What is it?
Of all the incredible stupidities in the world, few can compare to that of of man putting his trust in "money". Most people don't even know what "money" is!
I swear by the Father who said "you can't serve God and Mammon" that if you really knew what money was, you'd want no part of it.
I want no part of it.
The "smart Alec" at this point will surely be saying "Fine! If you don't want your money, please, give it to me!" Ha ha, that's very funny, and very clever. But "Alec" doesn't know what he's talking about.
What is money? The simplest answer is: "an illusion".
When you've finished this document, you'll realize that:
Money, at least in its current form, has no value.
Our current "financial system" is a carbon-copy of previous financial systems which are proven failures. These systems generate large amounts of "money" for the short-run, but in the long-run they ruin a nation.
So where are we in this "long-run"? In the United States, in the early 21st century, we are in the final phase, i.e., we are essentially ruined. But the politicians won't stop until the ruin is total. Unless, that is, you stop them.
Three types of money
It is generally considered, by writers on the subject, that there are three basic types of money in the world:
As a general rule, type 1 economies are healthy and prosperous. I didn't say "trouble-free"! No system of any sort in this world is "trouble-free".
As a general rule, type 2 economies are associated with fraud, since the obvious first purpose of pretending that pieces of paper are "money" is to have the possibility of creating the illusion that there's more "money" than there really is.
Type 3 economies are associated with theft, because the disappearance of all the bullion invariably means that it's been stolen or misappropriated.
Although the Constitution explicitly forbids it, the United States went recklessly from type 1 to type 2 money long ago, and we are now irreversibly entrenched in type 3; namely, pieces of paper which represent nothing at all. What does this mean? It means that our complete net worths can be erased any time. It means that there may be a day of reckoning coming, when you will wake up to find that your life savings have been devalued, and that you've become worthless.
If you're an American, you probably cannot imagine what it would be like to wake up to such a nightmare. To read a true life story of one woman -- a woman I knew personally -- who woke up to just such a nightmare during the Russian Revolution, clickhere.
If this day of reckoning comes, the only defense will be the widespread adoption -- in advance; not later -- of a way of life based upon the Golden Rule, as described elsewhere on this web site. If people do not prepare for a currency collapse, and if it really does come about, then there will be no other possibility of an effective defense against the consuming world financial tyranny which will follow.
Type 1 ... Gold and Silver Coins
The United States Constitution demands (to this day) that the only "legal tender" in this country be gold and silver coin(read: Article I, Section 10, Clause 1).
Few Americans are aware of this fact. To most, the thought of a currency consisting of only coins seems like a very strange idea, or perhaps a joke. But it's no joke. The Founding Fathers put this into the Constitution for a very good reason, which we shall examine shortly.
What is "legal tender"? This means the form of money which you are entitled to demand, under the law, as payment of debts. Thus, gold coins are legal tender--if you can find any!
But things like television sets, automobile tires and chickens, are not. If someone wants to pay you in chickens, and you agree, then all's well. But you can't be forced to accept chickens as payment of a debt. You can be forced to accept gold coins. If you can find any!
Bankers hate gold and silver coins, except the ones in their pockets. Why? Because gold and silver coins give you value, and they want all the value for themselves. Please, don't hate bankers! Deep down inside, we're just like them! Only they're better at it than we are.
Type 2 ... Paper Gold and Silver "Certificates"
What about systems employing "type 2" money, i.e., pieces of paper which claim to represent gold and silver? How do they work?
In a "type 2" system, some or all of the gold and silver is removed from circulation, and left in "reserve" in a safe location. In its place, paper appears.
Thus, if the United States has $1 trillion in gold and silver in Fort Knox (which it doesn't, believe it or not), then the government can leave all the gold and silver in the Fort, and issue instead $1 trillion in "gold certificates" and "silver certificates": pieces of paper (i.e., "legal tender" or "money") which represent--or claim to represent--the real gold and silver locked up in the Fort.
Those of you who are old enough to remember the Great Depression will, without a doubt, remember the gold certificates which the government forced you to accept in exchange for your real gold. In earlier times, those certificates (which have long since been removed from circulation) could be brought to the bank any time, and gold coins received in exchange for them.
Those of you who were of mature age in the 1970's will undoubtedly remember that back then, a dollar bill was called a "silver certificate". You could bring it to the bank and exchange it for silver coins, any time. Now both the silver certificates and the silver coins are gone. (What happened to all that gold and silver? Clickhere to find out what the response was, when this question was asked in Federal Court.)
The trouble with systems employing type 2 "money" is that people are greedy. Nations which use type 2 money almost always printed more paper bills than there were gold and silver coins behind them. Thus, if Fort Knox had $1 trillion in gold (which, again, it doesn't!), the government would sooner or later succumb to the temptation to print $2 trillion, or $3 trillion, or even more, in paper.
Everything's fine, as long as everyone doesn't run to the bank simultaneously for "their gold". But sooner or later, something will scare people, and they will indeed "run on the bank". Then the system collapses, because there's simply not enough gold and silver to pay on all those certificates.
That's exactly what happened in 1933. In the midst of the Great Depression, there was a nationwide "run on the bank". Why? Because there was a rumor abroad that all the gold was going to "disappear", which, in fact, is exactly what happened. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a loyal bank servant, dutifully removed all the gold from circulation at that point. (This was the culmination of a plan which was many, many years in the making; it didn't just "happen").
In that year, 1933, all citizens of the United States were ordered -- under threat of severe fine and imprisonment -- to hand in their gold, in exchange for a piece of paper called a "gold certificate". It looked just like a dollar bill looks today, except it said "Gold Certificate" at the top, and it said "IN GOLD COIN PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" at the bottom.
What? What sort of nonsense is this? We just saw that people were ordered, at pain of $10,000 fine (a king's ransom during the Depression) and 10 years in prison, to hand over their gold! So what does it mean to tell the same people who had just been fleeced, that any old day of the week they could stoll over to the bank with their paper "money" and get their gold back? If a bank teller had accidentally given you gold, and you got caught by federal investigators on the way out the door, you and the teller would go straight to jail!
This was neither the beginning of fraud, nor the beginning of treason in our banking system, but it was the most overt, unabashed example of it in our history up to that time.
Later on, all the gold coins, and the gold "certificates", were replaced by other pieces of paper called "silver certificates". What a joke! If there wasn't enough gold to back the currency, how in the world could there have been enough silver? We were simply moving along the pathway of fraud, and we have only gotten worse as time has passed.
Type 3... Fiat Paper "Money"
What about "type 3" money, where the government declares that "money" is pieces of paper which have no value whatsoever? That, my friends, is where you are right now. Your money is intrinsically worthless.
In the early 1970's, the last scrap of silver was removed from the lawful treasuries of the United States, into the vaults of private bankers. Our "silver certificates" were replaced by "Federal Reserve Notes", which cannot be redeemed at all. They're nothing but plain paper, and there's nothing behind them.
If you're searching for a reason why you're getting poorer and poorer, and why your dollars buy less and less, look no farther. You've just read the reason.
As long as people trust in these Federal Reserve Notes, they will have "purchasing power". The minute people lose confidence in them, however, they become transformed back into plain paper, with no "purchasing power" at all; worthy of nothing but the trash can. Not a good situation!
The above statement, generally attributed to the Rothschilds, expresses a simple but very important truth. It is the core reality of the current world banking system, and it invariably leads to fraud. If you learn nothing else about money, learn the meaning of the above quote! The following example will illustrate the concept.
Imagine, if you will, that you borrow $1000 from a friend. You agree to pay him back after exactly one year, and you agree further to pay him 10% interest. So he gives you $1000 now, and a year later you pay him back $1,100. Simple enough?
Now, he'll undoubtedly ask you to sign for the loan. The piece of paper you sign is called a promissory note. It is your promise to pay back the loan, plus the interest.
Now think about this:  That promissory note has value. Do you doubt it? If your friend comes upon hard times, he can sell that note, can he not? As long as you are "good for the money", that note is worth its "face value" of $1000, plus the $100 additional you agreed to pay as interest. So it's potentially worth $1,100.
Whoever holds that note is in a position to collect that $1,100! It most assuredly has value.
Your friend would have a hard time selling it for the full $1,100, but if he plays his cards right, he can probably get more than $1000, because it's worth more than $1000. Suppose, for example, a buyer pays $1,050 for the note. At the end of the year, God willing, he'll collect the full $1,100. That's $50 more than he paid for it. So, without doing any work, he makes a fast $50.
The only risk is that you might fail to pay back the loan. So, in any sale of a promissory note, there's risk. The better you are as a credit risk, however, the more your promissory note will be worth.
In case you're not aware of it, know that the world is full of promissory notes, and that most of them do, in fact, get sold. Loan agreements are promissory notes, mortgage agreements are promissory notes, and even charge card slips are promissory notes. It is said, by those who pay attention to such things, that if you pay off a home mortgage, and demand to have your promissory note returned to you, the bank will do so. What you will see is that it is literally covered with endorsement stamps, each one attesting to the fact that it was bought and sold, repeatedly throughout its "life".
Speculators from many nations participate in this process. These promissory notes are most assuredly considered highly desirable, and by the time they are paid off in full, they have traveled literally "around the world"!
So I hope you can see that a promissory note has value. But is it "money"?
