In an attempt to layout what really drives the world rather than believing the false notion that 40-something fresh Ivy League grads serving as politicians have the power, these lessons further the Debunking Money narrative that debt-based hierarchical money = financial leverage = true power. Lesson 4 revisits the 20th century past to reconsider where we’ve been, and lesson 5 peers into the 21st century future for a clearer perspective on where we’re going. Huxley would like what he sees.
#4
#5
Advertisement
Damon,
A fellow traveler http://www.tragedyandhope.com/
Take a look at the 9 part series, 20/20 Hindsight. Is the whole world corrupt?
mark
Thanks, Mark, for the excellent links. Lots of good things on that site.
Damon,
This series, and others I’ve watched, have had the effect of making me glad to be older with a serious illness. Since I used to be depressed about it, I guess I should thank you!
I don’t want to live in the world you’re describing, but I see little hope that we will realize our power and stop it, even though such a small number of people are doing all of this, and massive non-participation would destroy them, IMO. The sheep are mostly still fast asleep, and even the smartest people I know tell me they don’t want to know what’s going on; that they are already too stressed out. Do you feel it’s hopeless, and what do you plan to do, being that you are young and healthy?
Another eye-opener. I always knew deep down that I was incompetent on this subject matter. Now I realize I can no longer afford to be incompetent. Thank you.
Hi Damon
What are your thoughts on Peak Oil and how Capital is ultimately dependent on Energy, especially oil? I understand your Economic lens but how does Energy and the Environment play into this picture?
Thanks for these two excellent additions; “Debunking Money #4 and #5.”
Your bipolar perspective (sorry to over-simplify your presentation as it goes further than that) makes sense and aligns with much of what we see today in geopolitical alignments as well as economics. You make a valid point that jars me a bit, nation states have already been greatly diminished as sovereigns and have already lost some degree of controlling their destines.
Where do you see the middle east? You chalkboard presentation suggests that it is the pivot point from which much turns – catalyst or driving opportunists?
You used the terms “fascism, capitalism and communism” and were careful to mention that capitalism was not really being practiced – thank you. We have been practicing monopoly capitalism for over 100 years. It is a feudal system very similar to communism and fascism in that all delegate power and wealth to an elite few at the top, and create a “caste system” of serfs and property owners.
It’s all marketing in a way. For example, if you want the workers to unite, sell communism. Make ‘em think that the state can take everything and divide it evenly (this works best during a depression where the people are desperate). If you have a nation of fat cat consumers, offer them monopoly capitalism through pretended “free markets” that are really unbalanced markets – chronic trade deficits destroy infrastructure and domestic industry.
In every case, all power and most wealth resides with an elite few at the top.
Larry
“You make a valid point that jars me a bit, nation states have already been greatly diminished as sovereigns and have already lost some degree of controlling their destines.”
My working theory is that sovereignty has been intentionally diminished in the neoliberal era through “learned dependency” that forces a very unhealthy form of Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. In the U.S., we voluntarily destroyed our manufacturing. The Chicago Boys forced a similar change more recently in Latvia. I’m sure this learned dependency approach was sold as a way for establishing a more stable global community because nations that are not capable of being self-sufficient are far less likely to wage war. Think about it: the U.S. cannot attack China militarily because to attack China’s means of production is to attack the U.S.’s means of production. The sad fact is, though, that war has not been eliminated but repurposed.
New Ellen Brown piece available here:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/time-for-a-new-theory-of-money
Nicely done again Damon, but I think there is an aspect of this that could be missing. It seems that there are some signs of resistance growing in the world, espectially in the BRIC countries (Brazil, India, Russia and China) where they are beginning to take more sovereign control over there economies and putting limits on the neo-liberal casino banking that has dominated the scene for the past 50 years or more.
These banksters (the global banking cartels) have been at this for a couple hundred years or more, but every time their arrogance and confidence gets to the point of becoming obvious, they are regularly beaten back by the “little people”.
It is my hope that as your likely scenario plays out, people, including political representatives in sovereign nations will fight back and resist this financial terrorism.
I hope I am not just being nieve. Many thanks for your efforts in this regard.
Damon, your models have an almost biological organism ring to them. I especially like the description of the phases (and subsequent consequences): growth, steady-state, and restructuring. This happens in the human body as well, with restructuring often resulting from disease or some nutrient deficit, and is only corrected once the deficit is addressed.
Clearly the U.S. is in a big restructuring phase, what some people inaccurately describe as decline. It is more like bleeding out savings and nutrients. Individuals are trying to save money to preserve their “nutrients” but their savings are being gutted by displacement of their pensions, their homes, and their incomes/jobs through fraud, taxpayer bailouts, and outsourcing. This will necessarily require a more dramatic response that may reach outside the system you describe, by necessity, just to maintain a living.
I describe this biological organism trait of the global economy in my post to Charles Smith’s Of Two Minds blog, “When the Market has Cancer”: http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjun10/zeus06-10.html
Creativity, strength, and possibility,
Citizen Zeus
For all the possible pessimism, this reaching “outside” may take the form of rebellion through default, abandoning homes and living with other family in a co-housing situation, community banking and farming, local currency etc. When the dream is ripped from its roots by obvious, wholesale, unapologetic rip-offs, as they are now, power is unmasked as malevolent rather than benevolent. All that people have been promised in the system has not only disappeared but actively been used against them.
At this point, to stop the abuse, many will decide to stop participating. Then things get interesting. Your models do not account for what might happen then. Because even in nature, major central powers become extinct through their own maladaption or the rise of an unforeseen competitor.
I liken it to the smallest unit of structure “the cell”
see my article if you are interested: http://jrparrott.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/the-cellular-society/
Nice work Damon!
Do you feel that Russia is an integrated partner in this system or is it a player when it suits them and otherwise can be a loose cannon? I don’t believe that their central bank is private.
But in any event, they are run by people that are as ruthless as any that you’ll encounter. The crash of the Polish President’s plane in Smolensk in April of this year that killed Pres. Jaroslaw Kaczynski and many high political and military officials (along with the head of the central bank ) has all of the hallmarks of an assasination. I wonder if that did not serve other interests in the European union as well as those of Putin. Because Jaroslaw Kaczynski was a thorn in the side of more than Russia. His government was not a team player in the union and almost no one from either the union nor from the US attended his funeral.
