The promise of the “American Experiment” to provide peace, prosperity, and progress via individual freedom has always depended on an intelligent and educated citizenry. Its promise can never be realized until the citizens of this country grasp Rick’s message and rid the country of the “federal” researve, which is a form of TREASON because it enslaves the entire American public for the exclusive benefit of a tiny group of foreign bankster conspirators. There is no need for a central bank, never was, and never will be. The Constitution stipulates that congress has the power to print paper money and use it to pay for government expenses and provide a universal medium of exchange to sustain commerce. Likewise there is no need for gold or silver. Simply requiring that taxes be paid with the paper currency secures its value. This isn’t rocket science.
True. It's actually simple. This was the method practiced by all Western governments until the usury system took over around five hundred years ago. The High Middle Ages before that was a period of profound human happiness and advancement, mischaracterized as the "Dark Ages" by our failed education system.
Central banking is the most cunning and corrosive conspiracy ever confabulated by the criminal mind. It promotes destructive foreign wars and concentrates wealth in the hands of the few until it destroys the country that allowed it.
So true. Same for the Central Bank of Central Banks--the Bank for International Settlements. This is the center of the globalist conspiracy which actually goes back to the Roman Empire.
It seems very significant to me that a guy supposedly sent to liberate mankind, as the story goes, took a switch to the money grubbers defiling the temple and drove them out. Some pretty obvious message there.
I actually took time to actually visit the BIS many years ago when I was visiting Zurich. All my slide photos during those youthful years were destroyed by summer heat. We are born naked and alone and we die that way too.
Finished a Neal Stephenson novel, Quicksilver, set in the mid to late 1600's. Near the end was a comment about the English funding future wars with their own credit system instead of having to raise money from the nobility. This really stood out to me as a starting point of the Rothschilds, et al., doing their nasty deeds.
Yes, that's how it began, with the creation of the Bank of England. Debt funding the wars. That was the plan. It was copied by Alexander Hamilton for the US, deliberately. This would allow a standing army to be created for the "empire" (his word, used repeatedly). Believe it or not, Hamilton was going to make himself the general-in-chief. John Adams opposed it, which split the Federalists and got Jefferson elected in 1800. Jefferson and Madison were adamant--no standing army, which is why the British burned Washington in 1812. There was no one around to defend it, so they just marched in, amazed at how easy it was to destroy the idiots' capital.
Please note that the constitution was itself flawed and was just another instrument for enslaving the masses and securing wealth for the rich.
“The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
“It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
As a matter of fact, it was never a "people's Constitution", as has been so frequently claimed at Presidential elections, and on other similar occasions. They, the people, were never very much interested, either in the project itself or in the ratification of a form of national government. They did not particularly want anything of the sort and they did not like what came out of Philadelphia, but this distaste was not strong enough to overcome their natural lethargy, so only about five percent of the white male population voted as to whether the Constitution should be accepted or rejected. As it was, it only got by by the skin of its teeth and by some very clever management on the part of its proponents. The whole thing, in conception, formulation, and realization, was
the work of a small group of enthusiastic young men of property and position, with wiser heads on their shoulders than their years would argue as rationally possible, though they were not wise enough to foresee the unimaginable — but inevitable.
-Ralph Adams Cram, Nemesis of Democracy - PDF - , The American Review, December 1936, pp. 129-141
What people fail to recognize is that Hamilton prevented the issuance of government-created money as the colonial governments had successfully implemented. Please read my own book, Our Country, Then and Now.
There is, however, a loophole. Anyone who wants to can create and issue "scrip," though profits are taxed. Bitcoin is "scrip." I knew a guy who printed money on his home printer. Perfectly legal as long as it is denominated in dollars and doesn't look exactly like Federal Reserve Notes. Of course you have to find people willing to accept it in trade. Look up the International Reciprocal Trading Association, for example.
Many thanks for providing this embellishment, with which I agree. I am fully aware of this history and understand that the constitutional convention was a conspiracy hatched in secret, and most of the invited “delegates” promptly headed home and declined to participate when the realize the nature of the game. I just meant to cite the provision in the Constitution that stipulates the death penalty for treason to emphasize the seriousness of the central banking crime.
I read a book about the rivalry between Jefferson and Hamilton, but I cannot remember the author and cannot find the book. It was very enlightening.
My take away is that Hamilton was quite a skunk, and Jefferson victory was only a brief reprieve from the capture of the so-called republic by the money grubbers who established and mischaracterized it.