If you're an American, you've undoubtedly seen a United States Savings Bond at some point in your life. U.S. Savings Bonds are among the commonest forms of gifts for "life cycle" events, namely weddings, Baptisms, Bar Mitzvahs, etc. (The way things are going in this godless country, they'll probably soon be given as "gifts" to celebrate your divorce).
What is a U.S. Savings Bond? It is a promissory note packaged to look a lot like "money". When you buy it, however, you pay less than the face value. That's why people like to give them as gifts. A $100 bond makes a nice-looking gift, but it only costs the giver $80 or so. (The price depends upon the prevailing interest rate).
That money, the $80, is a loan from you to the government. They will take your money and invest it. The government, being the most leveraged investor of all, will make a lot of money on your loan, and they will therefore be able to pay you back with interest, and still be "ahead of the game". When the bond "matures", you will be able to "cash it in" for the full $100. The government, of course, will have made more than $100 on your money, but what's that to you? Don't "look the gift horse in the mouth". They made money, you made money. Everyone ought to be happy.
Now, think of what a U.S. Savings Bond looks like. It looks a lot like money, does it not? Suppose you owed a man $100, and your business had just failed, and you had no cash to pay the man. If you had a mature $100 U.S. Savings Bond, the man just might accept the bond as payment for the loan. In fact, if he needed money fast, then even if the bond had not matured fully, he still might accept it, especially if he thought that he couldn't collect any money from you otherwise.
U.S. Savings Bonds look like money, and they act like money. But they're not "legal tender". Why? Because you can't force anyone to accept them as payment of debts. The acceptance in the example above was voluntary.
Hmmm... Any government, wanting to expand its currency, and knowing these facts about promissory notes, might well ask the following question: "How can we FORCE the citizens of our nation to accept our promissory notes as if they were real money"? Think about this: the government is continually borrowing money, re-paying old loans, and borrowing new money all over again. Each loan transaction generates a promissory note. If the government could somehow, by some subterfuge, find a way to package these promissory notes to make them look like money, and circulate them as such, then the government could be awash in new money, created without the need to mine gold, operate businesses, or raise taxes. What a deal! More money, no work!
So how do you do it? In the nineteenth century, the American government asked just that question. You'll be astonished, and dismayed, at the answer they came up with.
To get the people to accept promissory notes as "money", you first have to get them to accept paper. Remember, in the United States, the only lawful currency was (and is) "gold and silver coin".
The Civil War gave the government the excuse it needed to begin experimenting with paper.
Although the Civil War ended slavery, which is a good thing, it must be noted that no other western nation has slavery either. England freed her slaves before us, and they did it without a war. We were the only nation which needed a Civil War to end slavery. Was this war really necessary? In other portions of this web site we have made brief mention of some of the evils behind the facade of "good" which cloaks the true history of the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln needed money to finance his war. The bankers offered him large quantities of money at interest rates so exhorbitant that he said:
"I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe".
Wow! Now there's a new perspective on the Civil War!
Lincoln told the bankers to go to hell. He printed his own money! These bills, which had nothing behind them except Lincoln's solemn promise to redeem them in gold after the war (which he did do, in fact), were called "Greenbacks". They circulated, and the people accepted them. Amazing! Don't forget that the only "money" circulating in America at that time was gold and silver coin. The acceptance, by the people, of pieces of government paper masquerading as money, was an enormous vote of confidence in the integrity of the government. Of course, this sort of "trust" in the government is easier to elicit when there's a war going on.
So what's wrong with printing Greenbacks? Two things:
The printing of Greenbacks caused the bankers to burn with rage! Their plan had been to gouge America with high-interest loans. Now their money was no longer needed!
It is alleged by many that John Wilkes Booth was a bank agent, and I wouldn't doubt it. We'll probably never know for sure.
During the Civil War, the bankers ranted and railed against Lincoln in the newspapers, emphasizing that the Greenbacks were unconstitutional and inflationary. What hypocracy! Wait until you see what the bankers did when they finally got the power to print money (see below).
In any event, after the war, some, or perhaps all, of the Greenbacks, were "retired". This means that people brought them back to the banks, and -- true to Lincoln's word -- the banks exchanged them for real gold and silver coins.
But apparently the Greenbacks were not all destroyed. In 1878, a "law" was passed which brought them back out! In other words, the government, seeing an opportunity to "expand the currency", seized the moment and did so.
Think about what this means: These Greenbacks, pieces of intrinsically worthless paper, were sitting there in dark vaults, doing nothing. Then, by a highly questionable act of Congress, the Greenbacks were taken out of "retirement" and re-issued as "money"! Thus, without raising taxes, or doing any work at all, or mining any gold at all, the government gave itself millions of dollars worth of new "money". What a deal!
If you were a government employee, you could have suddenly found yourself being paid in Greenbacks. You did real work, but the government paid you in paper which it did not work for! There are many who would say that that wasn't fair, and that it wasn't right, other than according to the ancient maxim "might makes right".
The Greenback subterfuge was generally accepted by the people of America without protest. But not entirely without protest. Some people were furious. One of these was a man named Mr. Julliard, who sold a Mr. Greenman 100 bales of cotton for $5,122.90. When it came time to pay, Greenman coughed up $22.50 in gold, 40 cents in silver, and $5,100.00 in U.S. notes (i.e., Greenbacks)! Julliard refused to accept the paper. He sold real cotton, not a paper imitation, and he wanted real money in return, not paper play-money. Greenman refused to pay.
The case went to the Supreme Court (Julliard v. Greenman ,110 U.S. 421) (1884). The decision of that court was a major landmark in the history of destruction of your constitutional rights. Some dare call it "treason". I'm inclined to agree. You'll have to decide for yourself.
The issue in Julliard v. Greenman was whether the un-backed paper notes of the U.S. federal government, which were masquerading as "money", could be considered a "legal tender". Remember that the phrase "legal tender" refers to that which you can be FORCED to accept as payment of debts. Are unbacked government "notes", i.e., pieces of paper with nothing behind them except a promise to someday redeem them in gold or silver (a promise which can never again be kept), a form of "legal tender"? The Supreme Court was asked to decide.
As the text of the Court's decision makes clear, the law was hardly considered in this case. The real consideration at hand was that the United States, in 1884, was becoming a "world power", and needed money for imperialist expansion. This "world power" business was intoxicating stuff, causing those who believed in it to lose site of what America was, and what the word "freedom" really meant.
As you have probably already guessed, the court decided in favor of Julliard. That is, the court declared that the government's paper was, indeed, "money", and that no American had the right to refuse to accept it as such!
Thus, in a land whose Constitution forbids---to this day--any form of "legal tender" other than gold and silver coins, worthless paper money suddenly was thrust upon us. On that day, the floodgates of tyranny were very quietly opened. It's over a hundred years later now, and those floodgates -- now hanging wide open like a gaping surgical wound -- can no longer be closed "quietly".
How did the court justify this wanton attack upon the Constitution? They justified it on the grounds of "sovereignty".
"Sovereign" means "King". Up until the Julliard vs. Greenman case, the Supreme Court openly declared that in the United States, "the people" are collectively "sovereign". We have no King!
Don't forget that the single, all-encompassing philosophical basis of the American Revolution was the REJECTION of the belief that men had to live under a "King". Was it not?
Isn't that what you were taught in school? Isn't that what they still teach in school?
Well, guess what: that's not true anymore, and it hasn't been true since 1884, the year the Supreme Court ever-so-quietly announced that the federal government is your "sovereign". That means, in effect, your "King". So in the "land of the free, home of the brave", a King was made in 1884. You didn't know that, did you?
America gets a new "King"
Here's how they did it. In the first place, they (i.e., the Supreme Court panel of judges which presided over the Julliard vs. Greenman case) noted that even though the Constitution forbids any form of "money" other than gold and silver coins in the various states, it did not forbid other forms of money in federal transactions.
And that's true: the federal government indeed has the right to pay anyone in any way it pleases, as long as the transaction is legal, and as long as the other party agrees. But it has to be voluntary!
This means, for example, that if America buys something from France, the deal can be paid for with any piece of paper, or any other commodity which France is willing to accept. The federal government does not have to limit itself to gold and silver in its own transactions.
However, the court admitted that this does not entitle the government to force you to accept their notes. If you are an American, you supposedly possess full constitutional rights. In your case, acceptance of the government's notes is supposed to be voluntary. Those notes are not "legal tender" in this country!
Next, the court noted that the Constitution (inArticle I, section 8, clauses 1 & 2) gave the Congress the power to 'lay and collect taxes to pay the debts of the United States', and to 'borrow money on the credit of the United States'. Remember what we said above about "promissory notes"? Please keep that in mind as you read.
The Supreme Court noted the following:
"[The power to] borrow money on the credit of the United States ... includes the power to issue, in return for the money borrowed, the obligations[i.e., promissory notes] of the United States in any appropriate form, of stock, bonds, bills or notes...Congress has authority to issue these obligations in a form adapted to circulation from hand to hand in the ordinary transactions of commerce and business" [110 U.S. 421 at 444-5].
Do you understand what this means? Now do you see why we spent so much time talking about the packaging of promissory notes to make them look like "money"? Keep in mind that promissory notes have value.
So, what the court is saying here is that the United States has the right to package all their promissory notes in a form which has the external appearance of "money", and to use these notes as if they were "money". BUT -- they can still do this only in transactions where the parties accept them WILLINGLY. They are still not "legal tender", and you -- the American citizen living under the protection of the Constitution -- still cannot be forced to accept them as payment. It's still voluntary.