Thank you very much Damon,
I am always happy to get information from you. People don’t want to know, what happens in the world. I have been many times to China. People who have never been in China are always very negative about China. I always ask them 1 question. If you get a child, what do you want if you have the choice. Born in a country where you get more freedom, or where you get more rules. They always say in a country with less and less rules. So what we see in the EU we get more an more rules and debts. Countries where you get more freedom, there is more space to grow. That is what i see when I am in China. I hope you get the message. Thanks
I used to think of the global economic system as a big amorphous juggernaut, blindly pursuing its profit mandate while mindlessly crushing the less-successful proprietorships with their economies of scale and bottomless pits of capital. I’ve always resisted the idea that evil men were directing its inexorable march toward actual dominance over all human existence. Even as Damon talked of intra-BORG squabbling at the top of the “pyramid” I still thought it was merely a systemic competition lacking any conscious volition on the part of any supposed Dark Overlords. Thanks to Damon’s (horrible little) videos I’m starting to see a preponderance of circumstantial evidence suggesting there IS a conspiracy (or conspiracies) afoot and the Economic Juggernaut(s) have an oligarchy at the controls. It seems the situation is worse than we thought.
If that’s true we have only three possible courses of action: a, roll around on the floor kicking and screaming; b, click our heels three times…. “There’s no place like home”; or c, have a three-day rock concert on the Washington Mall with Michael Moore as the master of ceremonies.
If there is, in fact, a ruling oligarchy pulling the levers of power, then: do we attack the oligarchs or break the levers? If both; which comes first? If neither, ….what? C’mon Damon, the suspense is killing us!
“If there is, in fact, a ruling oligarchy pulling the levers of power, then: do we attack the oligarchs or break the levers? If both; which comes first? If neither, ….what?”
Once you establish the rules of the game, you don’t even need a conspiracy. People will play the game with varying levels of skill and competitiveness as they pursue the promised rewards.
This suggests to me you have to break the levers first. If the levers remain intact, the oligarchy will merely reconstitute itself, just as it did after the setback they were dealt by the New Deal and similar post-Depression socialist measures adopted worldwide. As long as debt-money is the paradigm, the DNA of the oligarchy will remain.
The system continues because, in most cases, people are brainwashed into thinking and acting within avenues deliberately created for them by the dark holders of “capital”. The vast “have-nots”, (both conceptually and economically), continue as slaves who do not know how, and/or, do not have the means, and/or, do have the will/desire to become free.
If it is possible to educate enough people how to become and live free, and at the same time overcome their other barriers to being free listed above, and do so before large numbers fall victim to following their baser emotions and following dark plans carefully crafted for puppet demigods to follow, to facilitate the peoples own and others destruction, then there is potential progress to be made. Major systemic disruptions appear to be unavoidable and that might result in mass base emotional reaction and subsequent destruction being all but inevitable. Independent, anti system thinking and education has been rather scarce until recently. The holders of the “capital” have been quite good at capture and control of mass “education” (miss-educating/brainwashing) for several generations now, but that trend is reversing and, (for the time being), communication exits to effect global change in people’s thinking in a relatively short amount of time. But, I am thinking that there are “tools” on the net that are already are functioning to keep careful record of all potential sources of challenge to dark “capital”, and are working to define a short list of non-captured “intelligentsia” to silence if the elite should decide to take such an action.
I am thinking that to get from here to “freedom” takes a huge amount of work, sacrifice, and courage of those who know and understand and then are willing to act to help those who live within the above mentioned limitations cited in the first paragraph to overcome their own personal barriers to becoming “free”. Do “you” (we) understand what is needed? Are “you” (we) willing to work and make “sacrifices” so that what is “needed” has some kind of chance of coming to past?
@ Sun Shine:
“The system continues because….“have-nots”……continue as slaves who do not know how ……to become free.”
And the system also continues because the system works……..for those within the system, financially. The system does NOT work for those who value freedom above consumer goods. Most Americans dream of owning their own business; but settle for the security of a steady corporate paycheck instead.
“If it is possible to educate enough people how to… live free……..there is potential ….anti system ………..(of)…. mass “education”/……(and internet)….communication…. to effect global change in people’s thinking in a relatively short amount of time.”
I think the average Joe knows how to be free but lacks the level playing field to do so while competing with the masses of schlubs who “sold out” to the corporate-slave/regular-paycheck idea. The financial advantages afforded corporations gives that business model overwhelming competitive superiority over individual and family enterprises. Corporations only ask that you give up a small part of your freedom and individuality for the security they offer. The truly successful inventor sells his start-up enterprise to a corporation for pennies on the dollar and still reaps enough to make it worthwhile. That’s the best an entrepreneur can hope for in this system. It’s become a cultural norm to accept the domination of big business in every aspect of our lives but in our hearts we know it’s wrong. The only thing between our desire to work for ourselves and the ability to actually do it is the inability to compete with the corporate bullies who dominate every sector of the economy. So in business, as in politics, we have a choice between the risks and rewards of freedom and the security that comes with submission to the rules of membership. The question now is whether we (or our Founders) were aware of the consequences when we made that choice and would we choose subservience to corporate domination if we had the chance to make that choice again. Can we go back to the Federalist Papers and re-write the Constitution in favor of Jefferson’s opinion on banking and corporations? Yes!
“there are “tools” on the net …..functioning …………… to define a short list of …….. “intelligentsia” to silence………”
That’s exactly the sort of fear that’s got us where we are. What ever happened to “pledging our lives and sacred honor”? You’re asking: “Do we have the balls?” Well; do we?
“…..to get from here to “freedom” takes a huge amount of work,….and courage of those who…..understand ……what is “needed”…”
What is needed is to inform Americans that we DO have the means (Art. 5 Constitutional Amendment) to make that choice again. The “tools” can’t stop that. Their ubiquitous world-wide news corporations will do their best to scare *that which is not Shinola* out of us but, like you say, we still have the “the net” and as the sheeple are growing to distrust the talking heads on TV they will be seeking the truth elsewhere. And the truth shall set them free.
