Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Conversation Of Our Generation

5 June 2018

About a year ago, a young man named Nick Jamell started a blog ConversationOfOurGeneration.com in an attempt to cut through the lack of clear thinking and responsible debate that he saw occurring across the internet and in public life on matters of social importance.

He was recently interviewed by Jack Spirko (at The Survival Podcast, which caught my attention because it deals with Permaculture), and he seemed like a sincere guy who really wanted to see some changes made on this planet. I offered to write a “guest blog” for him, and he graciously agreed to publish it (linked above).

I wrote a piece entitled “My Paradigm Shift Experience” which tried to convey in just a few words the depth of change a person may experience as he shifts from merely studying and discussing the human situation to becoming involved with a group that is actually doing something about it.

I might note that this shift started for me by reading a real book and interacting face-to-face with real people who were involved with the movement we all know as Scientology. I don’t know if an experience like that can be duplicated on the internet. But as this internet is now the place where so many of us connect, I hope that for many people that experience can at least start here.

Advertisements

Love is Love

27 December 2017

love is love yard sign

The sign in my neighbors’ yard.


The sign
Pictured above is the sign that serves as a jumping-off point for this little article.

This one is the only one I have seen in my neighborhood, however, when I walked through the Land Park neighborhood (an affluent area just south of downtown built in the early 1900s) I saw several of them.

The Sacramento Bee ran an article concerning this sign sometime back, reporting that someone had gotten in trouble with their neighborhood association for posting this sign (and then getting more so other neighbors could put them in their yards) on the basis that it made the yards look “cluttered” and therefore could be a threat to local land values. This was a specious (deceptive) argument, to say the least.

The sign itself, of course, is a reaction to the perceived threat of a reactionary US President and the beliefs of those who brought him into office. But due to the need for visibility and limited space, the “liberal” concepts it tries to convey are delivered in oversimplified phrases that have very little literal meaning.

Most of these sentiments are stated as logical tautologies, or equivalences if you were speaking mathematically, by using the word “is” or “are.” In Dianetics, such phrases – if taken seriously – would be considered “identity thinking.” In identity thinking, “road” could equal “rode” could equal “rowed” because they are all pronounced the same. To state such a thing in writing, however, would be an obvious mistake, or taken as a joke.

Let’s go through these sentiments one at a time:

All People are Equal

Though, literally, this is obviously untrue (it would be truer to say, “all people are different”), it is of course meant to convey the idea that people should all be treated equally by our public institutions, such as police, courts, schools, even businesses.

This is a common liberal idea and is widely agreed to, yet obviously not well-complied with. Furthermore, propaganda meant to be divisive (as in “divide and conquer”) exploits the many obvious differences between people to weaken or break community bonds that tend to form normally as people live and work together. The huge question is: Who has been forwarding such divisive propaganda, and to what ends? It has been going on for centuries, and even though we have established equal rights for all in the legal arena, this seems to have very little effect on the divisive ideas spewing from…where?

Though the legal arena was an obvious target that needed to be corrected, it should be clear by now that it was not the source of these ideas, but simply used by some to enforce inequalities. Most liberals have nothing to say about this. They simply don’t know where the divisiveness is coming from.

Love is Love

Though totally meaningless at a superficial level, this I assume is meant to convey that we should not judge others based on who or what they love. It is a grand and sweeping concept, but rarely practiced with any rigor. What liberal, for instance, would welcome Scientology into their lives (though its concepts would assist them greatly in many ways)? The intellectual world has been so riddled with lies and half-truths (perhaps it has always been this way) that many cannot really decide what to believe, but tend to believe what they are told by individuals or institutions that are thought to align with their way of thinking.

Black Lives Matter

This is a restatement of the first sentiment for the case of race in particular. Black Lives Matter originated as an organization in 2013 after the Trayvon Martin shooting, when the killer was let off on the argument that he thought his life was in danger. It is only one of many historical attempts to deal with the obvious targeting of dark-skinned people, and particularly the people of Africa or African descent, for “inferior” treatment, if not outright extermination.

This was an issue when I was in junior high school (late 1960s) and there were concerted attempts to teach white children about black history even back then. It is obvious to me that this issue goes beyond the realm of ordinary human empathy and understanding and is being fueled by people who desperately want to keep it alive, don’t care about either whites or blacks or anyone in between, and have inserted themselves into society – largely undetected – in positions where they can continue to fan the flames of race hatred. I am sure those persons are hoping that race hatred will never die and that they will always have it in their arsenal of methods for weakening or destroying human communities.

Psychologically, such people are “criminally insane,” and our only hope on this issue is to identify them and shut down their operations. The average liberal, however, would not be able to think in these terms. That is why I – and many others – believe that liberalism itself has been subverted by some very slick operators who knew just what strings to pull.

Immigrants and Refugees are Welcome

I very much sympathize with this point of view, yet it is much easier said than done. The average local American community today is already overwhelmed by crime problems and/or economic problems. Local managers failed to notice or understand the takeovers they were experiencing, or let themselves be recruited into those operations on the promise of financial rewards.

Local communities should be able to expand to take on new residents and integrate them into the local economy. This has happened to various degrees in many places. Yet the same attitudes and knowledge gaps that allowed the general situation to deteriorate to the point it has impedes us in this effort as well.

And of course, most modern migration pressures have been caused by war, which is one of the biggest human failings of history and one of the most intractable. With what I have learned about this subject, I don’t think the human race will be successful in handling the subject of war unless it advances considerably in spiritual awareness. The subject has that much complexity associated with it.

Science is Real

Here again we have a sentiment rendered superficially meaningless through oversimplification of expression. I assume that what it is really referring to is the fact that the scientific community has long been warning about the ultimate consequences of our headlong march towards a high-tech planet.

An early example of this was the Ozone Hole. Certain man-made gasses were getting into the stratosphere where they were causing depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer, particularly at the poles. This was noticed in the 1970s, the link to CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons – freon) was proven, and steps were taken internationally to reduce airborne CFCs. Observations indicate that the “holes” discovered are now reducing. The ozone layer helps shield the planet from excessive ultraviolet light, which is damaging to life forms.

An odd back story on the ozone issue is that Billy Meier claims that his efforts contributed to the mobilization of the scientific community on this issue, and that his data came from his contacts, who were ostensibly ET (extra-terrestrial). Though there are many who don’t believe Meier at all, I do not share such a low opinion of him, and think his story is quite plausible.

The two above paragraphs taken together illustrate how “science,” or more properly the scientific community, actually behaves. One of the great scientists of earlier years, Gregor Mendel (genetics), though well-schooled, lived as the friar of a monastery for much of his adult life, and also worked as a teacher. All he needed for his work was time and a garden where he could grow his peas. His discoveries were significant, though not really recognized as such until after his death. Modern scientists often work with very complex and expensive machinery, for which they must convince corporate sponsors to provide large research grants. This leaves the sponsors, to some significant measure, in control of what science studies. Scientists have also been employed by governments to develop new weapons systems. The most significant modern example of this was the development of the atom bomb in the 1940s.