Here's another source of good stuff.
"The Antifederalists put their libertarian-democratic case staunchly: the rich and well-born few were trying to create a strong government in order to tax and mulct the poorer and productive many for their own power and profit. Thus, one newspaper poet wrote:
Excellent article, I must say, it sounds like you may have read G. Edward Griffin's excellent book "The Creature From Jekyll Island! At any rate, keep up the good work:)
Please see my own book, Our Country Then and Now, for a comprehensive financial and monetary history of the US. Also see the articles on this substack which are now serializing Chapter 9 on the Money Trust.
Anyone who buys my book gets a free thank you from the author lol.
I just bought it from Bookstore.org and am eagerly looking forward to it.
I see that you were associated with the US Treasury. Would be interesting to know what you think of some of the people you met there though I'm not hinting that you should share your impressions publicly.
I used to be a big fan of Paul Craig Roberts but am highly disappointed with some of his views. Seems many of them are incredibly naive.
Read the book and I will be happy to answer any questions. I spent 21 years in the federal government. I don't read Paul Craig Roberts for various reasons. He was one of the architects of Reagan's disastrous economic program, the "Reagan Revolution."
Now and then I read one of his articles, but never learn anything of value. His oft expressed petulance and overuse of the word, "insouciant" also put me off.
I'm incredibly busy this time of year, but I intend to dive into the book as soon as it arrives.
I voted for Reagan but now regret that I ever voted for anyone for Federal office. The whole thing is a scam. My "epiphany went something like this.:
“ When I turned to the reading of American history, I discovered that these things had been going on from the beginnings of our government, that they had grown up with it, and were an essential part of its structure. From surprise and disgust I turned to analysis and reason…”
- R. F. Pettigrew, Triumphant Plutocracy, The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920, p9
Right. But what I tried to show in my book was the lives of some ordinary people, including my own ancestors which included Native Americans, and show how they were able to cope and survive despite the wars, criminality, etc. There were also patriotic Americans who struggled against all this through their government service but were beaten down, or, in the case of some of our presidents, assassinated.
"... and show how they were able to cope and survive despite the wars, criminality, etc."
That resonates with me for sure. I never was one to fear anything and live secure in the idea that the above is quite true, though if not for me in particular, I am not afraid of the consequences, since I am aware of my own insignificance and indeed that of all of us.
Can't wait to read what you have to say.
Thanks for taking the time to engage, and I am sure I'll enjoy the book, which I will no doubt devour in a couple of days.
I'll check it out. Presently I'm reading bios of the Founding Fathers--5-600 pages each. Fascinating. Just finished John Marshall. My favorite may be John Quincy Adams. Part of my ancestry is the New England Puritans. My first American ancestors arrived in Mass. in the 1630s as did the Adams ancestor and lived in the same area around Weymouth and Braintree. It was the Puritans who populated the Midwest and became the backbone of Lincoln's armies. I'm not against the Federalists by the way. There was a split between the Hamiltonians and the Adamses. I'm with the latter. They wanted strict bank regulation and fair treatment of the Indians. The Jeffersonians talked about democracy but were all pro-slavery.
It is gratifying that more political economists in the dissentariat now frame their analyses in the context of a global financial oligarchy operating as lender of last resort and holder of immense capital accumulated over recent centuries . Even working indirectly from the background, by sitting at the top of the power structure, this oligarchy of global financial capital shapes world trends and events. Thus, working indirectly through the institutions of society, it affects the decisions that affect our lives.
Many analysts still see the financial elite as ideologically driven. I think on the contrary that its history demonstrates that it seeks only financial gain, using whatever ideological system provides the opportunity. High finance funded monarchies, religious hierarchies like the Vatican or Islamic states, economic miracles like the resurgence of Nazi Germany after WWI, and industrial revolutions in 19th century Europe, in Stalinist USSR, and for the last forty years in socialist China. It has used political systems until no longer useful, then switched to more lucrative ones, moving from the British Empire to the US empire. and now to the BRICS, in the process deindustrializing US and Western Europe in a controlled demolition that allows a maximum of asset stripping. There are even signs that the Zionist entity as a gambit for controlling Mideast energy is no longer useful to the global financial elite.
We now know that after the Revolutionary War the American colonies, soon to become states, recovered with remarkable speed. We also know that the “worthless” Continental currency remained in circulation, even though most of them were British counterfeits. I have never read that any of the colonies tried to print their own currencies. So, my question is: how did the colonists manage to restore prosperity so quickly after the war?? Did they continue to use the Continental currency? Did they resort to “trade and barter”? Were there any existing agreements between and among the colonies and the Continental Congress preventing the individual colonies from issuing new currencies??