The "score" so far: The government has correctly asserted its right to issue pieces of paper which look like money, and which have nothing behind them except somebody's promise to pay back a loan of some sort. These pieces of paper can, indeed, be used in any federal transaction in which the parties voluntarily accept them as payment. But we still do not have a legal basis for the court to order YOU to accept them, because under the U.S. Constitution, they are NOT "legal tender". The only legal tender in this country is still gold and silver coin. How is the Court going to get around the Constitution?
Here's the answer. Read it and weep. Weep for yourself, for me, for our children, and for our grandchildren. For it was the beginning of the end of "freedom" in America, and the end of freedom in America shall be the end of freedom in the world:
"It appears to us (i.e., the justices of that corrupt court) ... that Congress has the power to issue the obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress upon them such qualities as currency ... as accord with the usage of sovereign governments. The power ... of impressing upon those bills or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of private debts, was a power universally understood to belong to sovereignty, in Europe and America, at the time of the framing and adoption of the constitution of the United States." [110 U.S. 421 at 447]
What's this? "Universally" understood to belong to "sovereignty" in America? Since when does America have a "sovereign"?
And what's this business about "universal" understanding? I, for one, have no such understanding. What this lying Court is saying that our government can do whatever it wants, because the Kings of Europe did whatever they wanted, and our government now proposes to seize all those powers for itself.
So we fought a war to rid ourselves of the monarchy, universally understood to be an evil institution. Then, a slim 100 years later, our highest court had the audacity to tell us that the federal government intended to seize, for itself, all the powers of a "King"!
Amazingly, it was only two years earlier that this very same court, the Supreme Court of the United States, made the following comment in another case:
"Under our system the people, who are there [i.e., in Europe] called subjects, are the sovereign. Their rights, whether collective or individual, are not bound to give way to a sentiment of loyalty to the person of the monarch. The citizen here knows no person, however near to those in power, or however powerful himself, to whom he need yield the rights which the law secures to him." [United States vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 at 208-9]
So, in 1882 the Supreme Court of the United States said that YOU, the people, were collectively the "sovereign" here, and that you could not be forced to yield to the perverted desires of any would-be dictator in the government.
In 1884, however, the same court said that the government was indeed your "sovereign" after all, and could do whatever it damned-well pleased! What went wrong? What changed between 1882 and 1884?
Simply this: the government, whose appetite for money was whetted to a fever frenzy by its desire for imperial expansion, tossed all common sense and decency to the winds. The law was forgotten. The American Revolution was forgotten. The principles of decency underlying this nation were all tossed out at once. It was the beginning of the end of freedom.
All that remained was the adoption of the "British system" of banking. Let us now see how Britain raised money to build its Empire, and how the Bank of England turned that nation into a whorehouse of special privilege. Let us see also how the life of that system was limited by a strict time-clock, the seeds of its own destruction having been sown right into itself at the outset.
By way of a "preview", or a "coming attractions", know that in 1913, America adopted the "British system". Therefore, we are now on the same strict time-clock. Where do you think we are right now? We're at the end! The benefits of the "British system" have all been reaped, and have accrued, as usual, to the rich. You will now be left "holding the bag".
I don't know who, or what, the Bank of England represents at the present time. But I certainly know what it represented when it started.
It is not disputed that the man who dreamed up the idea for the Bank was one William Paterson, a Scotsman. William Paterson is even credited with being the founder of the so-called "central banking" system by the public literature of our own Federal Reserve Bank, a clone of the original Bank of England.
It seems highly probable that William Paterson was the inspiration behind the Disney character "Scrooge McDuck"--a man (or should I say "duck") so rich, he literally oozed money whenever he moved.
But who was William Paterson? It's hard to say. He has no entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I can locate no biography of him in any library. Even in a recent book extolling the virtues of history's great Scotsmen ("Mark of the Scots", by Duncan A. Bruce), there is only the barest outline of the life of this one.
But great he was, albeit in a fundamentally negative sense.
Several months after the chartering of the Bank of England, William Paterson's name disappeared almost entirely from the pages of history.
In 1694, the King of England, King William of Orange, needed money to wage war against France.
The King put out the word that the rich of England should forthwith submit plans to finance the war, and ministers were appointed to evaluate their submissions. The plan eventually accepted was the one submitted by Paterson.
His total plan was audacious, to say the least. The first part was simple: he proposed lending the Crown £1.2 million at 8% interest annually. Can you believe that a war could be waged for £1.2 million? Seems incredible, does it not? In the United States today, you'd be lucky if you could install a new bathroom in the White House for under $1 million!
Next, the plan proposed that the principal did not have to be paid back on any particular time schedule, or, for that matter, at all. Not ever! This was a plan for "perpetual interest", that phrase being, in fact, part of the title of the plan which Paterson submitted.
Now the King undoubtedly believed that the loan would be paid off soon enough. But the fact of history is that it never was. Read on.
The next part of the plan was the most "clever". Paterson and his group of investors demanded the right to "keep their bills current". Hmmm. What does that mean?
In books about the Bank of England, one can find highly amusing quotes from members of Parliament, expressing perplexity about the meaning of this phrase "keep their bills current". "It seems", some of them protested, "that Mr. Paterson intends his bank to be a 'bank of issue'...".
What's a "bank of issue" you ask? A "bank of issue" is a bank which prints its own money. Nice work if you can get it!
The privilege of printing money was, up until that time, limited to the Crown. Now a private bank was asking for the same privilege. In the Yiddish language, that's called "chuzpah". It means brazen audacity.
If you are puzzled, believe me, so was Parliament. But they approved the plan, proving themselves to be every bit as irresponsible as the Congress of America today.
Now, here's how the historians explain the true meaning of Paterson's plan. What he was asking for was the right to package the Crown's promissory notes in the form of money, and to lend them out at 8% interest!
Recall that Paterson and his fellow conspirators loaned the Crown £1.2 million. Naturally, the King (or one of his ministers) had to sign for the loan. We have already seen how promissory notes have value. Patterson recognized that. He was probably not the first. But he was, perhaps, the first to have the audacity to ask the King for permission to write up the promissory notes so that they looked like "money".
Furthermore, these notes apparently had, inscribed upon them, words to the effect that they were "backed by the Crown". What's wrong with this picture?
If the Crown had money to back these notes, then why was it borrowing? In fact, the Crown was bankrupt. Yet the King agreed to the issuing of new, unbacked pseudo-money, which was "legitimized" by the illusion that it was "backed by the Crown", when, in fact, the Crown was in no position to back anything. In other words, this was a fraud at the outset, made legal only by the sovereign immunity of the King from prosecution by his own courts.
The King, attracted by the "easy credit terms" (i.e., no principal payments, interest only), went for it. What a deal for Paterson! He loaned £1.2 million at 8% interest perpetually, which meant that after the twelfth year, he began to make a perpetual profit. Additionally, he got to lend out an additional £1.2 million of imaginary money, consisting of the King's promissory notes packaged to look like real money. Patterson loaned out this imitation money at 8% interest also, and, if I grasp this history correctly, he demanded re-payment in gold. What a deal!
The King apparently never payed the loan back. Quite the contrary. In subsequent years, the King came back for more. Why not? The loan re-payments were interest only. That meant that for the low, low price of £96,000 per year, he could, in any year, receive an additional £1,200,000 to play with! The interest payments seemed small -- at first.
The principal sum, however, was a lot of money in those days, and it gave the King power to do things he couldn't really afford to do.
What happened as the years went by? The organization founded by Paterson became known as the Bank of England, a private stock corporation whose shareholders consisted of the super-rich of Europe. Paterson, as I said above, disappeared from the scene. He wasn't even one of the initial shareholders!
In time, the Crown became so indebted to the Bank that the interest payments became oppressive. The honeymoon was over. Now taxes had to be raised, so that the people -- as usual -- could be made to bear the burden of this evil system.
As you know, or ought to know, when you go deeply into debt, your creditors own you. Eventually, they come to control your life. The only way out is bankruptcy. Then the trustee of the bankruptcy court owns you. Either way, you are owned!
So England quickly came to be owned. She was owned by Paterson's "Bank of England", which, the name notwithstanding, was a private, for-profit money lending institution. The interest on all the Bank's loans, known as the "National Debt" (sound familiar?), became an onerous and painful financial burden upon the nation.
It cannot be said that the Bank of England was all bad. The good part of it was that it generated "money" to finance the growth of the British Empire, upon which the "sun never set" at one point. But there's always a down-side to fraud. Since the Bank had granted itself the "right" to print money, it became rich beyond imagination. This wealth was used to create a national system of reeking privilege. The Bankers themselves, their key employees, their friends, their relatives, and all others whom they chose to "lay their hands upon", became people of wealth, substance, and "importance". The rest (i.e., the vast majority of our ideological ancestors) languished.
To understand how such a system self-destructs, we ought to turn now to the American clone of the Bank of England, called the "Federal Reserve Bank". Our Bank has, in truth, already "self-destructed", although it has thus far managed to maintain a "clean" public image through fraud on a scale so grand that few can even imagine it.
Like the Bank of England before it, the Federal Reserve Bank is a "central bank", which means a private, for-profit institution which prints "money". It also controls the interest rate. These two powers, namely the power to control the size of the money supply (by "printing" or "not printing"), and the power to control the interest rate, make them the undisputed masters of America. And I didn't say "undisputed masters of American finance", I said "of America", period.