It is said that many scientists today are employed in secret programs. There are also many employed by a variety of companies for the purpose of developing ideas or materials that those companies can then use to enhance their profitability. The most scientific freedom is considered to exist at universities, yet I would guess that “garage scientists” have the most freedom today, limited though by their financial resources.

John E. Mack is an example of a tenured professor who got into trouble with his school administration (Harvard Medical School) due to his abiding interest in “alien abduction” experiences. Though he was vindicated, it is also noted that he had some very influential backers such as Laurence Rockefeller.

One might ask, then: What is real? This is what most people – and true liberals should be among the first to take a closer look at this – are having trouble with today. Various sectors of society have skipped ahead of the mainstream, and are exploring in areas that are considered quite “unreal” to most people. Those involved is such subjects are very aware of their reality, yet forces exist in society – as mentioned above – that would prefer the majority of the population not be exposed to such data yet, if ever.

A recent unusual event in this regard was the New York Times coverage of a story about a “secret” Pentagon program known as the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program. The story then spread to other mainstream news outlets. This exposed mainstream audiences to the idea that UFOs are real, and that some possibly pose a military threat to Earth.

Women’s Rights are Human Rights

Though superficially this is simply a restatement of the earlier affirmation that “all people are equal,” I am guessing this refers in particular to “reproductive rights” which also intersects with the moral issue of sexual behavior.

This is a very touchy area. Everyone understands the need for sex as the way to perpetuate our species. But very few understand why they often feel compelled to indulge in sexual conduct regardless of their marital status or need, desire, or ability to nurture children. There is a disconnect there that few are able to fathom. On the one hand, the data I have indicate that it is wiser to err in the direction of celibacy. This somewhat supports the “Right” who want to keep sex “in the family.” But they don’t have my data and are usually operating under moral imperatives taught by their religions. I could say that in this case, those teachings were onto something. But where is the rest of the data, that would tie the whole thing together and give it some sense?

Look: If you are basically an immortal spiritual being, then – basically – there is no reason for sex to be important to you. But no one is talking about that angle of the issue. The result is an argument that could go on forever – and probably will.

Just to restate the data I have relating to abortion: The embryo is of course a living animal, on the order of a fish or a chicken. We consider it OK to kill fish or chickens, yet that is because we use them for food. Thus, the killing of an embryo is an otherwise pointless killing of an animal. The being – the personality, you could say – usually attaches to the body around the time of birth. At that point you are dealing with a full human being who should ideally have full human rights. Part of recognizing those rights, however, relies on recognizing what that human being really is and why it came here to live on Earth. Most people have no idea about this.

People and Planet are valued over Profit

This is the ideological link to various anti-capitalist ideologies that liberals have always been sympathetic to but never felt they needed to support 100 percent. This sentiment opens the door to wiping out big business. Yet, even though we all see that something is wrong in this sector of life, and has been for ages and ages, what exactly that is has never really been pinned down. Supporters of capitalism, and in particular of the idea of free markets have some very strong arguments. Yet they show no real superior understanding of the situation. Society’s charge towards a high-tech future, alluded to earlier, has been led by big corporations. Why should we trust our future to their leadership? I don’t think we should. But what the current situation is telling us is that those big companies know more about this subject than we do. And this is probably correct. So, if we can’t find some way to catch up, those new leaders become our de facto leaders. Right now, there’s just no one else out there wearing those boots. I don’t like it, but I know I don’t have the resources to replace them with more enlightened personnel.

Where I last worked, our company founder used to tell us that “risk is the moral justification for profit.” The implication was that profit (you could call it usury) would otherwise have no moral justification. However, the most basic economic concept of profit is embedded in the life cycle of our species. It is most obvious at the front end, when the being is growing its body, the body not yet big enough or strong enough to be fully productive. Someone who is fully productive has to be willing to share a portion of the wealth (or energy) it has earned with the younger ones who are not ready yet. Thus, he must make a “profit.” Profit for its own sake amounts to little more than a sort of PR or propaganda: “I am better than you are,” it says. Well, this might be true in some ways, but anyone who basically understood the situation would not indulge in such foolishness. My point is that profit per se is not our problem. Profit for its own sake can be a problem, and profits obtained by unethical (criminal) means is criminal profit and should be so treated.

According to higher ethical principles, when a being or group acts to enrich only itself at the expense of the other dynamics, they are not being ethical enough. This is probably what this line on the yard sign is really trying to convey.

Diversity is Celebrated

In contrast to the notion that “all people are equal” we are going to celebrate diversity. Well, this is a nice phrase. I’m not sure how it should be implemented, and you can see the irony in it, juxtaposed with the first phrase. But, what if you went ahead to say: Nonconformity is celebrated? This brings this issue out a little more sharply.

Compared to many places and cultures on this planet, the United States remains a quite liberal place and culture. Yet, something has changed. How was Communism able to retain its position as a “left wing” ideology even after abuses under Stalin and Mao clearly indicated is was operating closer to a totalitarianism? How did liberalism come to embrace atheism, even to the extent of rejecting the work of L. Ron Hubbard, as well as its more tradition-oriented relative, the New Age Movement? Why are most liberals so sure the Creationists are wrong?

In short: We have been played (fooled, as in a con game). A criminal element took advantage of our uncertainties, our insecurities, and our lack of really excellent memory to pull us into a game that we find very much less than ideal, and certainly not in good alignment with our own ideals.

We were on the verge, in the 1960s, of beginning to discover what the rest of our universe – starting with our own moon – was really all about. And certain individuals, certain groups, did not want this to occur. So they began on a course of establishing a wall of fake knowledge to keep us away from higher truths that would have been inconvenient for us to learn. A few found out anyway, and they were marginalized (like LRH was) or eliminated (like JFK was) as seemed suitable to that new enforcement group. The rest who know are either part of that group, are too afraid of them to speak out, or are considered too unimportant to warrant much attention.

As was briefly mentioned above, there seems to be some change in this situation in very recent times. It remains to be seen how far-reaching that change will be. Certainly, my church continues to forge ahead. Yet it is still encountering strong opposition in some quarters. More “whistle blowers” are coming forward. Yet what they have to share does not seem that revelatory at this point.

But all this could change. For one thing, LRH’s work has been on the planet for over 60 years now, longer than I have been alive. People are studying and applying those materials. For most who are so exposed, there is no turning back. Like the people who have out-of-body experiences. The impression it has on them is just too strong to ignore. And beyond that, the UFO sightings just won’t go away. They are a constant reminder – almost to the point of nagging – that we need to get smart as a species and quick.

I for one cannot predict a time in the near future when things will get quiet and peaceful here on Earth the way they used to be before the Industrial Revolution. I am aware that we are faced with choices, choices that most don’t even fully understand. There seem to be basically two: “progress” and “sustainability.” “Progress” leads us into an era of Space Opera. At this point, most of us don’t realize that we have all lived through Space Opera probably multiple times before. So it is being successfully promoted as a step forward in our evolution as a species. That’s a lie, and the current managers seem to be afraid we will remember our own pasts and realize this. The other choice involves a retreat from Space Opera into a time of ecological balance and spiritual improvement. Those promoting this are wonderful people, very idealistic. But they really have no idea what they are up against. They will end up with the best karma, but it is unclear what else they will end up with.