It was Sartre who told us the awful truth of our essential and radical freedom. Our very consciousness of our own individual freedom was to him the great existential problem. We are choosing every moment whom to be. We must choose whether to remain on our current course by each action we take or to alter that course. Freedom is reponsibility and that’s the hell of it.
All of us tend to deny our freedom at times because we wish to avoid the responsibility of our choices. It’s not that we are not free to choose, it’s that we don’t want to pay the price for certain choices. You can’t cop out by saying, “I was only following orders”, or by saying that your freedom is granted to you by some government, group, or even a piece of paper like the Constitution, as I was just recently told. No, you are free by virtue of your own humanity whether you like it or not. And by ‘you’ I mean both you and I.
Different folks do different things with their inherent freedom. People like Gandhi and MLK, knowing full well it might cost them their lives, pursue a course that challenges those who attempt to deny their freedom. Most of us, and I include myself here, take a more convenient course. We prefer security. We fear loss of economic security and censure from our peers.
And it is doubly complicated for those who have gotten themselves into debt in pursuit of the ‘America dream’ sold to them by the progeny of Bernays, mentioned in a previous post. Many of these people would be financially ruined if they were out of work for even a month or two. They have willingly put themselves into bondage. They have sold their birthright for a handfull of shiny beads. The message of freedom falls heavily upon their ears, indeed. Although they hear the message, they ignore it and turn to weapons of mass distraction in order to deliver themselves from their own personal hell.
We all know deep in our souls that Franklin was right when he said, “Those who prefer security over freedom deserve neither”.
Well Damon, now that you’ve identified the reality facing us all, what is to done?
Actually, that’s premature, I’m anxiously awaiting more videos, I’m learning a lot.
However, I can’t stop myself from wondering, perhaps the solution to our predicament requires an end around. A direct attack on the ‘banksters’ is probably doomed, they have the power. If we’re to create a more just and equitable world, shouldn’t we start with ourselves. Shouldn’t we be, ourselves, that ideal person we envision for said equitable world? Now that’s a worthy goal; we could then depend on transformed people to transform our world. Won’t be done this year or next, probably not in 10 or 100 years, but the banksters didn’t create this world overnight either. It is true that slow and steady wins the race. Evolution not revolution.
“You must be the change you want to see.” — Gandhi
Hi Mark:
I agree with one focusing on themselves first when ever “change” is contemplated. Having said that, if the change I seek is strictly voluntary exchange amongst non-predatory individuals, then, practically speaking, I must identify others willing to live this way so that “I” have someone to exchange with. Otherwise I might seek out some deserted place like the wilderness of Alaska where I can live a personally responsible life less subject to the tyrannies of other people’s predation, but more in communion with the predations of nature!
Well, it will necessarily be a lonely struggle but at least a long one. Not much comfort in that but, that’s the hole we’ve dug for ourselves. I vacillate between a small group dedicated to a truthful life and the individual struggle amongst ‘em to maintain ones moral focus during the long struggle for true freedom. Truthfully I haven’t figured out what’s best for me and mine yet so I’ll not be giving any answers there for a while. Perhaps Damon will shed more light on our options.
Pingback: Concentrated Wealth and the Purchase of Political Power: Democracy’s Death Spiral « Markbrian's Blog
Damon,
These videos are getting better and more infomative with each installment. I truly appreciate the work you are doing. There’s nothing like a little light to clear away the mold.
I remember how incredulous I was years ago when I first discovered that both the Chinese and Russian communist revolutions had been financed and supported by what were thought of as major capitalists. It just didn’t make any sense to me at the time. But then it dawned on me, of course… these folks in London and especially on Wall Street didn’t want the sort of economic competition that an independent nationalist regime such as later emerged in Taiwan would have offered. Can you imagine what would have faced Wall Street had all of China gone the same route after WW II?
Also, few people I speak with seem to realize that the communists under Lenin, Trotsky, and comrades did not overthrow the Tsar, who had already abdicated. They overthrew the government of Alexander Kerensky who was planning to institute a constitutional republic similar to America’s…bad news for the western oligarchs! Lenin and Trotsky were not even in Russia at the time of the abdication. Lenin was in Switzerland and Trotsky was in New York. They were both sent into Russia to overthrow Kerensky. It has been reported that Lenin was sent across Europe in a sealed train with five million dollars in gold coin from the banksters in order to dispatch the Kerensky threat. So who was working for whom? Well, who was paying whom?
I really have not kept up with the later machinations involving the Communist East and the international banking fraternity, but hope you can fill in some of the details, Damon. Thanks again for your work.
When you use the term “global bond market,” is that talking about government bonds?
Mary Rose,
I would just breifly like to return to an earlier post you sent me. In it you said that the Constitution was rather unclear as to the mandate that only gold and silver be used as money.
At Article 1: Section 8, we read, “The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to fix the standard of weights and measures;”
We notice that Congress was given the power to ‘coin’ money, not to print money. We also notice that in the same sentence weights and measures are mentioned and that is because money, and weights and measures, are connected, as money was measured as certain weights of fine gold and silver.
In Section 10 of Article 1, we read, “No state shall… make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;”
There’s that word coin again. Now since only gold and silver coin are legal tender in any of the states, and since the entire United States is comprised of the various states and only those states, District of Columbia not existing then, then no money issued by the Federal Government or anyone else, other than silver and gold, would be legal tender in any area of the country (any of the states). Does it seem reasonable to you to suppose that the framers of the Constitution would entertain the idea that the Federal Government could issue anything but silver and gold or delegate to any other entity the right to issue anything other than silver and gold as money and at the same time make these other monies illegal in all of the states?
These Constitutional prosciptions have never been amended out of existence. And so, if you accept the proposition that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then you must also accept that all of this fiat money, bank debt money, electronic digit money, or whatever you may wish to call it is illegal. I guess George W. Bush was right when he said, “The Constitution is just a damned piece of paper”. So much for a ‘government of laws’.
I would concur with other requests that it be made possible to edit our own posts. Regardless of how carefully I proof-read my work, typos like “breifly” in the above post slip through.