Another Rothschild quote: "Give me control of the currency of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws". Do you really think you live in "the land of the free, the home of the brave"? Read on.
Critics of the Bank point out that it is not "federal" (the going joke is "the Federal Reserve Bank is no more 'federal' than Federal Express"), and that "it has no reserves"! (Remember that our gold and silver reserves are totally unaccounted for). It is, on the other hand, completely amoral and unconstitutional--regardless of what any ill-informed or lying politician says to the contrary. The claimed "justification" for its creation was, initially, the "need" to finance America's imperial expansion (as the Bank of England had done for that nation), and later, the "need" to finance America's flirtation with Communism and Socialism (in the form of Social Security and numerous other failed unconstitutional programs).
The brief history of "the Fed", as it refers to itself, is as follows. In 1791, only a few short years after the American Revolution, the Congress of the United States of America, in an act which defies all logic, granted a 20-year charter to the so-called "First United States Bank", which was an obvious clone of the Bank of England! The Bank was passionately championed by Alexander Hamilton (who was apparently sorry later). It was vehemently opposed by Thomas Jefferson.
Amazingly, Hamilton's view prevailed. It seems that the rationale was that banking was a "specialty" which "ought to be left to the bankers". I rather suspect that the passing of many unmarked brown paper bags full of money also contributed to this "rationale". How many brown paper bags, we shall never know.
Because of the obvious unconstitutionality of the Bank, and because of the appearance and relentless growth of what critics called a "hydra of corruption", the charter was not renewed in 1811.
Perhaps because of the financial pressures brought on by the War of 1812, the Bank reared its ugly head again. In 1816, Henry Clay and the Whigs somehow pushed a bill through Congress establishing a Second United States Bank, a carbon-copy of the First. It was unsuccessfully opposed by Democratic Congressman Andrew Jackson.
Huge popular support for Jackson caused him to be elected President in 1829. Although the Supreme Court -- in an early showing of its willingness to issue judgments bordering on treason -- found the Bank's charter to be "constitutional" several years earlier, Jackson violently disagreed. In 1832, Congress voted to renew the Bank's charter, and Jackson vetoed the bill. He then won re-election by a large popular majority in the 1832 presidential campaign, and, seizing the moment, he used his presidential powers to scuttle the Bank completely.
It is important to note that the Supreme Court and both Houses of Congress were behind the Bank, but the people were behind the President. This virtual war, known to the historians as the "Bank War", illustrates frighteningly how fragile our constitutional freedoms are. It certainly seems that the Congress and the Supreme Court have been "for sale" for a very long time.
Please do not forget that in 1832, America was a fledgling nation, struggling for survival in a world of European superpowers. But 81 years later, in 1913, the year of the founding of the "Federal Reserve Bank", America had arguably become the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation.
So between 1832 and 1913, we grew into a superpower, WITHOUT the so-called "benefit" of a "hydra of corruption" running our banking and currency system. But I can guarantee you that every spokesperson for the Fed today will absolutely assure you that there can be no prosperity -- yea, no survival at all -- for any nation which does not have a "central bank" printing money for the benefit and enrichment of its private stockholders. Do you believe that? Or do you believe you've been "had"?
Everyone who has studied the Fed has come to the same conclusion about how it operates, and what it has done to America. The "system" it encompasses has two components:
The only "source" of money in this thinly-veiled British-style banking scheme is the promise of the American people to pay. In other words, when Congress votes a budget, it generates, in effect, a national "promissory note". Since a promissory note has "value", the Federal Reserve Bank can print (or, to get technical, order the printing of) new money -- from plain paper! When the Fed "loans" America money, they do no work. But when America gets the "bill" -- in the form of a painful income tax assessment -- then we all have to go to work, and suffer pain to "make money" to pay back the "loan" -- a "loan" which was never made, having been nothing but plain paper from a printing press.
The worst part of the system is that the interest on the "National Debt" is paid directly into the pockets of the Federal Reserve Bankers, who were already, before the system even began, the wealthiest families on earth!
In or around 1994 America passed the "turning point" where the total GNP of America became insufficient to pay the interest on the "National Debt". This means, in effect, that an honest accounting would reveal that NOT ONE PENNY OF INCOME TAX GOES -- ANYMORE -- TO ANY PROGRAM WHICH BENEFITS AMERICA OR ANYONE IN IT!!
How do you deal with a disaster of such magnitude? Easy. You lie. You lie like Hell.
So, since the mid-1990's, the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") of the United States of America has announced that the country is AWASH in money!!
Did America "go for it"? You bet we did! Except for a few right-wing "Christian fanatics", no one cared. In effect, America is keeping "two sets of books" on a cosmic scale.
In his final term as President, Bill Clinton -- a man known even by his supporters to be a compulsive liar -- had the audacity to announce that there was a budget "surplus"! How so? Wherefore does a country with a 10 TRILLION dollar "National Debt" proclaim a surplus? WE'RE BANKRUPT!
How did the country get duped into this system? Well, the truth of the matter is that few knew, and even fewer cared. The bankers, who had worked furiously since the American Revolution to get this "holy" (but to what "god"?) project completed -- a project which spanned the generations of the banking families -- these bankers had, by 1913, a strangle-hold on the political parties, the press, and all the other power centers in this country, and what "the people" thought really didn't matter any more.
Both the bank itself, and the "income tax" which finances it, were passed in the same year, 1913. Woodrow Wilson became president on a pro-bank ticket, but it wouldn't have mattered whether he won or lost. All three candidates for the presidency at that time were pro-bank, which suggests that they rose to their candidacies more by appointment than election.
The bills for the Bank and the income tax were voted upon just before Christmas recess, at a time when many Congressmen had already gone home for the holidays. Lobbyists for the bank literally ate, drank and slept in the halls of Congress for the week before the vote. One can well imagine the brown paper bags of money which changed hands that week. [For the full story, see works byEustace Mullins]
The income tax needed more than a bill. Since income tax in its current form is explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, an Amendment was required. The so-called "16th Amendment", supposedly ratified in 1916, was intended to be that Amendment. In addition to the fact that the16th Amendment was not legally passed, it does not, in any event, "authorize" an income tax of the sort we now have. The issue is a bit complex, and we cannot go into it at this time. If you are interested in reading about "income tax" and why it is unlawful in this country, and why it will destroy America if it is not terminated, click here.
The story of the Fed has been recorded by anti-bank historians likeEustace Mullins and others. If you read such works, you will want to get out a rusty pitchfork and disembowel every Fed banker you can find. Don't do it! That is not the answer.
Remember, at the top of this Web Site I warned you that the enemy is YOU. The Fed is nothing more than the visible apex of a "pyramid of greed", whose base is the whole of the American people. When that base of greed vanishes, so will the Bank. Until that time, you are trapped in an economic prison of your own design (or at least your own acquiescence), with no way out.
Back to our story: No sooner did the Federal Reserve / Income Tax bill get passed, then the Fed bankers immediately began lowering the "reserve rate". The "reserve rate" is the number of dollars of gold/silver which must be on reserve to cover the printing of a paper dollar bill. All logic and decency demand that the reserve rate should be ONE. That is, if you print a $1 bill, there ought to be $1 of gold or silver somewhere in the bowels of the government.
However, that was not the plan at all. In retrospect, we can see that the plan was to expropriate all America's gold and silver, and replace it with intrinsically worthless pieces of paper.
The Fed, in stages, seizes all our gold and silver
The first step in the fleecing of America was the gradual lowering of the reserve rate. What gave the Fed the right to do that? Why it's that old Satanic "Golden Rule":
"He who has the gold makes the rules".
They had the money -- they made the rules.
Virtually no one in Congress dared oppose them. The few who did, like Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee during the Great Depression, tended to die under mysterious circumstances. Strange.
So the Fed continuously and progressively lowered the reserve rate. With a reserve rate of, for example, 50%, the Fed was "allowed" (but by whom?) to print a $1 bill with only fifty cents worth of gold on hand. The one-word description of this is "fraud", but few complained. Except during the Depression, America was "prosperous".
By about 1970, the "reserve rate" had dropped to zero. The Fed now prints a $1 bill with NO reserves of gold or silver. What has this done to the value of our currency?
A lot! In 1912, the year before the Fed was inaugurated, gold sold at $35 an ounce. Now its value vacillates between $300 and $800 an ounce. Do the arithmetic and you'll see: what you could buy for a nickel in 1912 now costs a dollar!
With nothing more than a hand-held calculator, you can readily show that the inflation rate in America, since 1913, has been an average of 5% per year. In some years it has been more, and in others less. But the 5% average has been maintained, year-after-year, since the Fed was inaugurated.
Most people these days think that inflation is some kind of a "law of nature". That's because they've never seen anything else. But know and consider this: prior to 1913, the inflation rate was nil. In 1775, the year this nation was founded, gold was $20 an ounce. In 1913, 138 years later, an ounce of gold had risen only to $35!
Yes, there was inflation, but it was, on a year-to-year basis, imperceptible. Get out your hand-held calculator again: That $15 increase, over 138 years, corresponds to an inflation rate of 0.5% per year. Compare that with the inflation rate of nearly 20% during the Carter administration!
The worse thing about the automatic 5% annual inflation, which we've endured since the inauguration of the Federal Reserve Bank, is that it is built-in to the "system". It cannot be stopped anymore!
