Saturday, November 30, 2013

"All the back-bone of Jefferson’s thought and of Van Buren’s forgotten!"

‘A nation that will not get itself into debt drives the usurers to fury’ - Ezra Pound   
Only 16 years after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, President James Garfield met the same bloody fate, even though he did not support the greenback and conceded that paper should be backed by silver and gold.  He was resolute in affirming however that Congress should be master of the money supply.  In his inaugural address he insisted that it was ‘the chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value’.(1)
 Tzar Alexander II was assassinated in the same year, following several attempts on his life since 1866, shortly after Lincoln’s death.  However, Russia remained beyond the clutches of Usura, and the murdered Tzar was succeeded by his son, Alexander III.

When the time came to formalise and monopolise an American economy based on government debt, the outcome was almost anti-climactic.  On 23rd December 1913 the house of representatives passed the Federal Reserve Act, but it was still having difficulty in its passage through the senate.  Most members of congress had gone home for the holidays, but the senate had not adjourned and was technically still in session. There were only three members still present.  On a unanimous consent voice vote, the 1913 Federal Reserve Act was passed. No objection was made, because there was no one there to object.

Anti-climactic this may have been, but the impact of America’s formal assumption into Usura’s empire of central banking was to be devastating and world-changing in the century of world wars ahead.  The First World War started almost immediately after the US was securely within the banking system.

Ezra Pound made the insightful observation that ‘A nation that will not get itself into debt drives the usurers to fury’.  And it would indeed appear that the allied powers of Usura (Britain, France and USA) have waged war against countries that have resisted the debt-based financing of central banks, more recently Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

World War One started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly turned into a war between Usura and Germany.  Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, it was heavily restricted and inflation kept to reasonable levels.  Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Germany’s economic growth was outstripping those of Britain and France.  Put simply, Germany was a threat to Usura’s dominance. 

This was especially so once Germany had agreed the construction of a Baghdad to Berlin railway with the Ottoman Empire, a strategic supply line which threatened Usura’s monopoly access to oil in the Middle East.  The threat from this railway, which was in fact planned to extend to Basra, was all the more critical because of Britain’s decision to switch its vast navy from coal to oil as a source of fuel.  

The German railway would provide direct access to Middle East oil and bypass the British and French controlled Suez Canal.  Germany was moving ahead and clearly threatened Britain’s global hegemony.  It is perhaps not surprising after all that the first deployment of British troops once war was declared went to Basra, not the fields of Flanders.

Widening the sphere of central banking and the protection of monopoly oil investments are much more credible candidates for the causes of war with Germany than the incident at Sarajevo, the stuff of Whig history.  America’s late entry to the war was for no other reason than to kill off the external threat to Usura’s expansionist ambitions.  Committing aid to its two former colonial masters would otherwise have been perverse, as indeed it appeared to many Americans at the time.  The infamous Balfour Agreement may have had a role in persuading the Jewish banking interests behind the U.S. government to lobby for support for Britain, in return for a Zionist homeland on Palestinian land.  However, this conspiracy is surplus to the geopolitical reasons already stated.

Entering the War, there were many empires.  Leaving it, there was one, Usura, the combined forces of Britain, France and the U.S.

In the aftermath of war, Germany's private central bank, to which Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the reparations exacted by the Treaty of Versailles, broke free of government control and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators), permanently trapping the German people in endless debt. When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for economic renewal.

Obtaining dispassionate historical analyses of the German economy as it stood before the Second World War is impossible.  The control over the interpretation of the events of that era is central to the current political settlement and will not be relinquished in a hurry.  What everyone does agree upon is the fact that from 1933 Germany experienced an economic growth spurt.  It appears that this coincided with an abandonment of a gold-backed currency, with the result that barter - the direct exchange of goods - became possible in international trade.  An example of this is Germany’s exchanging locomotives for Argentinean beef, which did not require international trading credits or a reserve currency.

The underpinning principle of economic policy was one promulgated by Gottfried Feder, which was that labour creates value, not gold.  In an attempt to apply this principle, the German government introduced bills of credit called mefo-wechsel to the value of 5.5 billion Reichsmarks.  This was added to the 4.5 billion Reich marks allowed under the Treaty of Versailles until 1933.  German heavy industry including Siemens, Krupp, and AEG undertook to cover these bills of exchange in such a way that their fixed industrial assets provided security for the newly created money. This enabled the creation of up to 10 billion Reich marks, the minimum amount required to boost the economy in a work-for-work exchange system.  After this medium was established, contracts for residential construction, superhighways and modernisation of agriculture began immediately.

The ‘problem’ with this state-issued value-based currency was that it placed Germany outside of the global economic system.  Once again, Germany was re-emerging as a threat to the dominance of Usura.

It was in the context of similar economic developments that Ezra Pound drew a comparison between Italy and the America of the Jefferson years.  The United States in its post-revolutionary era had once stood against the expanding might of Usura. Pound in his wartime radio broadcasts reminded the American public of that lost history. He had already written of the ‘laziness of whole generations!, All the back-bone of Jefferson’s thought and of Van Buren’s forgotten! Benefits of the latter, lost in civil war and post civil war finance!’(2)

As early as 1933, a global boycott was organised against Germany,(3) a regime that was attempting to operate outside the purview of the central bankers.  In 1939, as Germany’s full-employment economy began to flex its muscles against the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty, Usura felt compelled to declare war.