I don’t feel like I have alot to contribute to this discussion as you’re owning the floor right now with these videos, but I will say that possibly something that’s confusing your viewers, and certainly something that I’m not clear about myself, is whether in your opinion this capital machine is the result of a deliberate power grab, or whether it is simply the natural result of the marriage of financial power and political power at the higher echelons, combined with an appetite for debt and ignorance about debt’s consequences.
To be more clear (if less precise) is this conspiracy or mere complicity? Are we looking at maniacs trying to take over the world, or people who, through following their own shallow needs and desires, have stumbled into a position of global power and control? Being precise and explicit on this point might clear up alot of confusion for other viewers (it would certainly help me).
And an out-of-left-field question for Damon or anybody who’d be willing to take the time to answer: what would the consequences be if the USA decided to default on its debt, abolish the federal reserve, and start over with sustainable, affordable local government? Would this inevitably lead to war/foreclosure on US assets? Is there a way to shake off the parasites without going to war? That is the $1million question right now, IMHO
Ideally you want the whole world divorcing itself from these blood suckers, otherwise the “owned” territory becomes a source of attack. The US, being “owned” territory has several times served as the “kingdom towing service” for dark capital to beat up on the renegades. Lately we see it in the middle east, and before we did it in many other places and twice to Germany. Since it seems like they are bleeding us as much as possible with the “velvet glove”, but to get the last ounces of blood they will have to remove the gloves and switch to the iron fist, whether we “rebel” or not. But these things must be done more “delicately” these days because of those pesky nukes.
Rebellion might even be a built in feature of their strategy. It would certainly crash asset values to pennies on the “dollar” (or what ever currency comes next, like chip-implants and cashless e-credits, leaving anyone who is “free” to participate in the afterward buyouts able to make their customary theft-like “purchases”. Anyone who doesn’t know, “they” want chip implants for everyone: If you haven’t viewed Aaron Russo’s story about his talk with a Rockefeller family member that tried to recruit him, see it on you-tube. Russo seemed highly credible to me.
@Mike,
“To be more clear (if less precise) is this conspiracy or mere complicity?”
The answer to your question is yes. It is a conspiracy that is furthered by unwitting complicity.
One thing the debt-money financial elite understand is leverage, and at the beginning of the 20th century they learned how to leverage public opinion using the psychoanalysis techniques of Sigmund Freud, whose nephew, Edward Bernays, pioneered the use of propaganda in selling commercial products (aka “public relations” and marketing), giving birth to the consumer culture. You can pick up a copy of Bernays’ book “Propaganda” online for free. Around the same time, Walter Lippmann wrote a book called “Public Opinion,” which is also available online for free, with similar insights but gained as s skillful observer of human behavior.
Shortly before the outbreak of WWII, Lippmann published “The Good Society,” which I view as an illustration of the propaganda techniques detailed in his prior work. As detailed in “The Road from Mont Pelerin,” Lippmann’s book inspired a number of people concerned about the erosion of classical liberalism by socialism. These people included Hayek and Mises, who met with Lippmann and others to discuss creating a new liberalism, or neoliberalism, that would be proof against socialism. Their plans were put on hold by WWII, but shortly after the war ended Hayek published his “The Road to Serfdom,” which in many ways merely restates Lippmann’s ideas from “The Good Society.” The Volker Fund paid to have Hayek transplanted to the University of Chicago as well as for Milton Friedman to write an Americanized (read “dumbed down”) version of “The Road to Serfdom” called “Freedom and Capitalism.”
As the neoliberal propaganda was being perfected, monied interests created think tanks and other public institutions to channel the message. Pretty much everything that came out of the University of Chicago School of Economics was bought and paid for propaganda, including everything that Milton Friedman ever wrote. Sadly, it’s Milton Friedman’s neoliberal vision that has driven the Washington Consensus that has ruled the United States since at least 1980.
So, the bottom line is that somewhere there is a conspiracy, but the conspiracy is highly leveraged by people who have been conditioned by the rules of the game and the value system set by neoliberal institutions. I wouldn’t quite call this brainwashing because human nature is doing all the work.
“what would the consequences be if the USA decided to default on its debt, abolish the federal reserve, and start over with sustainable, affordable local government? Would this inevitably lead to war/foreclosure on US assets? Is there a way to shake off the parasites without going to war? That is the $1million question right now, IMHO”
Which US debt do you want to default on? The public debt or the private debt that dwarfs it? I’m assuming you’re talking about the public debt, in which case we’d probably see a collapse of the world economy and hyperinflation in the U.S. as imports grind to a halt. If war were to break out, it would because the U.S. would start it in order to secure its means of production, which is currently owned by China.
Everything else would be far less problematic, at least internationally, if the U.S. does not default on its public debt.
I think the question of conscious/unconscious inequities in the financial system is further complicated by the application of Peter’s Principle to bureaucracies in general, including banks, corporations, governments, and international cartels such as those that rely on WTO, Bissel, etc; to function. The weaknesses in such systems aren’t readily apparent until the output or result is unusable, untenable, or insolvent in the case of banking. Steve Keen’s article :
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/
is a beautiful example of over-centralized systems becoming so complex that the people operating them can no longer control them because they, themselves, don’t understand them.
Bigger is not necessarily better; bigger is just bigger. Damon’s spot-on about de-centralization in every aspect of our lives. The human brain (most of us) can’t “connect” with units of organization so vast as a global economic system that can’t be monitored and controlled at the local/regional/state level and Peter’s Principal goes unchecked until it’s too late.
I agree wholeheartedly with Keen in that monetary systems must be regarded as non-profit public utilities strictly regulated by the individual sovereign nations.
How hard would it be to re-train (fair-tax-unemployed) ex-IRS agents to administer a Bureau of Economic Affairs responsible for the drafting and administration of banking and corporate charters under Treasury. If they were required to learn what we’re learning here and now on this forum I believe it could be made to work (and maybe they could redeem their tainted souls in the process). Would it require a fourth, independent Branch of Government consisting of elected representatives: possibly a “Supreme Economic Council of the US” – SECOTUS?
I’m being naïve again; but hey, I’m grasping at Pre-Armageddon straws for a solution here. I’m an inventor, not a scholar, so bear with me on the engineering details. This is all-new territory the world is entering into and we’re going to need some all-new solutions. At least give it some thought.