A third choice exists. It involves getting smart very quick, and then choosing a more workable path than either of the two main paths currently being offered to us. That would be a great adventure. The potential for great wins is enormous. And I suppose so is the potential for great losses. But if you factor in the knowledge that a being is basically unkillable and always at cause, I think the potential for win is greater, as these are immutable truths that no one can really take from us, no matter how hard they try.

As we approach a new year, I wish all who read this a great and most remarkable future.

Banking

18 May 2017

I wanted to write something about this subject because I have been studying about how home loans work, and it helped me realize some things that others have been pointing out for a long time.

Note that on 19 May I rewrote this post to try to make it more accurate; see more about that below.

Financial people tend to speak in terms that are not easily understood, and to assume you know about something that you don’t actually know about. However, most people have heard of the term “balancing the books” and this is a basic concept worth going over.

I suppose the idea that the books have to “stay in balance” is similar to the idea that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” In the physical universe, this is true by observation. However, money and finance are conceptual universes, or you could say a kind of mathematical model of the physical universe. If a car exists, it is assumed that someone was paid to make it, whether that’s really what happened or not. So if I buy a car, I basically convert some of my cash into a vehicle. In my books (if I kept books), the price paid moves out of the Cash asset category and into the Vehicles asset category, and they stay balanced. What if someone gave me the car? I basically have to create a special category for gifts, which in a commercial business would be similar to something called “retained earnings”.

Debt

Now, say I’m a bank, and I have some deposits from my customers, and loan a portion of these to someone. This decreases my cash – the pool I make loans from. How do I replenish that pool (other than by getting more deposits)? In normal banking I would have to use part of my income (payments on loans I had already made to other people) and put that back into my cash. In mortgage banking I could do something called “selling the loan.” Basically, the loan turns into a security (essentially a document that can be bought and sold) that I can sell to a company that buys those types of securities.

Where do those companies get their money? They also create and sell securities – stock, basically – to investors. The investors include a lot of firms that help people save for retirement, as well as other investment firms. Those firms buy all sorts of stocks and other securities with that money.

The ultimate source of money for buying debt (making loans) in the U.S. is the Federal Reserve. The “Fed” is part of a network of “Central Banks.” Central Banks get charters from governments to control the money supply for them. They regulate banks, and they buy debt (or make loans, however you want to look at it). The Central Banks deal mostly with the large commercial banks, which are all international corporations. Smaller local institutions deal mostly with the big banks. The chain of purchasing debt works its way down until you get to the borrowers, who are expected to keep up their flow of payments. Governments are also large borrowers. To borrow money, they issue “bonds,” which come with a promise to pay dividends, and the full amount borrowed at the time of maturity. So in the case of government borrowing, the taxpayers, have to pay all that through their taxes. That’s why “bond initiatives” have to be approved by voters. In the end, a lot of what we make at our jobs goes to make profits for the owners of “debt.”

Making Money

Before my recent studies, I hadn’t really heard about this practice of “selling debt.” But debt is a receivable on the bank’s books, so it is worth something. It never occurred to me that you could somehow sell that to another company to get more cash (stay liquid, as the financial people call it). But this is really just another way of saying that the bank borrowed some cash. I’ve heard of companies borrowing to make payrolls, or buy new equipment. I’d just never heard of banks borrowing so they could make more loans. Of course, assuming they continue to service (collect payments) on the loans they sell, they have to forward most of those payments to the new owners of the loans, so that portion of their income is no longer available for lending.

As I wrote this, I came to see that “selling debt” could also be given another meaning. It could also be seen as selling people – governments in particular – on the idea that they should borrow money in order to do things. They shouldn’t save, they should borrow. You shouldn’t “wait until you can afford it,” you should buy it right now, do it right now. With governments, this is particularly pushed as a way to finance wars. Every major war I am aware of was financed with debt – the taxpayers (via the government) borrowed money from banks, then had to pay it all back afterwards. It is a potent way to “make money” in a short amount of time. I don’t know, however, if it really accomplishes anything over longer periods, especially if it involves making war.

Fractional Reserve Banking

Some people believe that this is a new idea. But it is really just a newer term for an old idea. According to Google’s Ngram viewer, the phrase first appeared in literature around the turn of the last century.
As long as banks have been loaning money, they have been using deposited funds (or other assets) to do so. The idea of “Central Banks” was pushed into place after it seemed that unregulated banks had an inclination to dig too deep into their cash. Now Central Banks police what fraction of a bank’s deposits (or cash, to use a simpler term) must be held in reserve so that their depositors will be happy with the illusion that their full deposited balance could be withdrawn at any time. Depositors get to account for their full deposited amounts as “cash,” when in reality only a fraction of that amount is actually available to be paid out from the bank’s reserves.

No one likes “reserves” because they just sit there and don’t do anything. It’s kind of like a having a Fire Department in your town. In a perfect world, they would never have a fire to fight, or even a cat to get out of a tree. In this real world, you need to have one because “stuff happens.” Same goes for reserves.

Some would argue that amounts held is reserve should be quite substantial. It gives stability to an economy, and breeds a certain level of confidence, even a certain willingness to take risks. I think there is validity to those arguments. But that does not mean banks need to keep 100% of their “on demand” cash deposits as reserves. This is discussed more below.

The beauty of a cashless system (in the eye of the banker)

In the “old days” money meant gold coins, or ingots of silver, or other precious metals, or gems. Today it can be reduced to a code in a bank’s database. Money (currency, really) had to be manufactured, transported and stored when not in use. Meanwhile, businessmen had grown used to account books, and moving larger sums around using bank drafts instead of currency. This began the move away from “hard” money. The “softer” the money, the easier it was to handle and move about. Banks and their major customers really liked these benefits. And so, national currencies were pushed into place, the use of paper money was greatly expanded, and finally computer systems were developed that just require an ID card to access account records.

Global-scale electronic funds transfer systems now exist, and are very widely used. All accounts at all modern banks are computerized. Banks are now relieved of the problem of having to store precious metals in their vaults, though “modern” money can still be stolen. To the extent that the world goes cashless, banks and stores are relieved of the problem of securing their on-hand currency, and only have to worry about their computers, which can be locked away in their now-empty vaults.

So, what’s so good about cash?

However, the credit or debit card holder now has to worry about the security of his electronic transactions. I once had a bank make a $2,500 error in my favor. They never bothered to correct it, though I told them about it more than once. For them it was insignificant, but that’s a huge amount for me. What if my account suddenly one day had $2,500 less in it? They better be able to correct that!

In a secure and honest world, using a card instead of cash (currency) would be a great way to go. In the world as it really exists, I want to be able to fall back on coins and paper money. If a store’s electronic payment system goes down, I want them to accept my cash. If I need some water out of an old-style vending machine, I need some coins or I go thirsty. If I want to tip a waiter, it’s easier for me to think with using a couple of extra bills.