Why is there inflation, and why is it so bad? First, let's consider why it exists at all. The economists are in complete agreement that the dumping of un-backed paper into the economy causes inflation in exact proportion to the amount dumped. In other words, if you have, say, $100 million circulating, and you print $10 million more, you're damned-well going to have 10% inflation, and no act of Congress will prevent it.
It can therefore be presumed that the Fed prints, on the average, an additional 5% new money every year, and that we are therefore all doomed to 5% inflation forever (or until the system crashes; whichever comes first).
What actually happens when money is "created"?
Here's how the system works. Every year, Congress votes a budget. It makes no difference what it is, because there is no money to pay for any part of it.
Read this again if you didn't get it the first time: THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY FOR ANY PART OF IT!
Any politician who tells you he's going to "balance the budget" is either an out-and-out liar, or a very ignorant person. In a country with no money at all, the budget is not getting balanced. Ever!
So where does our money come from? We print it! Only "the government" has the "authority" to print money, but in reality only the Fed has the power to order the printing. Anyone who challenges this power should expect to find himself in very, very serious trouble. The last President who stood up to them was John Kennedy.
So, every year, the Fed, in effect, "orders" money to be printed, or created electronically. Once created, the Fed becomes the owner -- by purchasing it. But they don't pay for the face value of the money; they only pay for the production costs! Thus, if the U.S. government printing office prints a $1 bill, the Fed "buys" it for about two cents. These two pennies cover the cost of the paper and ink used to print the bill.
For a $100 bill, the cost is the same: two cents! It makes no difference what the denomination of the bill is; the Fed only pays for the cost of printing it. Then it's theirs. All theirs.
Next, the Fed sends the money "back to America", but only in the form of a "loan". Nothing is given away! One way the money is, in effect, "loaned" to America is through the purchase, by the Fed, of U.S. Treasury notes, which we, the people, must pay back with interest. WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?
Isn't this the same thing we read about in our study of the Bank of England?
Yes, it is. The Fed, like the Bank of England before it, prints (or causes to be printed) money, and lends it to the "crown" (i.e., your self-declared "King", the federal government) at interest. The principal is never paid back, but no one cares. Least of all the Fed. After all, they printed it from plain paper. It's "no skin off their backs".
Ah, but the interest! That's another matter entirely. The interest must be paid back. The source of the "pay-back" money is "income tax". In other words, your labor pays the interest on this "loan".
The government tells us we must work almost half the year to pay "our taxes", i.e., our individual "share" of the interest on a Federal Reserve "loan" which was cut from plain paper. Is this legal? Their "money" is not real, and they certainly didn't work for it. But your labor is very real, and, if you don't pay the tax, they'll use every trick in the book to throw you into jail (even though there'sno law requiring the average American to file a tax return -- believe it or not!).
The income tax has had one, and only one true purpose since its inception in 1913: to pay the interest on the national debt.
Let us pause for a brief summary. Here again, in a nutshell, is how the "system" works:
This loan constitutes the "lion's share" of what is known as "the National Debt". The principal of this debt is never paid back, but the interest must be paid. Although the dollars they lend us are, in effect, fictional, the labor we must do to pay them back is very, very real.
Am I merely "jealous" of the Fed's prosperity?
Or is this system really malignant?
With all this anti-bank rhetoric, you may think that I have forgotten the 10 Commandments. Am I merely "coveting" the Fed's prosperity?
No. The main problem is not that the Federal Reserve Bankers will end up owning everything (although that surely is a problem). The main problem is that you are going to end up with nothing!
Those who say "America is a land of prosperity, so why complain?", are dangerously short-sighted.
Remember, we now have 5% inflation per year, forever (i.e., until the system collapses, which will be soon). As an exercise, let's think about a workingman who belongs to a labor union. This is not a good time for laborers. Who do you know who gets a 5% raise every year? No one! Today, a workingman is lucky if he gets 5% in five years!
And yet, if the workingman fails to get that 5% raise, than he -- and each and every one of the rest of us -- will get 5% poorer. Since this poverty is compounded every year -- like some sort of nightmare bank from Hell with "negative" interest -- it takes only about 14 years for our purchasing power to be cut in half.
Although I will not enhance my "popularity" with the opposite sex for saying it, I must tell you that this is the real reason why women all work now. Sure, for some there may be issues of "women's liberation", but I assure you that more and more women are realizing that raising a family is not a "waste of a life" after all, but is life.
What if some, or all of the so-called "liberated" women of America decided to go back home and raise families now? Would they be able to? Not a chance! Some "liberty" that turned out to be!
Twenty years ago, a man, by himself, was able to go to work and support a family. These days, however, a man and a woman both working full time cannot support a family, and assistance is required. And where does the assistance come from? You guessed it: "Big Brother". Big Brother, to whom you will soon owe your very existence. God forbid.
Let's get back to our union worker. Suppose the union decides "enough is enough", and the workers go out on strike? What will happen?
Well, for starters, the strike will go on for weeks or months, with no pay for the workers during that time. Their families will suffer badly. Many families will disintegrate, with wives (or these days, husbands) taking the children and fleeing to parents or other relatives for survival.
When the strike finally ends, what sort of a raise is the worker likely to get? Five percent? NEVER. These days, if the worker gets even 2% he is lucky indeed. But this meager raise will not even offset the income he lost during the strike. And, worse still, by the end of the year, his cost-of-living will have gone up by 5%, as it has done each and every year since 1913. His pathetic 2% raise will not even cover the increase in his cost-of-living. He is doomed!
You are doomed. Unless you act.
A few politicians have tried vainly to fight back. It is believed by many thatJohn Kennedy was murdered for attempting to block the expropriation of American silver reserves by the bankers. True or false? We'll probably never know.
Ronald Reagan, correctly assessing the gravity of America's financial situation, convened theGrace Commission, which gleaned the cumulative wisdom of thousands of America's top business leaders. Their report, released in the mid-1980's, revealed some shocking statistics. Chief among them was the statistic about income tax.
Grace Commission projections showed unequivocally that by 1995, the interest on the National Debt would exceed all the incoming tax revenues combined!!! Do not pass this statistic by if you do not grasp the full implications of it.
If every dollar of income tax collected goes to payment of interest on old debt, then what money does America have to pay her current expenses? Absolutely none! There is testimony in the Congressional Record about this, but this sort of news never reaches the daily papers. How come? To read this testimony,click here. To read a frightening commentary on our news media, click here.
I mentioned the "OMB" (Office of Management and Budget) earlier. Their public Web Site now shows that America is AWASH IN MONEY!!!
All of a sudden -- we are being told -- the tax money coming in is much more than sufficient to pay interest on old debts, and to fund all manner of outrageous new federal expenses. Who's fooling who?
These OMB statistics are worse than lies. A lie misrepresents or distorts the truth. Implicit in most lies is an unstated acknowledgment that a certain truth exists. You just won't get the whole story from the liar.
But the OMB statistics are not "misrepresentations" or "distortions". They are pure fiction. You learn about as much about the federal economy reading OMB statistics as you would watching a rerun of The Wizard of Oz. This means: you learn nothing whatsoever.
It is often said that when the currency of a nation becomes debauched, the general morality of the nation follows. The death of the nation follows shortly after that.
The death of your nation, insofar as it is a nation of "freedom", is at hand.
If none of what you've read so far has upset you, then I'll try one last time to wake you up.
Did you know that in America of the late 20th century, when you borrow money, nobody gives you anything?
Let me repeat this, in case it went by you. When you borrow money, nobody gives you anything.
You go down to your local bank, you apply for a loan, your application is accepted, you sign a promissory note, they give you a check. Didn't they just give you "their" money?
No, it wasn't "their" money.
Well, then, wasn't it depositor's money?
No, it wasn't depositor's money.
Well, then whose money was it?
The incredible answer is: "Nobody's!".
In America today, when you apply for any sort of credit, your promissory note is deposited as if it was money, and a check is written against it. If you did what the money-lenders do, you would be arrested with blinding speed, and put into jail for "counterfeiting".
So what gives a banker, or a mortgage provider, the "right" to create money and lend it to you? The only real answer is "might", as in "right makes might". Another answer is the Devil's "Golden Rule", namely "He who has the gold, makes the rules!.
This aspect of late 20th-century governmental financial fraud is so important that I have put it in a separate section. What you will read there is based upon the writings of Christian patriot Tom Schauf, America's leading authority on institutionalized bank fraud on a grand scale.Click here to read it.
This is an easy question to answer. The central banking systems of America and the other nations of the world are all on the same "wavelength". They are all owned and operated privately, by the very, very richest of the super-rich, for their own benefit, and for their benefit only.
Their plan is barely concealed. It is to create a "one-world" Bank Dictatorship, within which you will be reduced to serfdom. Unless, of course, you are one of their "friends".
What sort of people are these bankers? Are they really all that bad? Don't they also give money to the poor?
Yes, it is expedient for the super-rich to spread money around in the cloak of "charity". Why not? They print it from plain paper! It's "no skin off their backs".
Bearing in mind that it is entirely possible (yea, even certain) that among the world bankers, there are some God-fearing men and women, it must nevertheless be presumed that one isn't likely to become a multi-billionaire unless one loves money more than people.
We started out, at the top of this Web Site, by reminding you of Jesus' saying: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24). Are you at least beginning to see the real meaning of this? The world bankers are the living embodiment of service to mammon. They have been for many generations. It is their "religion". And, because you love their money more than you love God, it has long since become your religion too. Your game is not different from theirs. They're just better at it.