‘The aim of finance is always to gain by other’s labour’, wrote Ezra Pound. Ultimately, this has to be imposed by force, and war in the modern context is the compulsion of one to work for another in the aggregate, writ large.  The renunciation of love for power and gold was no neutral choice.  The triumph of a credo once held by a minority forced by circumstances to live on the margins of society was neither progress nor rationality, as the supporting superstructure of ideas in philosophy, science and art might have us believe.  This was enslavement, enforced militarily. No wonder the vertically orientated societies of Russia and Japan were horizontalised by Usura - one by financial support from bankers for a small coterie intent on revolution, the other, literally, by atomic bombs.

The last great target for assimilation by Usura is Islam and the last vestige of theocratic rule in Iran.  It is the denouement to this confrontation that lies at the heart of the present global crisis, which had its origins in 1694 with the founding of the Bank of England.

1. James A. Garfield, Inaugural Address, Friday, March 4, 1881, quoted on  (Citation dated 29.11.13.)

2. Ezra Pound, ABC of Economics, Faber and Faber, London, 1933, p.63

3. Berel Lang, Philosophical Witnessing: The Holocaust as Presence, Brandeis University Press, 2009, p.132

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

History NOT according to Spielberg

That slavery was not the cause of the American Civil War was clearly recognised with hindsight by Otto von Bismark, the Chancellor of the rising German state, a country still beyond Usura’a borders when Bismark wrote this in 1876.
The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe, these bankers were afraid that the United States if they remained as one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence which would upset their financial domination over the world.

Of the usurocracy, Bismark wrote - they foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.
Lincoln stood no chance of obtaining war loans at realistic interest rates from the money lenders who wanted the Union to fail. The solution to the problem was the ‘greenback’, effectively the resurrection of colonial scrip. Upon taking action to print $450 million worth of greenbacks, Lincoln made this statement of defiance to the forces of Usura intent upon undermining the Union’s cause.
The government should create, issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles, the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.
Abraham Lincoln

It was a defiance for which he would pay dearly shortly after the war ended.

Responding to Lincoln’s action, the Usurocracy published its own manifesto of intent towards America in the London Times.
If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe. (Hazard Circular - London Times 1865)
Tzar Alexander II of Russia, who continued to fend off the forces of Usura, blocking their attempts to achieve a foothold in his own country, recognised a potential ally in America if only it could successfully resist the Usurocracy’s efforts to split the country. The Tsar declared that if France or Britain gave help to the South, Russia would consider this an act of war. In making this declaration of support for Lincoln’s opposition to Usura, he declared himself an enemy of the bankers too.

In 1863, with victory in sight, Lincoln was desperate for more funds to complete his final push. Having ensured that Lincoln would get no further support from Congress for the issue of more greenbacks, the representatives of the usurocracy proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes.

Given Lincoln’s enthusiasm for the state issue of ‘all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers’, it is certain that he would have reversed the National Bank Act after gaining renewed public support in his re-election victory. That is, had he not been assassinated only 41 days after being re-elected. The National Bank Act was safe but, if Bismark was right, it had taken a highly mechanised and vicious war, with the resultant death of millions, to make it so.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Usura's endless wars

Napoleon  "When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation"
In 1790 Mayer Amschel Rothschild was alleged to have said, ‘let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws’. Certainly in keeping with this maxim, whoever said it, the Usurocracy decided that its interests would be best served by allowing America independence, whilst establishing a ‘national bank’ on US soil, which English bankers would control. Thereafter, repeated attempts to establish a US equivalent to the Bank of England succeeded temporarily, only to be defeated by dogged opposition from founding father notables.

The renewal of the charter for the First Bank of the United States was vetoed by Congress in 1811 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Within five months, the young nation was plunged into another war with Usura. Britain attacked America and started the war of 1812. With conflict raging across land and sea for 32 months, the war achieved no territorial change between either side. However, Usura secured a victory of sorts as, by 1816, faced with economic hardship from the war, Congress approved a second national bank.

Whilst Usura waged war upon America, Napoleon’s struggle against the twin forces of money supply control and military might was drawing to a close. Napoleon made his reasons for restisting Usura clear.

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1815.

Instead of resorting to the banks, Napoleon sold territory west of the Mississippi to the United States for 3 million dollars in gold; a deal known as the Louisiana Purchase. However, everywhere Napoleon went at the head of his conquering armies, he found that Usura had already been there before him. The Bank of England made huge profits as Prussia, Austria and finally Russia all went heavily into debt trying to stop him.

A Rothschild financed attack from Spain in the south and other defeats eventually defeated France, forcing Napoleon into exile on Elba. Even before the later battle of Waterloo, Usura’s victory was complete. Napoleon was forced to raise money from the banks to make his last bid for glory. Whatever the outcome of Waterloo, control over the money supply would remain in the Usurocracy’s hands, and it would ‘care not who writes the laws’.

With Usura’s empire seemingly secure on both sides of the Atlantic, the Americans rebelled again. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson personally vetoed another move to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the US, becoming the only president whose administration totally abolished the national debt. When asked what was the greatest achievement of his career, Jackson replied, ‘I killed the bank’. These famous words later served as the epitaph on his gravestone.

Only three years after the veto, there was a failed assassination attempt on Jackson’s life. Usura was held at bay, but would not let go. A growing world power with massive resources and scope for taxation would not be tolerated long outside of the central banking system. A divide and conquer opportunity to redress matters came in 1861 with the American Civil War, thus qualifying it as yet another of Usura’s endless wars.

John Dunn.