themselves as only possible scheme, thus they are prepared to deal with every enemy that share their pyramidal structure: tiered hierarchy you can take over from the top.

Only way to make a difference is create parallel system based on circular pattern: communication between multitude of equal individuals. no leaders, no centres of decisionmaking. Anything concrete will be taken over, any leader killed, turned or made fool.
Also you must parallel crucial subsystems: water and food supply, energy, clothing heating. parallel exchange system. parallel communication, all designed to work on ad-hoc basis. Build and make work on local basis, while communicating globally but without any large structure.

Curb any movement toward pyramid structures that will serve as footholds for inevitable counter attack.
You must treat every single element of current system as potential trap, no matter how "good" it feels to be.
And of course you need to make sure freedom of individual and his property would be the most respected clause.

Tough job, isn't it ?

[sjkted]

Yes, the only way to fix the mess will be a large global restart. Nearly all debts will be forgiven. As the saying goes, "you can't get blood from a turnip." And, we will have new currencies or be doing business in gold/silver/precious metals. And, this will be much bigger than a "new deal" because all the countries of the world are in on it. China, Russia, and India may be have less debt and better balance sheets than US or the EU countries, but who will buy their goods and services? None of these countries is in a place to lead the world -- that is, unless they are planning to lead us into a modern-day dark age. This of course will be much easier once people begin to understand the only way to get past this mess is to scrap the whole system and start over.

--sjkted

[observer]

Thank you Luke, for finely giving your own commentary on this issue, and not including within that opinion a personal attack.

Now; you can argue what the U.S. Constitution says for the next two hundred years. And, you can argue whether the Federal Reserve System is government or private until you have distracted from this debate all of the core issues.

My personal opinion is that the Constitution says that Congress (and only Congress) has the right to issue the currency of the nation. My personal opinion also is that the Federal Reserve System is a private institution - for the reasons that I stated earlier. I will not debate these issues with you any further. It serves no purpose.

This is not, and should not be, a debate about those issues. This should be a debate about Mr. North's article and how to fix this obviously sick currency situation.

Posted by Luke (here)
[....] Only way to make a difference is create parallel system based on circular pattern. [....]

I would agree with everything you have proposed as a 'fix' with one large exception:
The only way your proposal will work is with total anarchy.... with a complete and total break-down of the existing system. Much the same as sjkted pointed-out in his recent comment:

Posted by sjkted (here)
Yes, the only way to fix the mess will be a large global restart....

There is no possible way to create a 'parallel system' without totally destroying the existing system. And that would have to include disposing of all those at the top of the current system - with extreme prejudice. Is this what you are calling for? (it's a rhetorical question)