When money is a commodity, then you can’t have some unless you earn it or physically steal it from somebody. When money is only a number in a database, what happens if I can’t get access to that database? And what happens if someone can get illegal access to it? Or in some other way fiddle with accounts just by making some entries in a computer program? It gives the tech-savvy an advantage I’m not sure they’ve earned. The cashless ideal includes a reliance on technology that is not necessarily as reliable as I need it to be. At the business level, if a transaction gets fouled up, it can be fixed later. At a personal level, it could mean the difference between staying fed or going hungry.

I’m not advocating a return to cash necessarily, though we might be forced into it should the electronic funds transfer systems stop working. But I am pointing out that our turn away from cash did not handle the most important problems we have always had: dishonesty, thievery and avoidance of real productive work.

Reality Check

My original concept of how this scam works was simple, but incorrect:

The bank has my $100. I thought this meant it could loan out $1000. That’s not exactly right. It is only allowed to loan, maybe, $90. Except, that loaned money is going to end up in another bank account, and then about $80 of that could be loaned back out. That whole cycle can be imagined to repeat maybe 5 or ten times. Now a lot more than my $100 has been loaned – deposited – and re-loaned. That’s what people call “creating money.” I discuss this more below.

The other part of my perception of what was wrong with this system was the cashless nature of modern transactions. This possibly provides more opportunity to “fiddle” the system. If you have to provide a borrower with real currency to complete a loan, then if you run out of currency, you can’t make any more loans. If you only have to credit an account on a computer, then you don’t need the currency. So, who’s to stop you from just pumping out loans? Your accountant, if he’s honest. Or a regulator, the next time you get audited. So the real point here is that the removal of hard currency from the system, reducing it all to numbers in databases, has a tendency to degrade the underlying concepts of what money is and represents. It should represent real value, real productive work. You should not be able to “fiddle” it into existence when you have done nothing to earn it.

Interest

I originally linked this trend towards a cashless system to the decline of interest rates, close to their total disappearance. I have a problem with interest because I don’t think most of the explanations for it are correct. It is often described as a payment to the lender based on the risk he takes by loaning money. But what about the risk the borrower takes in borrowing money? And what about loans between friends or relatives? I think the banks just decided to shift the paradigm because they had the power to do so. Look at interest rates on savings accounts, for instance. It used to be recognized that the depositor was actually making the bank a loan, and should earn interest on his unused balance. But depositors had no way to enforce that idea on bankers, so gradually interest payments on savings accounts have reduced to almost nothing.

The abandonment of the use of interest rates to control inflation in certain markets, and the subsequent increase in the supply of money in those markets, are bits of history not totally explained by the factors discussed above. Though the smaller banks that overextended themselves before the Great Depression could be blamed for what happened, I think that blame would be misplaced. They, however, felt the brunt of new banking regulations, while at the same time, what was to become a huge boom in the mortgage markets can be traced back to those times. I think there remains an untold story (at least it hasn’t been told to me) about how that all came about and about what is unfolding today. My concern is that we will strike out at the wrong targets (called misidentifying root cause where I work) and simply prolong our agony as a result. Benefiting from the suffering of others has never been an honorable way to gain status in a society. Yet suffering continues while a few grow unbelievably rich. Until we begin to apply more effective solutions to problems of finance, the economy, and politics, we will continue on our slide towards a non-sustainable system that will eventually totally break down.

Credit:

I relied heavily on an article written my Kenneth Ballard here:
http://www.kennethballard.com/?p=2322
to get an explanation of how banks account for the loans they make.
I don’t know much about this guy, but he seems to know what he’s talking about…I wish the subject were easier to understand. I have had a terrible time trying to do so…
Wow! Mr. Ballard has responded with corrections here:
http://www.kennethballard.com/?p=4120

Follow-up notes for those interested

According to the Federal Reserve’s own website:
“Reserve requirements are the amount of funds that a depository institution must hold in reserve against specified deposit liabilities. … Depository institutions must hold reserves in the form of vault cash or deposits with Federal Reserve Banks.”

Notice that this says nothing about loaning money. The “reserve requirement” is a fraction of total monies on deposit. So, that means the rest of the monies on deposit are available to loan out. I think the first stumbling block here is the term “deposit liabilities.” Who, who isn’t accounting trained, knows what this really refers to? It’s like two conflicting ideas in the same term. This goes back to the fact that there are two balancing sides to every transaction. When a bank receives money from a depositor, it’s not a gift, but on the other hand, the depositor gets nothing in return, except a receipt. As the reference I cited at the beginning states, in the “old days” that receipt acted as money. Nowadays, the fact that a person has money “on account” gives them the right – or ability – to buy things with it.

The depositor counts his bank balance as cash – as a liquid asset. He can do this because there is an implied promise (perhaps written somewhere) that the bank will pay him back “on demand.” More realistically, the depositor has loaned the bank some money for its use. But there is no formal loan contract, as would be the case if the depositor had purchased a CD or a bond. So the depositor is encouraged to not think of his deposits as “on loan” to the bank. However, that is closer to the actual situation. I think this difference between perception and reality is what some people object to. Yet, if the banks do a good job, no one will ever know the difference.

It could be argued that banks should be more honest about what they are doing. It would probably better reflect how they actually operate if they sold bonds or CDs to anyone who wanted to maintain a significant balance with them. Or to make them a “member” like the Credit Unions do.

Private individuals are never going to fully realize that a portion of their deposited funds is being loaned to others unless the way their account at the bank works actually makes that clear. In the past it has been a workable system in spite of this. But since interest rates collapsed, more and more people are questioning it. The “multiplier effect” would still work, but perhaps the banks should be made more responsible for both the positive and negative aspects of it. Having to “insure” bank accounts is not something that should be necessary. If the banking system were more honest with the public about how it actually operates, I think the public would support it – especially if it resulted in real economic growth at the local level. Right now something is suppressing that growth. Questionable ethics levels in the banking community does not help matters any. The banking system has a lot of power to do good in society. Or harm. It is not currently demonstrating the good side of that power.

The Election

7 November 2016

The sites I follow are buzzing about this U.S. election.

Here is my take on it at this point:

Hillary stands for business-as-usual; a predictable outcome.

Trump stands for disruptive changes; he seems unpredictable at this point.

No one in the race stands for planned change based on ethical principles and workable management processes, implemented in an organized manner. Such a being would be the only one deserving a place of leadership at this time.

Is there a higher struggle?

The media, the pundits, and academics for the most part, dismiss the idea that a lot is going on in secret; that these candidates are merely proxies for power groups that wish to remain hidden and unidentified.

The alternative news sources that I follow, on the other hand, see this as the obvious truth of the situation and openly mock anyone who refuses to see it and deal with it.

The problem is that the alternative sources don’t have it right, either. And it’s my guess that this is because they rely too heavily for data on “insiders.”