“To be more clear (if less precise) is this conspiracy or mere complicity? ”
Both. I could make this a long post, but I will offer an anecdote.
I had read a lot about the Tri-Lateral Commission, CFR etc., but never really properly read one of their documents/books. I was in a local university’s grad library and checked out a book. Inside that book I found that there was stuck accidentally another much smaller book commissioned by the Trilateral Commission. Its title was ‘Managing the International System over the Next Ten Years: Three Essays’. (One essay was from Paul Wolfowitz).
Reading it was eye-opening, and confirmational.
One section made 3 points:
1. Wars between sovereign nations must be stopped (well that sounds great) . 2. One national should not economically be dominant over others (hmmn…).
3. Nations must open their borders up to international (‘free-market’) trade (what?).
Its obvious that for 1 & 2 to be forced by the Trilateralists, 3 is important (nations need to be subsumed/’conquered’ by the capital machine).
BTW, I recommend a book called ‘Family of Secrets’ by Russ Baker, a true investigative reporter (his website is awesome), that leaves the impression that after JFK, the capital class left nothing to chance.
Pingback: The Matrix Sentry
Pingback: Damon Vrabel:Debunking Money #4 and #5: The Way the World Really Works | The Matrix Sentry
Here’s a thought. Take your PRIVATE Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) to any Federal Reserve bank and ask for United States Notes (USN) (see below: “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand”) which are still valid currency. USN’s have got to be “lawful money”, right.? Damon didn’t tell us that a PUBLIC Asset Based Monetary system STILL EXISTS, did he?. Now, what does the IRS have to say about the co-existence of two monetary systems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
“Whereas issuance of United States Notes ended in January 1971, existing United States Notes are still valid currency in the United States, though extremely rarely seen in circulation, given that paper money currently consists almost exclusively of Federal Reserve Notes.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411—-000-.html
“Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. “
Many thanks Damon for your wisdom. I am a very sad irishman who has witnessed the takeover of my country by the forces you so clearly expose in your videos.Sadly the depth of ignorance amongst my fellow citizens is depressing, with few exceptions willing to get off their knees. Our imperial masters have finally beggered us. We as a people had been living in a post colonial situation , with some control over our decision making process, then neoliberal economics was introduced through a political party called The Progressive Democrats,they along with a party called Fianna Fail meaning in english Soldiers of Destiny (Ironic) at the time Irelands largest Political party inflated our economy through a debt fulled boom which has led to our loss of independence. The power allowing me to write this email is being paid for by the ECB as we as a nation are no longer able to pay to keep our lights on.
I have and will not give up spreading the wisdom I believe to be true, although I may be sad I am unbowed.
Your light is still shining here,and is a source of encouragment.
Keep up the good work
Tony
Here’s a thought. Take your PRIVATE Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) to any Federal Reserve bank and ask for United States Notes (USN) (see below: “shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand”) which are still valid currency. USN’s have got to be “lawful money”, right.? Damon didn’t tell us that a PUBLIC Asset Based Monetary system STILL EXISTS, did he?. Now, what does the IRS have to say about the co-existence of two monetary systems?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
“Whereas issuance of United States Notes ended in January 1971, existing United States Notes are still valid currency in the United States, though extremely rarely seen in circulation, given that paper money currently consists almost exclusively of Federal Reserve Notes.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00000411—-000-.html
“Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. “
Again, excellent insights. Analysis (as much as we hate to admit) is spot on. Perhaps what is lacking (or maybe upcoming) is a way out (while still breathing, that is). If in fact the capitalized reach is so global there is no bastion of sovereign existence/commerce why play the game. Try to own some land, plant some food, enjoy a family unit, worship the Creator and die happy.
For those who wish to better understand the global nature of the darkness that is part of this world system of top “capital”, I suggest one place you could get some insight is by studying the BCCI scandal and how no one important in this bank ever faced justice.
The movie “The International” is a good entertaining introduction if you want the short version. Then you can study the sage comments on the net this movie inspired such as: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=665249
The rabbit hole runs deep indeed.
Thank you for your clarity in dissection of the world power structure. Based off of your latest video #5, it seems that the global capital machine is moving its capital to the southern/eastern hemisphere. You stated that the massive amounts of debt accumulated by countries and their citizens, like the United States, will be collected upon. You use Nazi Germany as an example of such debt collection. Understanding your position as such, what do you foresee happening economically for the United States? Is it as many economists say, the dollar is kaput?
Will there be hyperinflation in order for the U.S. to attempt to marginalize its debts through inflating it away?
The only reason I ask this is because, to me, inflating away the dollar debts does not mesh with what you have explained. Would the capital machine allow for such debts to be washed away via the dollar hyperinflating? Please, Damon, or any other commentor please feel free to add more insight.
So we can’t live in a free market while there’s a private banking cartel with a monopoly on our money supply. Soverign-debt is an oxymoron; if the nation is truly sovereign then it will not have a national debt but a sovereign money supply. The converse is also true: if the country has a national debt then it’s not a sovereign nation. We haven’t been a sovereign nation this side of the pond since the BoE was formed in 1694
A start like many here have suggested is sovereign money not spent the way of QE but on things like citizens dividends first touted neat 100 years ago. This would go someway to stop what we’ve almost completely lost; the dignity of man.
Great stuff Mr Vrabel. Please don’t stop, whatever threats you receive. We are slowly waking from the longest collective slumber in human history.
I went to a public lecture at LSE last week and got same old same old from Austrian school goldbugs. I think returning to a gold standard would be foolish even with a 100% reserve requirement – we’ll still keep existing power and control structures which is where the problem lies. I did get to meet Bill Still after the lecture which was actually my only reason for attending. Result! What a guy. Have you seen “The Secret of Oz”?
M
Excellent article that likens the current marriage of economic-orthodoxy/government with its risks to freedom as the state/religion marriages of previous ages.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/economic-myths-and-central-banking-heretics
The present “economic orthodoxy” is doomed to fall. The “Holy of Holies” of the current system is monopoly “state”,(the tool of “dark capital”), having control over money.