The global elite are simply too wealthy.... too powerful to create a parallel system while they are still in control of global economics. Unless, of course, you lived on your own private island, and were totally disconnected from all global economics.

~~~

There is another way - short of anarchy. A way that has the possibilities of working. A way that would quickly, and legally dismantle the Fed. That way would include working from within the existing system using the same 'tools' that this corrupt system (The Fed) uses. The way that seems most reasonable (to me) is the one being proposed by the 'greenback' movement. (irregardless of the individual pundits of this movement, and their 'alleged' socialist ties)

As a citizen of The United States, I perceive this 'greenback' movement as a 'grass-roots' crusade to reclaim the power of the individual voter, here in this country. My understanding of this 'greenback' movement is as I categorized it in my comment #11. I believe most Americans who even know about this movement understand it the way I do.

The idea of 'selling' an alternate Central Banking system to the American People without total anarchy is possible through the greenback movement. This would be a Central Banking system totally controlled by the Congress of The United States - the way it should be.

Who cares if it's based on fiat money? There is no gold left here in this country to back a new currency with precious metal. Personally, I also have much more faith in the 'good will' of the American People than your Mr. North seems to have. Why not put the 'good will' of the American public behind a currency that benefits all Americans, as opposed to a few global elite?

How would the backing of a Congressional issued greenback be any different from the existing Federal Reserve Note in principle? The only difference would be: it would take the power of controlling the purse-strings away from the private individuals that currently have control of that power, and give that power back to the voting public.

This mechanism would dismantle the existing system from the top-down, and at the same time would cause the global elite currently in charge of the currency printing presses to abrogate their power.

The question is, are the people smart enough to maintain control of that power with enough solidarity to keep the newly created system from plunging the country into a fascist state - even further than it already is? This question could also be applied to the 'parallel system' that you proposed. Only a diligent citizenry can stop that from happening.

This greenback movement will only be successful if the few individuals behind it can get the majority of the voting public behind the idea, and if you can 'sell' that public on the facts behind why the current system is broken. These facts have never been 'aired' in the public forum. The 'owners' of the current system have control of everything the voting public hears and believes.

This is why I stated in my original comment that Mr. North's article sounded like he was an apologist for the existing system. He is attacking the entire greenback movement by writing an extremely slanted article about one single individual and comparing the whole movement to Third Reich Nazis - not hardly the type of information the 'dumbed-down' American public needs to hear when attempting to change the broken system in place. This public needs to be told the Truth about what has been occurring over the past two hundred years.

I return to one of my original questions: "Why isn't Mr. North condemning the existing fiat money scheme, and comparing that to the Nazis?

And, I would add to that question: How would Mr. North suggest changing the existing system - short of anarchy?

I don't see his solutions in the article you presented. All I see is his condemnation of those individuals suggesting a very viable solution to this very real problem.

[Luke]

Observer, ever wondered what "Anarchy" means?
Anarchy Ⓐ (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler").
Opposite to being a slave, IMO
---
Every central banking scheme is that, banking scheme. It means bankers. Back to square 1, if you ask me.
---
Greenback means unbridled government spending. Do you think any govt is trustworthy enough for this?
How would you think world could work if any citizen would have unlimited credit? No economic calculation is possible. system is shot. back to square 1
---
How private individuals are different from government officials? Seriously, you think that people working for govt are some omnipotent supermen? uncorrupted? not seeking personal power? that you have any more controll about what they do as minor shareholder in corporation have over it's policy?
From my point of view there is 0 difference between corporatchik and "public servant". It requires precisely same set of principles. Or lack thereof. Same corporate mentality. Same structure.
Whitewashing a wall by painting it black, if you ask me
---
Greenback movement means no change beside psychos changing team colours. Neither it addresses core of the problem: the implied "right" of one man to decide fate of another. And as history teaches us: every greenback-like scheme is used for totalitarian regime to emerge!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=q6lSR62wmSo

I return to one of my original questions: "Why isn't Mr. North condemning the existing fiat money scheme, and comparing that to the Nazis?

Who said he is not condemning it? If you would take a look at "What is Money" link above you would see it clearly. But as fraudulent as current system is, it does not allow the state for expanding as greenback scheme would be.

Greenback scheme is perfect copy of the banking system Nazis used to fund their military expansion. Contrary to some liberal authors, North uses precise definition. Nazi Reichsmark and greenback use same principle to operate, therefore they are identical.
Currrent fraudulent scheme is not similar to what Nazi used, so they cannot be equaled. One can argue about it being similar to the ones fascist in Italy used though (and by design, after all Roosevelt was a fan)
----
Guess you just can't see state as large part of the current problem.
Freedom of individual embodied in anarchy is the solution, but only for those capable of breaking mental shackles.

[sjkted]

Fiat money = Ponzi scheme = Destruction (theft) of wealth = Extreme suffering, death, destruction and potential wars.

--sjkted

[Ahkenaten]

I still say that we should immediately institute an international Jubilee, similar to the ancient Egyptians who did with much wisdom so to forgive debts, free slaves, and reset the economy. I will state again that perhaps that is one of the reasons the Egyptian civilization flourished for thousands of years, they had the wisdom to reset the economy and refused to allow debt to stifle and kill the economic systems......................and to incidentally, enrich and empower a whole class who would thereby seek to undermine the authority and rule of Pharonic kings like me!