For instance, Veterans Today thinks Hillary is being supported by the more moderate power groups who ultimately oppose the extremists who are supporting Trump. Their editor Gordon Duff accuses the FBI of being full of conspiracy theorists and protectors of criminals. Odd he’d say that, as Gordon is one of the biggest conspiracy theorists on the planet. And I don’t use that term derogatorily.

Meanwhile, over in England Simon Parkes is telling us that the FBI is made up mostly of people who are trying to do the right thing and don’t want a known pedophile working as our President. While Trump’s not much better, he stands for change and change is what is needed.

Julian Assange in a recent interview said he thinks Trump will not be allowed to serve in office even if he overwhelmingly wins the popular vote. However, he also said that Hillary’s accusations that Russia is behind the most recent release of documents is totally ridiculous.

I also ran across an October video from Clif High, a Seattle software genius who data mines the internet to find “data sets” that indicate the most desired (and probable) future. He finds a landslide popular win for Trump which the rest of the world reacts to with total disgust. Almost all countries holding U.S. debt contracts try to dump them, precipitating tremendous inflation here in the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. officials refuse to allow Trump to take office, but Hillary has disappeared and cannot be located.

The best-organized group wins

Here is a key datum about politics:

“A small group thoroughly organized can conquer the disorganized billions.”

L. Ron Hubbard, ORGANIZATION AND MORALE, 1 Nov 1970.

If you want to figure out what group is really running this planet these days (if there is just one) then look for that group that is extremely well-organized. In human groups this has often meant a group beaten into being organized. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really matter exactly how the group maintains and defends its organization; it just has to be very well-organized. A group that depends on constant threats of violence to maintain organization will eventually falter, as the most brilliant beings will usually leave it. But this basic datum still holds.

And the most organized group I am aware of – at least it used to be extremely tightly organized per reports – is the one running our secret space programs. Descriptions of it come from Corey Goode, William Tompkins, Sean David Morton, Steven Greer and other researchers and past insiders.

Per Tompkins and some others, this particular group is part of a longer lineage of powerful groups that get created due to rivalries between various ET groups regarding Earth. One ET alliance prefers an invasion approach to expansion, mirrored on Earth by groups currently centered in Europe. Another alliance prefers a more peaceful approach based on free trade. They are both interested in Earth at this time, and have had some interest for many centuries into the past. But now Earth is set up to go Space Opera, and the number of ET groups now interested in Earth has multiplied.

Of course there is another large body of ET communities that would prefer to just be left alone. But they are, almost by definition, less well-organized. So in this universe, they are very likely to get run over (or be overrun).

Need of Change

Masses of people in the U.S., to say nothing of other areas on the planet, really want change. They need something to break loose and reveal a path forward. Most of them have no idea of exactly what that path should be. Thus, at this point they are revolutionaries, or nearly at that point, as there is a minimum of planning and organization amongst them as a whole. They are very numerous, but:

“Revolution never produces anything. Throwing something out of gear momentarily, the vast inertia of a people closes in again and patches it all up.

“Evolution can be fairly fast, but evolution is on a level of the people, not on the level of the government.

“You have to change the people to change the government.”

— L. Ron Hubbard (From a lecture of 10 November 1952.)

Here he makes a distinction between “people” (disorganized) and “government” (organized) long before he became immersed in the study of organizing and management that he undertook when he managed Saint Hill as the first advanced Scientology organization on the planet in the 1960s.

Take a look at the American Revolution for example (this analysis based only on my current understanding). It was instigated by professional people and businessmen who also functioned as academics and politicians. Thus, it was built on idealism more than on organization. They were aided against Britain by France – which was itself going down an anti-aristocracy path at the time.

But just as Napoleon effectively killed, or usurped, the French Revolution in the early 1800s, so Britain re-invaded the U.S. during the War of 1812. The French had basically given all of the Midwest to the U.S. in 1803, which freaked out the British Empire, thinking it still had large amounts of leverage over the rebel colonies. But instead of re-invading, the British were apparently convinced to approach the problem differently.

With the help of the Louisiana Purchase, the U.S. established a very strong foothold in the Americas over the next 100 years, but by the end of that time, Europe had arranged a new control structure in the form of its network of Central Banks.

Who has the upper hand?

In 1967, Hubbard identified a small group based in the City of London which controlled most English-language news outlets and was tightly connected to certain banking and industrial interests, as well as psychiatry as represented by groups like the Tavistock Institute.

This group was believed to be behind the shellacking that Scientology was getting in the press in those years.

At the time, it was a big revelation for all of us. But LRH never said that this was the only secret power group in existence on Earth; or that it had no rivals; or exactly how ET might be involved. So I resort to other sources for clues:

The “invader alliance” is commonly identified as composed of Draco, Reptilians and some human types – not all individuals of these descriptions, though – and is usually identified with the European Royals and the Vatican, along with their bankers, who are related to Zionism and are Earth’s warmongers.

The other ET group attempted to influence technological and spiritual thinking in Germany in the early 1900s, but that did not go well. They have continued to make various contact attempts, such as those reported by Tompkins in his interviews and first book. As a result of this the military-industrial complex has apparently remained factionalized along lines that I think of as Group Tone Level. Some factions prefer a more conservative approach to politics, preferring persuasion, negotiation, and even convincing PR stunts, rather than constantly resorting to war. Other factions live on war and wouldn’t know what to do without it. Those groups are clearly insane, while the others are only irritatingly neurotic.

Some think the Clintons are in the conservative camp, while others are quite sure they are totally insane. Some think Trump is firmly dominated by criminals and warmongers, while others feel he might actually be in slightly better condition, mentally, than Hillary. How am I supposed to know who’s right, beyond just looking into their faces when they talk and reading the signs?

I think they are both crazy, as what other personality type would run for U.S. President at this time (who had a serious possibility of getting into office)?

Whether this election results in “business-as-usual” or unpredictable changes, I think we still have a lot to learn about people, about politics, and about ourselves. Ultimately, until a being can look at a situation and just know the truth of it, he doesn’t know the truth of it. So let’s work at developing that ability rather than playing around trying to second-guess each other.

SpaceX snafu and other news

3 September 2016

snafu: American slang popularly thought to originate during WWII, but possibly derived from an abbreviation used earlier by Morse code operators on telegraph circuits. “Situation Normal; All Fouled (Fucked) Up” has a sarcasm attached to it which may have not been originally intended, but certainly contributes to the modern meaning of “snafu.”

The first of September was an interesting day…

Many were attracted to the explosion at the SpaceX launch site in Florida. An article on the web suggested that an “attacking” object was detected in the video of the event in the frames immediately prior to the beginning of the fireball.

I downloaded and looked at the video from about 0:50 to 1:12 in slow-motion and frame-by-frame (a hidden feature of Microsoft Media Player) and saw anomalous fast-moving objects three different times directly before and in the fist second or so of the explosion. The first time, an object seems to launch from behind the middle tower, curve up toward the rocket, then away to the right. The second appearance spans only about six frames and shows an object pass all the way across the scene, just behind the rocket. The explosion starts when the object is about 1/2 way to the rocket. Very soon after the explosion starts, another object (or the same one) appears in the lower left and swiftly moves towards the upper right.