The current “economic orthodoxy” was DESIGNED to fail. Chicago School economics, which are the current orthodoxy, were designed under the same neoliberal banner as Austrian School economics. There was no way to go from Keynesianism directly to Austrianism, but the end game was alway private debt-money under the Austrian system, and that’s what we’re gonna get. And it will be the opposite of freedom.
Zerohedge is heavily infected with Austrian dupes (dopes?) who fail to realize that property rights and corporate personhood are both fictions that rely upon the coercion of the state to enforce. That’s the essential double-truth of neoliberalism: Austrian School economics are designed to enslave you, not free you. If you follow Hayek’s prescription, all roads lead to serfdom.
But believe whatever you want.
Well said Tao Jonesing!
Academic Economists are the Unholy Priests of the Bankster’s
Austrian (Mises), Communist, Fascists and Keynesian economics are all phony and versions of feudalism.
Larry
Agree corporate person-hood is a fiction granted by government. When it is combined with limited liability and other state granted privileges and protections you get monstrous abuses that we can see such as the obscene criminal conduct of a Monsanto, Mega-Banks, or other amoral organizations
Property rights are what you have if you want to have division of labor and voluntary exchange (civilization). You do not understand “Austrian” economics. It is not in any way related to “neoliberalism”, it is classical-liberal. It is the original and most effective challenge to the state-elite alliance that was limiting competition and stifling economic freedom, hence: “classical” – “liberal” . “Neo-liberalism” was a way to derail and circumvent the highly successful classical-liberal system and return power back to the state and the elite. Please get some history under your belt OK? If you are able to understand the underlying language and history you might seek to revise your above remarks., that is assuming history or proper usage of language are important things to you.
All of the founders of neoliberalism considered themselves classical liberals but believed that classical liberalism had failed, primarily because it recognized and cared about society as a whole. This “communistic fiction,” as Gunnar Myrdal called it, led inexorably to socialism, in the opinion of people like Hayek and Mises. So they set about to create a new liberalism that didn’t have that problem.
Hayek and Mises were founders of neoliberalism. Hayek was the first president of the Mont Pelerin Society, the original hub of neoliberal thought. Check out the link below for a pretty extensive preview of actual history that does not comport with your beliefs of what history is.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kSyzcrfecuwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=road+from+mont+pelerin&hl=en&ei=_ETlTNujJonWtQOj1fGxCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=road%20from%20mont%20pelerin&f=false
I didn’t study the history of any classical neoliberal schools of Austrian thought but even I know that pseudo-intellectual commie fascist pigs from Chicago like Keynes suck. ;>)
With all due respect gentlemen, can you see the thin ice under these discussions based on the labeling of ambiguous concepts? Based on my previous experience with technical discussions of bandsaw technology I would suggest that real communication of ideas is best conducted using specific models. I don’t doubt you know all know more about economics than I, but as a matter of avoiding useless arguments and the hard feelings that result, might it not be better to stick to the basic basics of the here and now? I’m seriously trying to enlighten myself about money and banking and I think your combined wisdom would be of great benefit if I could understand what you were saying.
Subjects of this complexity should really be conducted face-to-face or at the least over the phone. Has anyone thought to actually exchange e-mail addresses or phone numbers between members here? I should think at some point it will become necessary to communicate directly with each other to settle some of the trickier issues involved here. Just my $.02
@William,
Alright. Here you go: economics is politics. Specifically, economics is politics designed to misdescribe and distract from the reality that the money system is designed to transfer wealth from those who create it upwards to those who accumulate it. This is Damon’s “vortex.”
To understand money and banking, you have to understand the politics behind the economics, which are themselves a ruse. Neoliberalism as a political movement (and its two school of economics) was created to cleave the individual from the collective. The two had been inseparable in classical liberalism, the principles of which informed the founding of the United States and are embedded in our Constitution. Neoliberals like Hayke, Mises and Friedman realized that classical liberalism’s recognition of society, of the common good, led inexorably to socialism, so they set out to kill society and replace it with “the market.” But their market was special: it knows everything infallibly like a giant thinking machine that always picks the deserving winner. The neoliberal conception of the “free market” is just another way of expressing the feudal concept of the divine right of kings: rich people are rich because god the market said so, not because they ripped you off.
In this sense, the neoliberal conception of the market eliminates uncertainty, something which Keynes identified as something that is distinct from risk and cannot be measured. This conception of the market in turn led to the “efficient market hypothesis” and the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which, once memories of the Great Depression had faded, convinced everybody that it was safe to swim in the stock market with the shark bankers.
Neoliberalism is not, in fact, an ambiguous concept but a political movement that has well-established and identifiable memes and strategies for pushing those memes onto the public. Who do you think popularized referring to people as consumers of the market instead of citizens of their country and communities?
I agree that a lot of people can’t see past the labels because most people don’t think, they react. If you want to understand banking and money, start thinking about it as a mechanism of control and consider the implications of the various monetary alternatives on the ability of a tiny few to exercise control over everybody else.
This is the reason I asked the question on the other thread. Going to sound money or free banking alone cannot lead to liberty because the real economy has been financialized in too many ways. What do I mean by “financialized”? I mean that the interests behind the banking system have constructed rules and incentives that accrue to their benefit to the detriment of all. In the current system, these rules and incentives are what keep the vortex spinning.
Another way to think about it is that microeconomics assumes that firms are managed to maximize profits. As Damon has said, that’s not true. Firms, particularly publicly traded company are managed to make their accounting balance sheets simulate a financial instrument that compounds interest in perpetuity at a rate greater than a “safe” investment (usu. the Treasury bond). Just as firms manage themselves to meet the expectations of secondary equity markets, countries likewise manage their economies to meet the expectations of the bond market.
As a starting point for understanding the politics behind money and banking, I once again suggest reading the Road from Mont Pelerin, which itself leads to a lot of original source material.
Keynes has gotten a bad rap because his name got attached to a school of economic thinking that mostly rejected his ideas. Keynesianism has very little of Keynes’ general theory in it. Politically, he despised socialism and communism, and I’d argue that he actually saved capitalism. Unfortunately, the manner in which he did so ultimately perpetrated the interests that had caused the Great Depression because he did not call them out explicitly as had Henry George before him (some argue that Henry George’s insights into the actual cause of depressions–the rentier– resulted in neoclassical economics, which disappeared rents of classical economics, reducing everything down to just labor and capital).