Here is what I would have proposed: each colonial government should have been allowed to issue new paper currencies for use within their borders, and there should have been no “central government” allowed in secrecy, as happened. Instead, the individual colonies could have experimented and competed with one another, while private currency exchanges could have been established to enable colonists to trade currencies, just as private exchanges trade currencies among national governments at present.
Meanwhile, the continental congress could have issued a “national” currency that could be used to pay tariffs. The Continental Congress could also have been tasked with creating a representative legislature (like Congress) where the various states could discuss and debate the establishment of laws governing commerce among themselves.
My guess is that it would only have been a matter of time before the colonists learned industrial technology and produced their own industrial revolution, but it would have been a lot more inventive and resilient than the industrial revolution that was dominated by British corporations and capital.
I’d welcome your wisdom as pertains to these ideas. Government is a lot like herding cats. Men vs women vs children; industrious vs lazy; married versus unmarried; criminal conspirators versus people of integrity; rich versus poor; homosexuals vs heteroxexuals; blacks versus whites versus the various orientals, all of whom hate one another. Every individual is unique in his or her own way, and no uniform set of laws can possible make all of them happy at once.
Buy it direct from the publisher, Clarity Press. They need the business.
I wanted to do that but it looks like they only offer the print edition via distributors.
The promise of the “American Experiment” to provide peace, prosperity, and progress via individual freedom has always depended on an intelligent and educated citizenry. Its promise can never be realized until the citizens of this country grasp Rick’s message and rid the country of the “federal” researve, which is a form of TREASON because it enslaves the entire American public for the exclusive benefit of a tiny group of foreign bankster conspirators. There is no need for a central bank, never was, and never will be. The Constitution stipulates that congress has the power to print paper money and use it to pay for government expenses and provide a universal medium of exchange to sustain commerce. Likewise there is no need for gold or silver. Simply requiring that taxes be paid with the paper currency secures its value. This isn’t rocket science.
True. It's actually simple. This was the method practiced by all Western governments until the usury system took over around five hundred years ago. The High Middle Ages before that was a period of profound human happiness and advancement, mischaracterized as the "Dark Ages" by our failed education system.
Central banking is the most cunning and corrosive conspiracy ever confabulated by the criminal mind. It promotes destructive foreign wars and concentrates wealth in the hands of the few until it destroys the country that allowed it.
So true. Same for the Central Bank of Central Banks--the Bank for International Settlements. This is the center of the globalist conspiracy which actually goes back to the Roman Empire.
It seems very significant to me that a guy supposedly sent to liberate mankind, as the story goes, took a switch to the money grubbers defiling the temple and drove them out. Some pretty obvious message there.
Indeed.
I actually took time to actually visit the BIS many years ago when I was visiting Zurich. All my slide photos during those youthful years were destroyed by summer heat. We are born naked and alone and we die that way too.
Finished a Neal Stephenson novel, Quicksilver, set in the mid to late 1600's. Near the end was a comment about the English funding future wars with their own credit system instead of having to raise money from the nobility. This really stood out to me as a starting point of the Rothschilds, et al., doing their nasty deeds.
Yes, that's how it began, with the creation of the Bank of England. Debt funding the wars. That was the plan. It was copied by Alexander Hamilton for the US, deliberately. This would allow a standing army to be created for the "empire" (his word, used repeatedly). Believe it or not, Hamilton was going to make himself the general-in-chief. John Adams opposed it, which split the Federalists and got Jefferson elected in 1800. Jefferson and Madison were adamant--no standing army, which is why the British burned Washington in 1812. There was no one around to defend it, so they just marched in, amazed at how easy it was to destroy the idiots' capital.
Please note that the constitution was itself flawed and was just another instrument for enslaving the masses and securing wealth for the rich.
“The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
“It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)
Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle
As a matter of fact, it was never a "people's Constitution", as has been so frequently claimed at Presidential elections, and on other similar occasions. They, the people, were never very much interested, either in the project itself or in the ratification of a form of national government. They did not particularly want anything of the sort and they did not like what came out of Philadelphia, but this distaste was not strong enough to overcome their natural lethargy, so only about five percent of the white male population voted as to whether the Constitution should be accepted or rejected. As it was, it only got by by the skin of its teeth and by some very clever management on the part of its proponents. The whole thing, in conception, formulation, and realization, was
the work of a small group of enthusiastic young men of property and position, with wiser heads on their shoulders than their years would argue as rationally possible, though they were not wise enough to foresee the unimaginable — but inevitable.