Thus, we definitely have one or more “UFOs” associated with this event and perhaps causing the explosion.

Some think the Israeli payload was not as “humanitarian” as it was made out to be, and that someone with the ways and means knew this and decided to terminate the launch.

What chance for the ways of peace?

As I mentioned in my series on Battlefield Earth, peace is not a subject often dealt with in literature. It is, perhaps, seen as boring. What LRH tried to make a case for in Battlefield Earth was that peace could be exciting. I believe history has demonstrated that societies prosper in times of peace. This would be one huge reason why criminals prefer continuous war. We are all hoping that those who take over from the City of London see things differently. It would be great for Earth to calm down a bit, as our challenges are far from over, and we could use more time to prepare for them. Our next great challenge, as I see it, is ET.

The ETs I am concerned with (and so are many others) are basically biological societies that have developed an array of assistive technologies that boost their abilities to use force to control others. Although they have deadly weapons, we are assuming they are thinking in terms of using psychological and physical force here on Earth towards the goal of enslaving us – perhaps without our being totally aware of the situation. Similar techniques have “worked” on Earth. We might assume that ET is better at these techniques than our humans have been.

So the challenge becomes to spot these techniques and defeat them before they “work” on us. This requires training and is the principal reason we need more time. We will probably not get as much time as we would like. Fortunately, this training program is already well underway. Perhaps there will be enough trained people to move the situation in our favor.

Washington State Primary

2 August 2016

Got an email yesterday from a political group reminding me to vote in the primary! Thought I had more time…I was planning to actually research the candidates, but it was too late. I filled out the ballot, sealed it up, and took it downtown to deposit it in a metal drop box near City Hall.

Sending a message

You can participate in a democratic process for at least two reasons: To help someone get elected or to send a message to the “front runners.” Though using voting for the second reason is not an organized activity at this point, it well could become so. I am not happy with either of the major parties. But I found out there are a lot of candidates for state offices who identify with alternative parties like the Libertarians or the Independents. I don’t know if any of these parties ever get their people elected. But by organizing and running they are trying to send a message to the major parties that there is a section of the population which is not happy with the Republicans or the Democrats. So by voting for candidates from alternative parties, you help them send this message.

Aren’t the Asses and the Dumbos actually opposing each other?

The media and the candidates themselves try to portray themselves as political opponents. But that’s not what I see. In 1963 the Democrats lost a president under mysterious circumstances. Why haven’t they ever gone after that issue? Or the 9/11 loss, which happened while a Republican President was in office?

Ike, upon retiring from the Presidency, warned us about the “military-industrial complex.” It is very real. Why don’t the politicians or the press ever mention it? Could it be that it rose to become all their masters, as Ike warned it might? That’s the theory most of us in the “alternative community” now operate on.

So by “sending a message” of non-support through the voting process, this is the power group we are ultimately communicating to.

Are politicians really necessary?

Many in my circles have argued that the importance of politics in life – especially in modern life – is extremely over-stated by the media and the politicians. Ultimately, I think that’s true.

But it would be unwise to think that just because most people, most communities, are perfectly able to take care of themselves and make their own best decisions, that this leaves no place for politics or politicians. The problem is to find that place and put those people in that place, and keep them there. In other words, government has a purpose. Most people just don’t know what it is.

Awareness of what is

The essence of politics is probably leadership. It’s secondary purpose is management. When an individual in a group rises to help that group through some challenge, and is successful at that, the group tends to look at that individual as “powerful.” The truth is that we are all powerful, but under those circumstances that individual was more aware of something than the others, and was able to communicate it in a way that got the group to work together to get something done that needed to be accomplished.

Probably that leader’s ideal scene would be to bring everyone in the group up to his own level of awareness, so they could all share equally in the responsibilities that accompany being more aware. But most leaders don’t know how to do that, or see their “power” as something they can use to their own personal advantage.

We should never forget, though, that “power” derives from an awareness of what is – some more basic truth of existence – and concentrates into the hands of a few individuals only when they are successful in keeping those awarenesses a secret from everyone else. If you can learn to become more aware of what is, you will become more free from the control of powerful elites, but you will also carry the responsibility of that increased awareness with you and feel the need to act on it, first by sharing that awareness, or that ability to be aware, as broadly as you can. You either join one of the power elites, or you “fight” them in that manner.

How divided is America?

11 July 2016

The on-screen news ticker in our mess hall (known to others as the “break room” or the “auditorium”) proclaimed today (among many other things) that Obama had said something about the US not being that divided.

The actual quote, from a video of a 9 July press conference in Poland was, “I firmly believe that America is NOT as divided as some have suggested.”
(The US President, by long tradition, refers to US citizens as “Americans” and the US as “America.”)

So, I thought, how divided is America?

I went about looking up some opinion poll results that might tell me something about this. Most of the polls I found are not that current. Apparently it still takes a good bit of time to create, organize, carry out and report on a large poll across a country or a planet. The sample has to be adequately randomized and all that…

Before I give you any figures, let’s go over some theory.

I suppose that most sociologists think that a person’s opinion about something is determined mostly by 1) his training and education and 2) a set of shared qualities often spoken of as “human nature.”

Point 1 is important without question. But what is point 2, really? You’ll have to figure out the Psychology explanations for yourself. My (far from complete) Scientology training, though, bears mentioning. The model, as you may be already aware, starts with a being. We can suppose that this being started out totally free to be, do and have anything it wanted. What we have today in “human nature” is the result of trillions of years of experience living with other beings, never totally aware of what they were or what oneself was. Humans find themselves today on a Tone Scale, where they are more or less free to move up or down. This scale was derived from observation, not dogma. It is workable when used to predict behavior and attitudes.

From the Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation, let’s take column Q, “Command over Environment” where political attitudes are mentioned. At high on the scale, 4.0, we have “dislikes to control people.” At 3.5 we have “Liberal.” At 3.0 we have, “Allows rights to others. Democratic.” At 2.5 we have “Does not desire ownership of much.” At 2.0 we have “Desires command in order to injure.” So at this point the being is taking a turn for the worse.

At 1.5 we have the Fascist. At 1.1 we have the Communist (cold-war style, sneaky, loves hypnotism as a control method, otherwise known as a “true criminal”). And at 0.1 we have the suicide.

When I speak of “suppression” I am referring in particular to one person or group trying to push another person or group DOWN this scale. The 1.1 likes to push people down to 0.1. The 1.5 likes to kill people outright. The 2.0 likes a good fight, content for the adversary to survive for another day. The higher tones are also ready to fight, but with increasing levels of selectivity (and often, effectiveness).

These are the social tones. The being itself, quite normally being unaware of itself, sleeps at a lower tone level. Wake it up, and it can do some very strange things until it gets a grip on its new sense of self-awareness. But for the purposes of this discussion, we are talking about the social tones of humans.