Here’s a link to Steve Keen’s lecture on Keynes. There’s a lot of good stuff on that site and his main site (his lectures on behavioural economics will tell you everything you need to know about economics as currently practiced).
http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/Lectures/Thought/Week_06_Keynes_to_Monetarism.pps
@ Tao:
I see you have done your history. Sorry for the earlier sentence. I was mistaken! Don’t stick “classical-liberal” with the blame though, about your statement: “… Mont Pelerin Society, the original hub of neoliberal thought.” The original classical liberal thought had a bifurcation of future courses. There was a parting of ways. Those who remained “true” to the emerging understanding of “freedom” went one way and the rest chose the other course. Those who today continue to assert the legitimacy of the “state” while claiming support for so called “free markets” fall into the “neo-liberal” camp.
Those of us who assert that you cannot have “free markets” with monopolies of adjudication and enforcement (state) fall into the the far bottom right of a 2-d axis, a very different place from “neo-liberal” see:
(http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism)
The evil created by these state protected/favored groups speaks for itself. IMF and globalization/corporatism only can thrive in state-sponsored gestation. In a world of unlimited liability and full restitution such entities are near impossible to maintain. There is much to say about the inefficiencies of size when it comes to strictly free markets. I have gone into this elsewhere at other times previously. Briefly, local dynamic information conditions, first adoption of new tech, layers of bureaucracy, speed of reaction to market conditions are a few of the arguments against “bigness” of the present corporatism monster. While size involves some advantages of economy of scale, as one example. But the big factors that the “state” gives the beast: limited liability, restrictions to market entry, barriers to victim tort adjudication (FDA present example, railroads- 19th century example), regulation, licensing, favoritism, insider corruption, and others are all factors in giving us the monster and nightmare that we live with today.
It is important to emphasize that talk of “free markets” today from the neo-liberal camp is not at all an advocacy of actual “free markets”, but their continued state aided hegemony, exploitation, and crimes. Neo-liberal is a monster that uses classical-liberal vocabulary terms in its corrupted, state protected and maintained universe. They are masters of Orwellian double-speak. Always remember, in order to maintain involuntary exchanges (crime) you need to apply monopoly force in adjudication and enforcement (the “state”).
I hope we are agreed that the “neo-liberals” along with the “neo-conservative” authoritarian, communist, fascist, etc, etc, are no friends of true freedom.
I think Tao summed it up nicely when he said: “Politics is economics” I still believe politics is politics and economics are economics. The two are undeniably inter-linked but I think our problems arise at the interface of the two; how they interact and their relationship. In view of everything that’s been said in this thread wouldn’t the solution be to create a fourth, separate, equal, branch of the US Government whose function would be to draft, regulate, and enforce rules governing corporate rights and privileges as well as the administration of monetary policy? I’m thinking something like the Treasury Department was originally meant to be but with more teeth by virtue of being a “purely-democratically” elected separate and equal branch with powers limited to the drafting of economic policy. Maybe they could also be entrusted with veto power over Congress in matters of commerce. Is there any obvious reason this scheme couldn’t work? I know it raises another threat of usurpation by a new “Elite” but wouldn’t it be preferable to the anonymous Elite we’re faced with now? This newly-founded Branch would serve as the People’s interface between Government and Business to prevent collusion.
It’s far-fetched for sure, but is it feasible? Theoretically?
Unrelated note: Why isn’t there more concern about the over-centralization of both government AND business ? It’s a common thread to the problems they share and threats they pose to civilization but little is said about limiting either, on the basis of size alone. Perhaps the Beast is simply our acceptance of Bigness in any sector. :>) $.02
Its all very confusing indeed. Are we all simply in a handbasket heading for hell? Who really understands half of this ‘world order’?
I see Nicole Foss is predicting a world wide depression as the debt structure collapses – in her video ” a century of challenges”
see
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com
I have to agree with her.
Currently we appear to be like the “coyote” in the looney tunes cartoon: we’ve run off the edge of the canyon, hanging in mid air: get what happens next?
I get more knowledge here..thanks
Explaination of how our society uses debt as money:
…and your whiteboard is still too small.
Thank you Damon for putting this out. I’ve been on this trek for a while now and your presentations make it easy to understand the nuts and bolts of TPTB cartel’s operations.
So why do they (TPTB) do it? It’s not like man hasn’t figured out to live in harmony with himself and nature eons ago when we lived close to the earth in small bands. Is it because technological advancement is a game changer to human society or rather: 1) because they can and absolute power corrupts absolutely, i.e. psychopaths? 2) Humans who possess this level of intelligence and organizational capability are inherently evil or obtain this expertise after becoming ‘possessed’ by evil? 3) They’re not really humans, but aliens who look at us normal people in the way we look at insects? 4) Something else?
There are valid arguments for positions 1-3 and I’ll assume that the readership has taken, at least, a passing glance at them. While I think #1 would be most popular by those of us interested in these things, I find #2 the most interesting myself and use Malachi Martin as a reference point. For someone as intelligent and educated as him to believe there is a God and an anti-god, perhaps shouldn’t lend much credence and gravitas to possibility #2, but he was an active exorcist for many years and I believe saw many things that just defy a rational explanation. On the other hand, he may have simply fallen into the “everything looks like a nail to the man who only has a hammer” trap but my personal experiences say no.
Another conundrum to me is Switzerland. It couldn’t be plainer than day that German Nazism and Hitler were funded by TPTB (others here also point out the Bolsheviks and Maoists as being TPTB funded as well), and as Damon has acknowledged, war is such a profitable enterprise, but why wasn’t Switzerland absorbed when the rest of Germanic Europe was, mostly bloodlessly, too? Not being that knowledgeable on Swiss history, I assumed that since Switzerland was home to major banking houses and as later history shows did not convert to the € like the UK, they had some exalted, protected status by the TPTB and it was hands off during WW2, but later research has shown that wasn’t the case at all. It was, rather, Germany’s fear that the costs of taking Switzerland due to their well trained and easily mobilized militia (which was a result of their non centralized republican gov’t) would out weigh the gains. Heck, I’ve recently read that if Czechoslovakia didn’t agree to a bloodless take over of the Sudetenland, things would have been very different at the beginning of WW2 as the German military considered the Sudetenland hard to conquer. My point? Switzerland was the model for the USA when it was still America and not Amerika. The Civil War ended America and it has been Amerika ever since. When Switzerland stopped being Switzerland is another question, perhaps 2000? But 700+ years is a pretty good run, no?