Don't waste time denying it. This is a time for action, not denial. The doors of your new prison are about to be shut upon you. In the near future, the economies of all nations will "mysteriously" collapse. There will be many excuses, such as "overpopulation", global "terrorism", religious "fanaticism", etc. But the real reason for the coming collapse is that it was planned that way.
The Christian patriots have been screaming this for years, but you didn't listen.
Since the currency has nothing behind it, its value is entirely up to the bankers. If they wish to, a few well-placed press releases will trigger a panic which will deprive all paper money of its purchasing power. Then, like knights in shining armor mounted on pure white stallions, they will ride into your lives with an "answer": an all-electronic cashless economy, where the value of everything, and of everybody, is strictly regulated by computers on a world-wide basis. "Whew! We're saved!"
But are we really saved?
In order to be "registered" with this world banking system, you will have to "take a number". Christians have known that this was coming for 2,000 years. This is the world-famous "Mark of the Beast". Currently, the closest thing to this mark is the Social Security number, without which it's already almost impossible to buy or sell anything.
The Social Security number, or whatever new number the "Beast" assigns you, will be your ticket to everything in life. Do you doubt it? There's a massive literature on this subject, and I will not even attempt to do more than scratch the surface. Consider the following. Without the "mark", you will not be able to:
It gets much worse. There are systems already fully designed and operational which employ the "smart" card to access your car, and even your own home. "Keyless entry", they call it. Great technological innovation, no? Wouldn't that be the end of all burglery? It might. But wait a minute. What if they deny access to you? Could you be locked out of your own home by invisible government agents?
In the United States of America, it is supposed to be the case that you are "innocent until proven guilty" (in reality this, and all other constitutional rights, have already all-but-disappeared). In the New World Order, however, there are no human rights. Do you doubt it? What is the organ which guarantees human rights in the so-called "United Nations"? There is none!
Why will you have no rights? Because the New World Order is, always was, and always will be a thinly-veiled Bank Dictatorship, and bankers are not, have never been, and never will be interested in "human rights". Least of all, yours.
You will--for the time being--have the "right" to view scantily-clad women on TV. That is one of the mechanisms used to "dumb down" the masses. You will also be permitted to take Prozac. You may, in fact, be required to! But is this what you mean by "human rights"?
If accused of a crime, you will be guilty until proven innocent. And how will you prove that? If the bankers don't like you, they will cut off your money. It will, after all, be merely electronic "cyber-cash" anyway. There will be no real money anywhere. Your "worth" or "valuation" will be a simple numerical entry on a computer which THEY will own, and which THEY will control. If they cut you off, you will have no money to hire an attorney to defend yourself.
A few well-placed lying press releases from your tormentors will readily persuade your neighbors that you are, indeed, "guilty as charged". Why even bother with a trial?
You cannot save yourself by "ingenuity" or physical strength!
Do not think that you can escape from this nightmare by your own genius or strength. The essence of the world's past revolutions and rebellions has been physical escape and re-organization; the "government in exile". This will not work in the "New World Order" because there will be nowhere to escape to!
The Bank Dictatorship will extend deeply into the heart of the smallest island, and to the top of the tallest mountain; everywhere that money is worshipped.
You won't even be able to plan a revolution unnoticed, because the bankers own the means of communication. The so-called "backbone" of the Internet is controlled completely by international super-corporations whose allegiance is to money, and money only. Software already exists which enables people to read your computer disk while you work, without your knowledge or consent.
It has been widely reported in the patriot press that the government can eavesdrop upon you through your telephone, even if it is "hung up". Apparently, the "hang up", which used to be an absolute cut-off, has now become merely a signal to a central switching facility, where the actual cut-off is -- or isn't -- done. The signal can be overridden, and although the phone seems dead to you, it may still be transmitting sound from your house.
I've read this entirely too many times to not believe it. Furthermore, it's recently been brought forcefully to my attention that 100% of telephone calls are recorded--that's 100%--onto high-capacity (i.e. multi-terabyte) disks. Obviously, no one can listen to all those calls, but there exist "key word" programs which screen calls, and if you make the mistake of pronouncing too many "key words", your calls will be listened to as sure as the sun rises.
Is this "legal"? First of all, no one seems to care anymore. Secondly, you ought to know that ever since the perverse Supreme Court decision inOlmstead v. United States, the federal government has presumed that they have the "right" to eavesdrop on anyone they choose.
Your only true salvation: God
There is only one escape from this nightmare. It is to repent before God, whom you have denied.
I was 49 years old when I began writing this Web Site. I am over 50 now. In all those years, I have not yet met a single man or woman who doesn't "take care of the money first", and worship God in the time remaining.
This is as true in the bowels of a bank as it is in a religious monastery. Go ahead, get insulted if you want. The amount of time spent in worshipping money is close to 100% in a bank, and closer to 0% in a religious monastery. We're not talking about percent time spent. We're talking about priorities. Even in the most rigorously religious monastery, the money must be taken care of. Otherwise, the place will fold.
Is this really news? Didn't Jesus say, 2,000 years ago, that it would be "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 19:24)?
"Who then can be saved?" asked his exasperated disciples!
It seems that in the past, there really was no escape. Yet there is now. I don't really understand, in any logically satisfactory way, why that which was impossible before is possible now. Perhaps it is because technology has made it physically possible for there to be abundance for all. But it's more complicated than that.
Any analysis must surely wind up at the same conclusion; namely that it is the will of God that salvation from the tyranny of mammon happen now, so that His word can be fulfilled, and so that it can be known that He is King and always has been.
So what is the escape? It is the set of very old teachings I have here compiled under the title of this web site, "Ark of Salvation". It is nothing more than His word, which He provided to us long ago. He has been waiting patiently for us to take advantage of it, ever since. After 6,000 years, He is tired of waiting. Do you need "proof"? The proof is that you are about to be plunged into eternal torment at the hands of an unstoppable world banking dictatorship.
According to the Bible, men must turn back to God in the End. Then, and only then, all this evil will evaporate away, and dissipate like the clouds are dissipated by the sun after a storm. The "Ark" is not complicated to understand, but it's difficult to carry out. It requires tremendous faith and courage.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
CLICK HERE FOR
Eustace Mullins, an Air Force veteran and former employee of the Library of Congress, has spent many years studying the history and operations of the Federal Reserve Bank. His findings form one part of the bedrock of current American patriotism. His most famous book, can be ordered directly, or via Internet. The (physical) mail address is:
Eustace Mullins. The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Bankers Research Institute. P.O. Box 1105 Staunton, VA 24401; 1993.
Mullins has a Web Site with some information and an order form for "Secrets..." and several other works. The Web address, at the time this Site was created, washttp://www.hevanet.com/valladar/eustace.htm.
Mullins was a purportedly Christian anti-Semite, and I am approximately what is often referred to as a "Messianic Jew". He's lucky that there's something we both care about more than our personal opinions of each other..
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
The 16th Amendment
Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, became convinced that the 16th Amendment was never lawfully ratified. He undertook a monumental task upon himself: to personally travel to all the states which existed in the early 20th century and to dig out of their respective archives the records of the deliberation and voting upon the proposed amendment.
The result: No state followed the procedures required by law for a constitutional amendment. Few states even had the correct text to vote upon. There was virtually no deliberation before the legislature of any state, and some of the "official" vote counts reported to Washington D.C. differed from the counts recorded in the state records.
Whatever conclusions one wishes to draw about the intentions of the state legislatures with respect to the issue of a federal income tax, two things are certain:
Bill Benson's book is rather academic, and doesn't read like an exciting novel. But it is an invaluable reference source for patriots. To order it directly by physical mail:
Bill Benson & M.J. 'Red' Beckman. The Law That Never Was (Vols. I & II). Constitutional Research Assoc., Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473; 1985.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
Many patriots believe that JFK was murdered by agents of the Federal Reserve Bank. The power of this theory is twofold:
Thus, for example, the Mafia theory is not ruled out, because the Bank could have hired the Mafia to do the job. Similarly, the theory that Kennedy's death was "ordered" by the so-called "Military-Industrial Complex" is not ruled out either, because the term "Military-Industrial Complex" has been superceded by such terms as "Trilateral Commission", or "Council on Foreign Relations", which really all mean the same thing. And the Trilateral Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank, from the patriot point of view, are both visible manifestations of the same semi-secret international banking cartel which controls everything.
The patriot explanation for the JFK assassination is as follows. In June 1963, Kennedy distinguished himself incomparably by becoming the first President since Andrew Jackson to stand up to the Bank. He tried to save America's silver.
As explained in the text above, the Federal Reserve Bank "made a deal" with America during the Depression. The deal was, "you give us all your gold, and we'll print some money to re-start your dead economy". President Franklin D. Roosevelt, supposedly speaking for America, accepted the offer.
Now, by 1970, the bankers could see that America had learned to live without its gold, and that no one (at least no one with even the slightest political power) had made so much as a token effort to retrieve it. Why not take the silver also?
So the bankers made it known to Kennedy (or at least failed to prevent if from becoming known) that the silver would henceforth be removed from our coins, and replaced with base metals. This involved three steps:
The melting down of all of America's coins would yield a mountain of silver. This, would be stored, of course, in ... you guessed it! The vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank; for "safekeeping".