Most of us were raised with a “liberal” education. The majority of us fell lower subsequently, seeing Liberal values as ideals to be worked for. Democracy is seen as a safe, sensible approach to achieving those ideals. However, you have to fight for democracy! Or, do you really have to enforce it? Or, perhaps, trick people into accepting it?

All these attitudes and influences went into the creation and subsequent marketing of our “global government” the United Nations. Included in the marketing plan for this body was a document entitled the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was unveiled 10 December of 1948 in Paris. It is embraced by my church, as the right to worship freely is included in it.

The concept of human rights is not, strictly, “Liberal.” As the history of the subject reflects, human rights can be seen as much as a sensible approach than as pie-in-the-sky idealism. Cyrus the Great – 539 BC – is noted as an early proponent of this approach. However, Cyrus was, first and foremost, an emperor. And, strictly speaking, his empire only lasted 200 years. You can earn the respect of vast populations by respecting them. At least the Emperor should be able to afford to do this!

Be all that as it may, the attitude surveys I found deal mostly with the most basic human rights. These include the old Liberal rights of thought, speech and worship and the newer “socialist” (communist?) rights to food, clothing, shelter, health care, education. It should be noted here that Public Education, and many of these other “humanitarian” programs, are not ancient traditions in most lands of Earth. But on Earth, strong central governments are also a rather recent development, made possible in part by technological progress in fields like communication, transport, agriculture, medicine – oh – and, war.

The bell curve of the tone scale

Does the distribution of tone levels on earth actually fit a “bell” shaped distribution? I have no firm data on this. But imagine for a moment that you were totally free to move around on this scale as you wished and to confront or experience life at the tone that seemed the most appropriate at the time. Where on the scale would you spend most of your time? At the middle, 2.0? Perhaps down below that a bit, in pain? Or above the middle a bit, bored?

Think of all the people you know that spend most of their time somewhere between pain and boredom. Could be quite a few. Or maybe at 1.5 as an angry Fascist? Seems that might shorten one’s life span!

It has been put forward by Hubbard that about 2.5% of the population manage to secretly hang out around 1.1. It would be charitable to put the bulk of the population as high as 3.0 (Conservative), but in the reasonably calm situation of answering opinion poll questions, we can imagine many would try their best to assume that viewpoint, or higher, up into Liberalism, if their education demanded it.

But you can see the problem with these polls, and with Presidential statements regarding “divisions.” Sufficient suppression can plunge a nation down into hatred and war. Sufficient relief can allow it to surge up into a peaceful Liberalism. But real education about real life could in theory stabilize a nation at a high level that it could not be pushed down from. In these polls concerning attitudes, people are not much divided, though their ideas display a range from Liberal on down. In polls concerning things that are theoretically provable certainties, we often see more even splits. Thus, the suppression of the truth has left in question facts that should be totally knowable. This is troubling, as people need certainty, and if the certainty of something is not plain to the face, beliefs and propaganda will be used to fill in the blank spots.

The Polls

Pew (Pew Research Center) has a project called the Religious Landscape Study. Data points for this study exist for 2007 and 2014. The results for 2014 were published late in 2015.

The Council on Foreign Relations must employ a lot of researchers, because it has published reports on various global studies concerning attitudes on human rights, among other issues. The latest reports I found date from December of 2011.

I fill in some odd bits from other sources.

Attitudes

What we see from these studies is a consistent percentage spread across related issues.

Support for the traditional human rights hovers around 3/4 of those polled, both US and global.

It goes way down for freedom of the press. The press is notorious for its misbehavior. When the question is reworded to ask about the freedom of the press “to report the news truthfully,” support for this concept goes up to 70% in the US, with a low of 41% in India, where “truth” and “the press” are probably seen by most as opposites.

Support for the “socialistic” or “nanny state” human rights of more modern times shows a bit more variation in societies. We can see education and propaganda at work here.

In China 98% support the right to a basic education, with similar numbers for health care and food.

In the US, 83% supported government responsibility for basic education, 77% health care, 74% food and 70% supported government responsibility for taking care of the poor.

These are still large majorities – you could almost say, consensus for all the basic human rights.

Similar support for “Liberal/Democratic” values are seen for questions asking about “equal treatment.”

From the Pew Religions Landscape Study, for example, we find 70% of religious people agreeing that all religions should be tolerated.

Beliefs about “fact”

Now let’s swing over into the subject of belief, and in particular, belief about how things “really are.” We know for a fact (not surveyed, though) that it’s often hard to discern basic, underlying cause. If the cause of an event or situation is a criminal that wants to keep itself a secret, it may very well be successful in doing so.

Spiritual and mental technologies like Remote Viewing and Scientology auditing are beginning to get around those old barriers of perception limitations and uncertainty. But most people still rely on belief, or “someone who knows” for the last word on many “facts.” The Bible, for example, remains a very widely-read book! And it’s not even easy to read (at least I don’t think so).

90% of US adults say they believe in God. That is an amazing consensus from such a diverse country! But of course, by most counts this one doesn’t matter, because this is entirely a question of faith. The implication, though, is that if science or my favorite expert doesn’t have an answer, I’ll take God’s answer.

Here’s an interesting question they asked: Do you feel a deep sense of wonder about the universe? 46% said Yes in the most recent study. What about the others?

Evolutionism versus Creationism was covered in this study, but not well. This is a subject that should be, at some point, 100% knowable. At some point. But only a little over 60% are convinced that “humans” have actually changed that much during their time on earth. This question is still very much up in the air! Only a third of US adults totally believe that Darwinian Natural Selection explains human development on earth. (A testimony to how bad a theory it is!)

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6902

Here we have a more recent poll conducted by Ipsos (a European marketing research company) and released on Monday, June 29, 2015: 56% of Americans believe UFOs are real. Good that only leaves 44% to go. But only 45% believe ETs have visited Earth. Oh boy!

79% believe life on other planets is plausible. But that’s a terribly-worded question. Same figures as above for Evolution.

The accuracy of the survey is estimated to be +/- 3.5%.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html

And here we have a “Conspiracy Theory Poll,” results released April 2, 2013. This is only of US voters. Poorly-worded questions, but:

37% think global warming is a hoax.
21% believe there was a cover-up of the UFO crash at Roswell (an absolute certain fact). This one shows how well certain groups have been able to keep the lid on this data.
44% think Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq (another total fact).
And 25% of US voters still think Oswald acted alone in killing JFK. For all intents and purposes it has been demonstrated that Oswald didn’t even point a gun at the President that day. But the US population is almost evenly divided on this question of fact, per this poll.

So you see that we are divided about facts that should be provable, but have not yet, in many’s eyes, been proven, while we are united in our desire for peace, tolerance, and taking responsibility for those less fortunate.

Where we are really being divided is in our perception of the truth. Suppression has failed almost totally to educate us out of our basic humanity. Though we are told every day that we are just animals, most people around the world believe we were created by the Divine, and probably always will believe so.

Where suppression on earth is working is in disconnecting us from factual data that should make certain truths quite obvious. Amazingly, many have connected with that data anyway. But it is too few!