And one last topic is peak oil. Is it real or not? Like AGW (and the hoped for carbon credits), it’s a hot topic that may or may not have future implications upon society. The evidence is incontravertable that new discoveries of major oil fields is yesterday’s news. But is cheap petroleum (and other resources) still necessary to allow worldwide economic growth? The BRIC’s are using petroleum for more than say, lubricant, and Wm. Engdahl, someone who knows a lot about petroleum geopolitics, says no to peak oil.
http://www.netcastdaily.com/broadcast/fsn2010-1023-2.mp3
As to peak oil, these interviews with Nicole Foss and Jeff Rubin give two perspectives on coming resource constraints. The key concept is “energy return on energy invested.” There appears to be a lot of oil left in the earth. The issue is how expensive it will be to extract, and what kind of trade-offs will have to be made in order to maintain societies at present consumption levels. Is it sustainable or even desirable?
http://www.realecontv.com/videos/banking-malfeasance/the-alice-in-wonderland-economy.html
Watch this video for an update on the banksters.
http://www.realecontv.com/videos/europe/the-consequences-of-default.html
Modern feudalism in the EU.
One more time. People keep forwarding me this stuff. Thought I’d pass it on.
Cut critical services spending, lower taxes for the wealthy, no health care and no regulation. I like “government takeover of private industries”–cut to the picture of Wall Street, flanked by 3 American flags. Good stuff.
I just created a few playlists this week for my account with some stuff you may like, if anyone wants to check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MClaudiusMarcellus
And drop me a message or something if you like so I can subscribe to your channel.
The greatest illusion of our age is the belief that we live in democratic societies. We admit the systems aren’t perfect, we know they’ve been corrupted by special interests, but we think reforms could set things right again. Not so. Our so-called ‘democracies’ have never been democratic, were not set up to be democratic, and never could be democratic. What we call ‘corruption’ is how the systems were intended to operate, and have always operated. Wealthy elites are able to get their candidates elected, and government then serves the interests of those elites: that’s how the system works, pure and simple. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
In his first video by Damon Vrabel (Renaissance series) about our “republic” he talks about the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian way of exercising “democracy”, and to expand from that a little regarding the constitution, here’s an excellent book by Jerry Fresia that examines the circumstances surrounding the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. He explains how the thirteen colonies, immediately after the Revolution, were sovereign and relatively democratic. The Constitutional Convention amounted to a coup by wealthy elites, imposing a centralized government on the colonies – a government they could control. James Madison, the main author of the Constitution, was quite clear about this in his public statements. Jerry’s entire book is online: Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
http://cyberjournal.org/authors/fresia/#c1
I fell off the rabbit hole three years ago, and both the Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist Addendum movies helped me get my lens more in focus, and now with Damon’s videos
the lens is right on focus. I highly recommend watching “Zeitgeist Addendum”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#
Which not only explains what’s so wrong with our world (the Monetary System)but also proposes comprehensive, holistic and alternate solutions, a good starting point for more ideas………
Peter
The physics equivalent of “too big to fail” is the black hole. Reading the descriptive characteristics of a black hole yields startling correspondences to the global banking cartel, and its attempt to attain so much mass that its pulls every human into its event horizon, emitting no light. In this context, to avoid getting “sucked in” and adding to its mass, as individuals and communities we must turn away from the banks and their debt-money and create an alternative. Instead of a “black market” or “shadow banking system” we may nominate our efforts as “light exchange”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
how refreshing this day – common sense and rational thinking. Love this blog.
Pingback: odla mer av ovanliga sorter! «
I am with Peter on this. I have come to believe that the entire monetary system is defunct and in urgent need of dismantling. This would, of course lead to a re thinkinking of conventional politics as well. While the “Zeitgeist Addendum” video he recommends is the most profound and concise proposal I have seen, I see real value in putting more attention on alternatives to the current monetary system than trying to tinker around the edges or regulate it.
I believe to folks who take the time to read and post here would have a lot to contribute to the discussion prompted by the ideas of the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. Resourced based economics makes much more sense to me, even if these afore mentioned group efforts don’t have all of the answers yet, they are at least inspiring new ways to look at the problems we discuss here. Thoughts?
@ Tim Healy great post…thanks
Damon two questions – if you have time to answer.
First off your videos are really great as are your chats with Max.
Q1 People think Bill Gates et al are the richest people in the world…but if you are right about the private capital funds which control the global monetary system than Gates is nowhere even near to being the richest person in the world.
Is that right?
Q2 What do you think of the ‘conspiracy theory’ that the super-elite have decided to crash the global economy in order to wind down consumer capitalism (which they realised decades ago is a mortal threat to the biosphere and is thus not a viable longterm system) and bring in a new global system? In other words that the flooding of the global economies with toxic financial products was a strategic move in what is essentially a global economic war…world war 3 in fact…which is and will remain for most people an invisible war. Soros et al are generals commanding powerful mobile field armies, or weapons arrays, that can attack selected targets when and as needed in what is a carefully planned and managed demolition of the current global system.
Is there any merit in this account in your view?
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/socio-economics/black-friday-madness-of-a-lost-society.html
About the gold standard:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north201.html
Hey…what happened to the excellent videos???
The best stuff Damon produced is still available on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/councilonsper#p/u
Here’s a great, excellent documentary which has gone viral all over the net, a must watch, the latest release: “Zeitgeist Moving Forward”
Full Movie:
Trailers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiT3IjtLcQ4&feature=related
Thank you Peter
I had seen an earlier edition of Zeitgeist; but not this one.
What a shame that Damon has given up on us; he really is one of the brightest and ablest amonst us. Things must be really hopeless if the best are giving up.