Quite evidently, the bankers felt no need to "consult" with Kennedy about this plan. After all, he was merely a "president". Did they need to condescend to seeking the approval of a low-paid politician? Besides, they thought that the "lesson" they taught Herbert Hoover in the election of 1932 was sufficient to "teach" all future presidential candidates that "you don't 'mess' with the bank".
Also quite evidently, the bankers vastly underestimated Kennedy's patriotism, ambition, and self-confidence. For reasons which we shall presumably never know with certainty, something gave way in Kennedy's mind, and he saw clearly what every other 20th century President before and since has missed: that he was no "king", but merely a lowly servant of the Bank, and that they were draining America of its real wealth, replacing it with worthless paper.
So here's what he is said to have done. By an amendment to presidential Executive Order #10289, he caused the printing of $4 billion worth of Silver Certificates, and released them into circulation. What effect did this have? It tied up $4 billion of silver bullion in the lawful Treasury of the United States, where it had to be kept in reserve, to cover the redemption of those bills. Now the silver couldn't be relocated to the Federal Reserve Bank for "safekeeping"!
This Executive Order was issued by the President on June 4, 1963.
On November 12, 1963, it is claimed that Kennedy gave a speech at Columbia University, in which he said "The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of his plight!" (Official spokesmen for the University today deny having any record of this speech ever having been given.)
On November 22, 1963, three weeks later, Kennedy lay dead.
When Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as President, he immediately issued a new Executive Order. And what did the new President, surely "overcome with grief", order as virtually his first official act of office? He ordered the recall of all the silver certificates, and their replacement by Federal Reserve Notes!
I have read the above story in many sources. Is it true? I believe that the Executive Order calling for the printing of silver certificates would constitute powerful circumstantial evidence for the truth of it, but I cannot personally verify that any such order was given. Nor do I think such a verification, at this late date, would be easy, or even necessarily possible.
I remember seeing an episode of the TV detective "Columbo" many years ago, in which Columbo pressured a murder suspect with the information that in California, a defendant could be convicted of murder if it were demonstrated to the jury that he had "the motive, the means, and the opportunity" to commit the crime. Columbo kept repeating that over and over again, until the suspect confessed: "The motive, the means, and the opportunity". "The motive, the means, and the opportunity."
If Kennedy really printed silver certificates, then we have our motive. "Follow the money", the detectives teach. As for the means and the opportunity, bear in mind that an ordinary contract hit can be purchased for a few thousand dollars. With a trillion dollars of gold and silver at stake, little things like "means" and "opportunity" can be readily purchased.
Primary source of information:"Vulture in Eagle's Clothing" by Lynn Merideth.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
The Grace Commission report can be ordered by telephoning 1-800-USA-DEBT, but you have to buy the whole thing. It's over $1000!
Alternatively, for under $20, you can read: Harry E. Figgie, Jr. Bankruptcy 1995: The Coming Collapse of America and How to Stop It. Little, Brown and Company, 1992, 1993.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
The United States Is Bankrupt!
In the Congressional Record of March 17, 1993, page 1303H, Congressman James Traficant, representative of Ohio, states:
'Mr. Speaker, we are here now in Chapter 11. Members of the Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government. We are setting forth hopefully a blue-print for our future. There are some who say it is a coroner's report that will lead to our demise.'
The above quote is meant to be taken literally. The words "bankrupt" and "reorganization" are not being used lightly, but are sentences against us.
The situation is actually even more bleak than this. It is possible to prove, scientifically and conclusively, that the United States of America has been in a declared "state of emergency" since 1933. This is no joke, but a ponderous legal fact, which was explicitly re-confirmed in the United States Senate as late as 1973 (Senate Report 93-549). This report opens with the line: "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."
The report goes on to say that the "emergency" gives rise to hundreds of provisions of Federal law, which grant to the President a "vast range of powers, [which] taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes."
A "Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency" was created. Guess what! Nothing has been done! We're still in a "state of emergency", and the truth of the matter is that America, in effect, has no Constitution. We're like a labor union which has been without a contract for over 60 years!
Any patriot who hasn't read "War and Emergency Powers", by Eugene Schroder and co-workers, isn't fully educated. This extraordinary book can be ordered directly from :"Constitution", PO Box 89, Campo, Colorado 81029-0089 (tel 719-787-9958). Internet:http://www.buffalo-creek-press.com .
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
Freedom of the press?
John Swinton, the Chief of Staff for the New York Times in 1953, made the following speech before the New York Press Club. There are some who would have you believe that the words were spoken "under the influence of alcohol". You decide.
In response to a request that he lead a toast to our "free press", Swinton said:
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinons, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of the paper, before 24 hours my occupation would be gone.
"The Business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it.
"What folly is this, toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
Olmstead vs. United States, 277 US 438
Olmstead (like Joseph Kennedy Sr.) ran a huge bootlegging business during Prohibition, employing 50-75 individuals, and delivering vast quantities of Canadian alcohol to American consumers from his headquarters in the State of Washington. His only mistake was that he failed to take into account an ingenious new federal intrusion into the people's privacy, the wiretap, which, in its capacity as a "law enforcement tool" was a relatively new technology at that time. He should not have had to worry, because wiretaps were illegal in Washington State.
Like a group of drunken actors cavorting on a stage, not realizing that an audience had filtered in, Olmstead and company put on a highly entertaining performance for an entire team of federal eavedroppers and stenographers, who, ignoring the Washington statute, proceeded to record 775 pages of telephone liquor deals, and to carry the transcripts thereof into federal court where they obtained a conviction against Olmstead.
His attorneys were apparently incredulous that the wiretap transcripts were admitted, being, as they obviously were, a form of illegal search and seizure, barred by the 4th Amendment. They appealed to the Supreme Court, where, by a slim 5-4 majority, with a most emphatically stated dissenting opinion, the wire-tap was upheld.
Among the dissenting opinions expressed, none was as chilling as that of Justice Louis Brandeis, who stated, most prophetically:
"The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer,' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these.'"
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 at 474 (Click here to read more about the case)
Presumably the majority wanted you to think that a wiretap was perfectly OK because they'd only use it on those "bad guys" who everyone knows are out there, and whom everyone knows "deserve" to have their phones tapped.
You're not one of those "bad guys", are you? Of course not! You have nothing to fear from a wiretap. Or do you?
It's 75 years later, and what do we find? Every phone is tapped now. So you did have something to fear after all. Maybe more attention should have been paid to that dissenting opinion.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
The Teachings of Tom Schauf
Tom is on the Web at: http://www.bankfreedom.com
His book, "America's Hope: To Cancel Bank Loans Without Going to Court" can be ordered directly from:
Nothing But The Truth Press
The teachings of Christian patriot Tom Schauf have got to be the ultimate revelation of financial fraud in our lives.
Tom has an extensive background in accounting and bank auditing, and something along the way caused him to simply look.
You see, there are no "secrets". Everything's being done in the open. But you've got to look!
So what made Tom look, when none of his fellow CPA's cared?
Answer: The Holy Spirit! That's what made him look!
Tom's approach is to make a case against government financial fraud by using the government's own documents as evidence against them. His main point, which he hammers into you over, and over, and over, until you simply can't ignore it anymore, is this:
When you take out a mortgage, or a bank loan, or when you finance anything by buying on "credit", or when you even use a Visa or MasterCard, your own promissory note is the "source" of the money!
When you read the above, you should get mad as Hell. If you're not mad, then you didn't understand it.
If you didn't understand it, then let me illustrate. Let's take the hypothetical example of a bank loan for $100,000. When you sign for the loan, and the banker hands you a check for $100,000, you are grateful. You are also uneasy. What if you can't pay back the loan? All that depositor's money will be lost! All those "little people", whose pooled life savings funded your loan, will be hurt!
The bank never gave you anything!
What am I talking about? I went to a lot of trouble, in earlier sections of this Web Site, to acquaint you with the "facts of life" concerning promissory notes. When you "sign for the loan", you are signing a promissory note: your "promise" to re-pay the loan, plus the interest.
Well, although the banker didn't tell you, a promissory note is, in the late 20th century, "money"! That's right! That piece of paper you signed, promising to pay $100,000 plus interest, in return for the "loan" you thought you were about to receive, was itself a form of money! That's the "law"! (At least, that's the pseudo-law).
So what does the banker do? Why, he takes your promissory note -- which, as I just told you, is a form of "money" -- and writes a check against it!!
He gave you NOTHING -- except that which you actually gave to him!
In other words, you funded your own loan! Your signature on that promissory note made it worth $100,000. Do you doubt it? Re-read the Web Site above, and you will see that a promissory note is surely worth money. People buy and sell them all the time.
Why not? Anyone who buys your note stands to collect $100,000 plus interest, from you. Therefore, anyone who is willing to put up cash for a promissory note can buy it from the bank, and then become your creditor, tormenting you until every last payment of principle and interest has been paid up.
If the purchaser of your promissory note can manage to buy it at a substantial discount, then he can make a good profit on his purchase.
Promissory notes definitely have value, and that is why the banker -- whom you thought was the "source" of the money you thought you were "borrowing" -- can take your promissory note, deposit in a special account (called an "asset" account), and write a check against it!
Mind you, this practice is not even remotely "constitutional", but then again nothing about our Federal Reserve "system" is constitutional. This is not about "law". It's about Money. Moreover, it's about raw Power.
What it all boils down to is that there is a privileged caste in this country; a group of people who have the right to create money, and lend it to you at interest!
And who are these people? Certainly not the "government"; at least not in the sense that you usually use the word.