Obama said nothing profound two days ago. But oh, has he failed to tell us so much that we really do deserve to know! Thus, he will be perceived by most as a liar. Better alive than truthful? I guess each must make that decision for themselves. I hope it is clear what side of that question I favor.

Brazil Color Revolution: Corruption, Dilma, Lula, Zika and 2016 Olympics. Lada Ray Report and Predictions

15 March 2016

#foradilma #foraPT: “Out Dilma!” “Out PT! So, ‘Brazil Spring’ is on, color revolution is in progress! Ah, and don’t say I haven’t warned you about that!  …

Source: Brazil Color Revolution: Corruption, Dilma, Lula, Zika and 2016 Olympics. Lada Ray Report and Predictions

I don’t really know how accurate Lada’s data ultimately is, but she seems sincere and independent; someone really trying to make sense of what is going on. I recommend her posts.

First Step to Handling our Economic and Political Problems

17 November 2015

I got this idea a few minutes ago while taking a shower.

It concerns politics and the economy in the U.S.

Let’s start at 1913:

In 1913 the United States federal government finalized two major political and economic shifts: Federal income tax was made constitutional by the 16th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Act was passed on 23 December. Both these actions were pushed onto the American people and their duly-elected representatives by European banking interests on false pretenses. Threat of force was also used to obtain compliance to these plans.

Since then, European banking interests have been creating wars and other economic and political calamities and getting the United States involved using lies and propaganda. The United States then borrows money to pay for these things from the Federal Reserve, and the interest and some principal is paid back using Income Tax.

Later, following another created economic catastrophe (the Great Depression and Dust Bowl), Social Security was introduced (1935) in order to “force” people to save for their old age. But the Social Security Trust funds as well as many pension funds, have been stolen from in order to finance the aforementioned illegal expenses.

On top of all this, it has been discovered that the United States of America is actually a private corporation not owned or operated by the American people.

Thus it is apparent that the “national debt” is not a debt owed by the American people, but a debt incurred illegally by the U.S.A. and owed TO the American people, as they paid for it with their income taxes, their hard work, and their lives (in the case of soldiers dying in war, etc.).

We as a people have a perfect right to cut the U.S.A. (federal government) loose from us, stop paying all Federal Income Tax, and demand reparations. They can start figuring out how to raise the funds to pay their debts in some other way. They already take a cut from the drug cartels for protecting their overseas and domestic operations, and have a Secret Space Program that reportedly trades goods with 900 off-world civilizations.

So: Bye guys, you’re on your own!

A very short history of coups d’état in the U.S.

6 October 2013

It is time for me to put in my 2 cents on this matter, as the political scene continues to be quite extreme.

It is common in history to think of political coups as being accomplished by killing (assassinating) the existing government leader.

For some reason, this line of reasoning is not followed in the United States. All assassins were lone nuts or extremists, not associated with any political opposition group. This seems to me to be highly silly.

In this, I follow the analysis of Bill Still in his 2010 documentary “The Secret of OZ.” Many other researchers in this line have come to the same conclusions, and include the Kennedy assassination in the same group as the others. The attempted assassination of Andrew Jackson in 1835 is also usually included in this list, as it was overtly political. The only presidential assassination which does not fit this pattern was the William McKinley shooting, but it definitely is part of this subject.

Four Presidents killed; one political issue.

The attempt on Jackson’s life was made on 30 Jan 1835.

Lincoln was taken out on 14 April 1865.

Garfield was wounded on 2 July 1881 and died of complications about a week later.

William McKinley was shot by an anarchist on 6 Sept 1901 and died a week later.

Teddy Roosevelt was wounded by a man who claimed to be avenging the death of McKinley on 14 Oct 1912.

And Kennedy was taken down on 22 Nov 1963.

What is the issue that ties all these deaths and attempts together?

Who controls the money supply?

It can be established that public (government) control of the money supply can lead to a prosperous economy that grows stably.

Still’s film cites Roman coinage, English tally sticks, and Colonial Scrip as examples of government-issued money that fostered economic growth and general prosperity.

The Founding Fathers were aware of the usefulness of Colonial Scrip, and started the Revolution majorly on demands from England that all debts be paid in gold, which was scarce in the colonies.

During the conflict, the colonies printed “Continentals,” a paper money, to get by during the war. This was undermined by massive English counterfeiting. When time came to write the Constitution, the rampant inflation caused by the counterfeit Continentals was still on everyone’s mind, and the Constitution only allowed the federal government to mint coins, not print paper money.

From that time until today, a largely unpublicized political battle has raged over what body would be allowed to issue paper money in the U.S.

Timeline of the Money Wars

The early Congress was persuaded to create a private bank in 1782 to issue paper money. This bank, the Bank of North America, inflated the money supply, so Congress killed it in 1785.

The next privately-owned bank allowed to issue money was chartered for 20 years in 1791. Thomas Jefferson (among others) didn’t like the idea. As time went on, it become more and more clear that it was a bad idea. After Congress refused to renew the charter in 1811, the British attacked Washington D.C. in 1812.

This pressure eventually resulted in a new private central bank being chartered for 20 years in 1816. During this period, Congress came under the thumb of private banking interests, and renewed the bank’s charter in 1836. However, Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal.

So the bankers secretly declared war on the American people. When they could not get a new private central bank, they started the Civil War, hoping to divide the new nation and thus defeat its will to be financially independent. Lincoln printed “greenbacks” during the war, and intended to continue this practice. When it was clear the war would not divide the country, Lincoln was taken out in the spring of 1865.

After this, Congress, still firmly in the pockets of the banking interests, was persuaded to reduce the money supply in the United States, causing a depression. The Coinage Act of 1873 was passed to take silver coins out of circulation. In response to this suppression, a “greenbacker” movement was born, and also a “free silver” movement. Garfield supported these causes.

He was taken out on 2 July 1881 after being in office only a few months.

European banks continued the pressure by again demanding payment in gold, as England had done prior to the revolution. This resulted in a “panic” in 1893, and massive loss of wealth by small banks and farmers.

In 1896, William Jennings Bryan ran on an anti-banker platform. The bankers defeated him with a rumor-mongering campaign. This allowed them to pass the Gold Standard Act of 1900.

But the populace was still anti-banker and supported Teddy Roosevelt. He was shot in October of 1912 but survived.

However, Woodrow Wilson was pushed into signing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and we still have that system today. (The Federal Reserve is a private bank that issues all paper money in the United States.)

It is believed that Kennedy had plans to change this system. Since he was taken out, no President has seriously talked about it, though it is obvious to the public that the banking sector remains largely corrupt.

Coup D’état: Accomplished

For all intents and purposes, the banking interests won in the United States in 1913. They consolidated their power with the Kennedy assassination in 1963.

There has been much written and said about who these people really are, where they come from, what they want, and to what extent their power reaches. I just call them “criminals.” That’s basically all they are. They want to get rich without working, because they can’t work, they can’t invent, they can’t dream of anything bright or beautiful. They are locked in cages of their own designing; they have no business running a nation or a bank. The sooner we learn to handle them, the better our futures will be.