-Ralph Adams Cram, Nemesis of Democracy - PDF - , The American Review, December 1936, pp. 129-141
What people fail to recognize is that Hamilton prevented the issuance of government-created money as the colonial governments had successfully implemented. Please read my own book, Our Country, Then and Now.
There is, however, a loophole. Anyone who wants to can create and issue "scrip," though profits are taxed. Bitcoin is "scrip." I knew a guy who printed money on his home printer. Perfectly legal as long as it is denominated in dollars and doesn't look exactly like Federal Reserve Notes. Of course you have to find people willing to accept it in trade. Look up the International Reciprocal Trading Association, for example.
Many thanks for providing this embellishment, with which I agree. I am fully aware of this history and understand that the constitutional convention was a conspiracy hatched in secret, and most of the invited “delegates” promptly headed home and declined to participate when the realize the nature of the game. I just meant to cite the provision in the Constitution that stipulates the death penalty for treason to emphasize the seriousness of the central banking crime.
Sure. But you have to find a court that is willing to indict someone then put them on trial. Good luck with that.
I read a book about the rivalry between Jefferson and Hamilton, but I cannot remember the author and cannot find the book. It was very enlightening.
My take away is that Hamilton was quite a skunk, and Jefferson victory was only a brief reprieve from the capture of the so-called republic by the money grubbers who established and mischaracterized it.
Here's another source of good stuff.
"The Antifederalists put their libertarian-democratic case staunchly: the rich and well-born few were trying to create a strong government in order to tax and mulct the poorer and productive many for their own power and profit. Thus, one newspaper poet wrote:
But LIBERTY, keep thou Columbia free,
Nor let man use us as we use the bee;
Let not base DRONES upon our honey thrive
And suffocate the maker in his HIVE.1
The Twilight of the Antifederalists
By Murray N. Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/03/murray-n-rothbard/the-twilight-of-the-antifederalists/
Rothbard's "Conceived in Liberty" also is full of good info. I need to read it again.
Excellent article, I must say, it sounds like you may have read G. Edward Griffin's excellent book "The Creature From Jekyll Island! At any rate, keep up the good work:)
Please see my own book, Our Country Then and Now, for a comprehensive financial and monetary history of the US. Also see the articles on this substack which are now serializing Chapter 9 on the Money Trust.
Anyone who buys my book gets a free thank you from the author lol.
I just bought it from Bookstore.org and am eagerly looking forward to it.
I see that you were associated with the US Treasury. Would be interesting to know what you think of some of the people you met there though I'm not hinting that you should share your impressions publicly.
I used to be a big fan of Paul Craig Roberts but am highly disappointed with some of his views. Seems many of them are incredibly naive.
Read the book and I will be happy to answer any questions. I spent 21 years in the federal government. I don't read Paul Craig Roberts for various reasons. He was one of the architects of Reagan's disastrous economic program, the "Reagan Revolution."
Now and then I read one of his articles, but never learn anything of value. His oft expressed petulance and overuse of the word, "insouciant" also put me off.
I'm incredibly busy this time of year, but I intend to dive into the book as soon as it arrives.
I voted for Reagan but now regret that I ever voted for anyone for Federal office. The whole thing is a scam. My "epiphany went something like this.:
“ When I turned to the reading of American history, I discovered that these things had been going on from the beginnings of our government, that they had grown up with it, and were an essential part of its structure. From surprise and disgust I turned to analysis and reason…”
- R. F. Pettigrew, Triumphant Plutocracy, The Story of American Public Life from 1870 to 1920, p9
https://archive.org/stream/triumphantpluto00pettrich/triumphantpluto00pettrich_djvu.txt
Right. But what I tried to show in my book was the lives of some ordinary people, including my own ancestors which included Native Americans, and show how they were able to cope and survive despite the wars, criminality, etc. There were also patriotic Americans who struggled against all this through their government service but were beaten down, or, in the case of some of our presidents, assassinated.
Enjoy the book!
"... and show how they were able to cope and survive despite the wars, criminality, etc."
That resonates with me for sure. I never was one to fear anything and live secure in the idea that the above is quite true, though if not for me in particular, I am not afraid of the consequences, since I am aware of my own insignificance and indeed that of all of us.