They are the "bankers". But ... we're not talking about bank tellers, or even bank Presidents. We're talking about the Boards of Directors -- the owners.
What deals these bank owners have with the Federal Reserve Bank, we will not be privy to. It is evident, however, that only the privileged will be granted the "right" to create money to lend out. Most likely, the loan "money" ultimately comes from the Fed itself, and the local bankers merely receive some sort of commission or fee for their role in this nightmare.
In any event, one thing is clear enough. Money is being created, and that whoever it is who is creating it is automatically your "king".
There's no point in dealing with this issue in the manner of the courts, with endless disputing of small details. Let us follow Tom Schauff's example, and turn directly to the Federal Reserve's own public literature.
In the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's free booklet, "Two Faces of Debt", which I ordered by phone and received in the mail 3 days later, the following mind-boggling statement appears on page 19:
"But a depositor's balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit -- either by granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositor's account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total of currency and checkable deposits -- the money supply -- is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit."
Did you follow the argument? They're saying, in relatively plain English, that your bank account balance RISES when the bank lends you money, and that the loan check they give you is "in exchange for the note (i.e., promissory note)".
Then they admit, again in relatively plain English, that when they do this, the money supply increases!!!
Quite evidently, they have no shame about this.
What if you wanted to do the same thing they're doing? Ah, but you can't! You can offer to "lend" someone money; you can receive their promissory note; you can "deposit" it into your closet; and you can write a check against it. But the check will bounce! What's wrong?
What's wrong is that you have no POWER. The POWER the banks have is that the check they write against your promissory note will indeed turn into money. Evidently, as we have already concluded previously, the money ultimately must emanate from the Federal Reserve Bank, which is the source of all money. If the Fed says a paper promissory note is money, then it's money. If you say a paper promissory note is money, it's still paper.
You could make this "system" work for you by setting up a counterfeiter's printing press in your basement. You could offer people loans, take their promissory notes, and then print dollar bills in your basement to "loan" to them.
This system will work, until the feds catch up with you, which will happen with blinding speed. There's nothing, but NOTHING which they hate more than counterfeiters. Why, that's their job!
I ordered another Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago booklet called "Modern Money Mechanics". It was also free, and it was also sent to me immediately.
On page 3 of this extraordinary book we read:
"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper ...Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face value."
Allow me to comment on the above:
Comment #1: Of course a dollar bill is "just a piece of paper". The gold which used to "underwrite" the dollar bill is all in their basement now. They have the gold -- we got the paper!
Comment # 2: Of course coins have far less value than their face amount. The silver which used to impart value to them is all in their basement now. They have the silver -- we got the base metal!
"Modern Money Mechanics" gives the figure of $898 billion as the total currency circulating in the United States. (And Bill Gates has $125 billion of it! Extraordinary!).
The Fed makes it clear that they control the total volume of circulating money. "Who creates money?" they ask, still on page 3 of this booklet. Their answer is astonishing:
"THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF MONEY CREATION TAKES PLACE PRIMARILY IN BANKS. As noted earlier, CHECKABLE LIABILITIES OF BANKS ARE MONEY. These liabilities are customers' accounts. THEY INCREASE when customers deposit currency and checks and WHEN THE PROCEEDS OF LOANS MADE BY THE BANKS ARE CREDITED TO BORROWERS' ACCOUNTS."
"IN THE ABSENCE OF LEGAL RESERVE REQUIREMENTS, BANKS CAN BUILD UP DEPOSITS BY INCREASING LOANS..."
What are they saying? They're saying that paper money is no longer tied to gold and silver, and that therefore MONEY CAN NOW BE CREATED BY THE BANK, BY SIMPLY EXTENDING A LOAN, AND CREDITING THEMSELVES WITH THE FACE VALUE OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE.
As Tom Schauf pounds into us, in his book (which I highly recommend), the promissory note is your property! You are the one who is promising to do years of labor to make good on that note, and if it has real money value, it's your money! The check the bank hands you in exchange has the same financial value, but the banker DID NOT WORK FOR IT!
Is this fair? Do you consent to this? Because, if you do, then there will be no hope for happiness, except to be one of the bankers. The rest of you shall be slaves. And -- worst of all -- although you may not believe it, I promise you that God will turn his back on this place, if the world shows, by its next few choices, that its trust, after all these millennia, is still in Money, and not in Him.
Who (or what) is the Federal Reserve Bank?
Therefore, as I've been telling you all along, the bankers have the "right" -- through "might", not law -- to create money and lend it to you at interest. Your "rights"? You have the "right" to go to work and earn money to pay back the imaginary loan which they never really made.
Who is the beneficiary of all this chicanery? Ultimately, it's the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank, which alone has the power to authorize the writing of a check against your promissory note. Presumably, the board of directors of the small local bank which issued you the loan will share in the profit. But they cannot be acting in any capacity other than as agents of the Fed.
Who is the Fed? According to all who have studied it, it is, in effect the Bank of England.
If you followed my review of American history at the top of this Web Site, then you know that the American Revolution was more of a war against the Bank of England than against the King of England.
Sure, the King of England was "nasty" and caused much trouble for the American Colonists. But the King, in 1775, had been under the complete control of the Bank of England for nearly a hundred years, and had been reduced to a pathetic figurehead. The de facto "king" was the Bank.
When this country achieved independence, the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to prevent the establishment of a British-style banking system here, for obvious reasons. Into the Constitution and Bill of Rights they inserted what they hoped would be ironclad protections against the sorts of financial chicaneries and infringements of human rights which had become downright characteristic of England.
Well, I'm sorry to report that all those "ironclad" protections have been breached.
Our nation has been taken over by an essentially foreign bank, and everyone who has studied its composition reports that the families which own the Federal Reserve Bank are the same old-blood-line European families which owned the Bank of England.
The American Revolution, therefore, is finally over. You lost.
The American Revolution, insofar as it represented a repudiation of the rule of Money, and a turning back to God and Christ -- "no king but Jesus" being the supposed concept behind it -- has therefore failed. If we ever did, indeed, turn back momentarily to God and Christ, we have totally backslid. The old "king" -- MONEY -- has returned. With a vengeance.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
Why Do Prices Invariably Go Up When the Government Dumps Un-Backed Money Into the Economy?
If you have any difficulty imagining this, just think of ten people going into a grocery store on a Sunday morning (why aren't they in church?). Each has $3 or less in his pocket, and they're all going for the same purpose: to buy a $1 quart of milk. Now imagine, if you will, that when they arrive, they find that there's only one quart left. All ten want that last quart! What will the grocer do?
Why he'll sell it to the highest bidder, of course! One person may offer $1.50, several people may even offer $2.00, twice what the milk is worth. Perhaps the highest bid will be $3, and the grocer will then prepare to "close the deal" to sell the milk for $3.
So what's a quart of milk actually "worth"? It's worth whatever the people are willing to pay; no more, no less.
NOW imagine that the disgruntled -- those who got no milk -- quickly dig deeply into their pockets, and that some of them find more money than they thought they had at first; several having as much as $10. What will happen then? Most likely, the "bidding war" will re-open, and the price of that quart of milk may very well shoot all the way up to $10!
What's the milk "worth" now? $1? $3? Or $10?
Obviously, it's not "worth" any particular amount, but has a "sliding scale" of apparent worth which is related solely to supply & demand.
On a national scale, the same principles are operative. Whenever the government releases un-backed paper money, everyone, on the average, gets a little more paper. Obviously, some get more of it than others, but on the average, people will clearly have more paper.
What will the people do? Why, they'll go shopping, of course. Now, with all these people in the stores, competing for the same products, what will the shopkeeper do? Well, he's going to raise his prices, of course. Why shouldn't he? Everyone's got more money, and they're all spending! Those prices are just going to keep going up, and up, and up ... until people simply refuse to pay more.
When the shopkeepers see that the people aren't coming in, they'll stop raising prices. The prices might even drop a little, but not too much. Basically, prices will freeze at the current high level.
The net result of all this is that, although everyone has more "money" (i.e.pieces of paper labeled "money"), nevertheless everything costs more, so that the power to purchase winds up being exactly the same as it was before.
Actually, for most people, the power to purchase does not remain the same, but decreases. When new money gets dumped, most of it will invariably go to those who already have more -- this is the "way" of our Luciferian world (so far). The poor and lower middle classes will get disproportionately little, if any, of this new "money" -- unless, that is, their employers give them a raise. How likely is that?
Therefore, the net effect of printing bogus, unbacked money, is that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Where have we heard this before? And why do people put up with this chicanery in every generation?
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
We cannot go into the complex subject of income tax at this time, but perhaps this will be added in the future.
In the meantime, there are many books already in print on the subject, and we have little to add to what's already been written.
If you believe that the "government" collects income tax from "the people" and distributes it to the poor, then you need to study. For starters, I would highly recommend "Vulture in Eagle's Clothing" by Lynn Merideth. The book costs $40, and it's worth every penny. It is the most entertaining of the available books I've seen on the subject. It can be purchased directly from "We The People', 16585 Pacific Coast Highway, Sunset Beach, California 92642, tel 562-592-9077. Internet:www.Freedommall.com. Note the capital "F" in the file name.
--CLICK "BACK" TO RETURN--
United States Constitution
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
(Click to read the U.S. Constitution)
--End of footnote--
Click "Back" to return"
United States Constitution
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
(Click to read the U.S. Constitution)
--End of footnote--
Click "Back" to return"