Can't wait to read what you have to say.
Thanks for taking the time to engage, and I am sure I'll enjoy the book, which I will no doubt devour in a couple of days.
When it comes to Reagan's disastrous economic program, a good book to read is:
America: What Went Wrong? by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/320859.America
It seems that history is repeating itself.
I'll be buying it since you obviously know what yer writing about.
However, I hope it's available from sources other than the over capitalized ones, which I loathe and detest but not necessarily in that order.
You may find some value in this book if you are interested in Hamilton and the constitution.
Jefferson and Hamilton; The Struggle for Democracy in America, and Jefferson in Power; The Death Struggle of the Federalists
by Claude G. Bowers
https://tinyurl.com/Jefferson-and-Hamilton
I'll check it out. Presently I'm reading bios of the Founding Fathers--5-600 pages each. Fascinating. Just finished John Marshall. My favorite may be John Quincy Adams. Part of my ancestry is the New England Puritans. My first American ancestors arrived in Mass. in the 1630s as did the Adams ancestor and lived in the same area around Weymouth and Braintree. It was the Puritans who populated the Midwest and became the backbone of Lincoln's armies. I'm not against the Federalists by the way. There was a split between the Hamiltonians and the Adamses. I'm with the latter. They wanted strict bank regulation and fair treatment of the Indians. The Jeffersonians talked about democracy but were all pro-slavery.
It is gratifying that more political economists in the dissentariat now frame their analyses in the context of a global financial oligarchy operating as lender of last resort and holder of immense capital accumulated over recent centuries . Even working indirectly from the background, by sitting at the top of the power structure, this oligarchy of global financial capital shapes world trends and events. Thus, working indirectly through the institutions of society, it affects the decisions that affect our lives.
Some of these political economists are:
- Shalid Bolsen, https://www.youtube.com/@MiddleNation
- Peter Hanseler, https://voicefromrussia.ch/en/
- Alex Krainer, https://alexkrainer.substack.com/
- Richard C, Cook, https://montanarcc.substack.com/
- Michel Chossudovsky, https://www.globalresearch.ca/
Many analysts still see the financial elite as ideologically driven. I think on the contrary that its history demonstrates that it seeks only financial gain, using whatever ideological system provides the opportunity. High finance funded monarchies, religious hierarchies like the Vatican or Islamic states, economic miracles like the resurgence of Nazi Germany after WWI, and industrial revolutions in 19th century Europe, in Stalinist USSR, and for the last forty years in socialist China. It has used political systems until no longer useful, then switched to more lucrative ones, moving from the British Empire to the US empire. and now to the BRICS, in the process deindustrializing US and Western Europe in a controlled demolition that allows a maximum of asset stripping. There are even signs that the Zionist entity as a gambit for controlling Mideast energy is no longer useful to the global financial elite.
We now know that after the Revolutionary War the American colonies, soon to become states, recovered with remarkable speed. We also know that the “worthless” Continental currency remained in circulation, even though most of them were British counterfeits. I have never read that any of the colonies tried to print their own currencies. So, my question is: how did the colonists manage to restore prosperity so quickly after the war?? Did they continue to use the Continental currency? Did they resort to “trade and barter”? Were there any existing agreements between and among the colonies and the Continental Congress preventing the individual colonies from issuing new currencies??
Here is what I would have proposed: each colonial government should have been allowed to issue new paper currencies for use within their borders, and there should have been no “central government” allowed in secrecy, as happened. Instead, the individual colonies could have experimented and competed with one another, while private currency exchanges could have been established to enable colonists to trade currencies, just as private exchanges trade currencies among national governments at present.
Meanwhile, the continental congress could have issued a “national” currency that could be used to pay tariffs. The Continental Congress could also have been tasked with creating a representative legislature (like Congress) where the various states could discuss and debate the establishment of laws governing commerce among themselves.
My guess is that it would only have been a matter of time before the colonists learned industrial technology and produced their own industrial revolution, but it would have been a lot more inventive and resilient than the industrial revolution that was dominated by British corporations and capital.
I’d welcome your wisdom as pertains to these ideas. Government is a lot like herding cats. Men vs women vs children; industrious vs lazy; married versus unmarried; criminal conspirators versus people of integrity; rich versus poor; homosexuals vs heteroxexuals; blacks versus whites versus the various orientals, all of whom hate one another. Every individual is unique in his or her own way, and no uniform set of laws can possible make all of them happy at once.