Follow palashbiswaskl on Twitter

Friday, October 29, 2010

Fwd: [bangla-vision] It's not "A+ B" it's "A + USURY" - Douglas knew better than to so directly point finger at Bank of England/City of London

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dick Eastman <>
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:14 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] It's not "A+ B" it's "A + USURY" - Douglas knew better than to so directly point finger at Bank of England/City of London


Last post on social credit  -- I am directing my energies to other issues.  One last observation and some forwardings.  I don't like being driven to disagree with people and I don't like arguing with them over the disagreement.  My ideas are now known -- I am not about to change them. I don't want to spend a lifetime seeing in any of you can change yours  - because I don't thing the harvest would be very great.
One last post will follow to some of you - unrelated to social credit.  To the rest, adieu.
Weasels and snakes are now free to misrepresent my position without fear of correction.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
An anarchist wrote:
> "Now you see why I subscribe to laissez-faire anarchism."
You can't break the slavery of usury si vous laissiez l'usure faire.
Douglas clearly attributed the continuance of the bad system -- which he did not name --  to ignorance of A + B, when in fact A + Usury  is the Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy, the problem of usury.     Douglas either lacked the courage or else the poor tactics (suicidal tactics)  to admit that in writing or in statements at Parliamentary commission hearings.  (I recall his statement that we have far more Jews over us "than we deserve."  It seems like mincing in 2010, but it was doubtless bold talk when and where Douglas was presenting.)
For example, Douglas wrote:
"The rapturous iconoclasm of certain groups of monetary reformers', to whom "Usury", the sparring-partner of the bankers "inflation" is the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, has had the inevitable effect of encouraging the financial authorities to abolish, for practical purposes, the interest paid on undrawn current balances, and deposit accounts. We do not say they would not have done it anyway - the one thoroughly sound feature of the banking system was its dividends to shareholders and its interest payments to depositors which I jointly with the insignificant mint issues, provided almost the only fresh unattached purchasing-power. It is obviously lost time to beg of our amateur currency experts to consider whether they really mean what they ask, which is, the replacement of unattached purchasing-power by loans. But they must not complain if we, and others with us, regard them as propagandists for totalitarianism. "The Social Creditor, Oct. 27, 1945.
      In otherwords, if you let banks offer interest on checking accounts you at least have the benefit of the paid interest going back into the household-business loop of circulation.
Which tells us that Douglas was a failure as an  Eastman Cult follower.  Douglas didn't care a whit whether there was fractional reserve banking and debt money or not.  His efforts were merely to  correct the problem of insufficiency of demand due to their usury (which usury Douglas  conceals behind the letter "B") with his Social Credit payments to each person.  Basically Douglas had a cure for the depression, but not a cure for debt slavery.
But as long as there is fractional reserve banking (usury) there is going to be debt slavery. 
 The anarchist may say:  "Now you know why I've chosen laissez-faire anarchy."  But I say:  You can't break the slavery of usury si vous laissiez l'usure faire.
The anarchist says:  No one has to borrow if they don't want to.
But that is not true.
Suppose you are a competitor in an industry and you do not want to get involved with usury.  Then your competitor will borrow a lot of money and will automate and realize economies of scale and flood with advertizing and more attractive packaging and maybe a factory in China and he will undercut you until you are driven from the market for lack of sales.  The man getting the loans will thus expand and the lenders will get first claim on total revenue in the form of interest.  The lender will buy stock in the borrowers company, in fact take it over in a leveraged buyout -- and so the lender ends up the monopolist. 
Debt money must be eliminated.  New money -- "our money" -- created fresh in each household must be free and clear money.  And when someone needs capital to build a house and hasn't the personal savings  -- they can resort to loans from friends, or 100 percent fractional reserve banks -- such loans not affecting the money supply.  The bank is just a mechanism for distributing peoples savings to entrepreneurs or home buyers who pay home builders.
From Vic Bridger -- from a few days ago

How interesting in your second piece herein that you would choose the term "Our Money" for the concept, instead of the "Social Credit" moniker with which the pejorative connotation you asserted I completely agree.

In 2004 in Cambridge, Ontario, we launched our own Community Currency (CC) which is now being used by over 80 merchants, although not to the extent we would wish it to be. We decided to call it "Our Community Dollar", with the view to not keeping it within that relatively small community (approx 120,000 pop), but to gradually expand it across the nation, keeping the name but substituting the photos on the relatively counterfeit-proof currency to suit whatever local community wanted to buy into the system.

Most people who advocate the use of CC's do not even recognize the most salient feature of those currencies--the fact that they are ALL issued interest-free!

However, as long as prosperity is being experienced by the majority of people, getting them to espouse the implementation of CC's is harder than pulling teeth. The most retrogressive territory that I have experienced is my formerly "home" province of Alberta where the richness of resources (especially Oil and Gas) has led to an abundance and prosperity which decline they are only now starting to realize. Until people see such an abatement of prosperity (whether artificially contrived or based in reality) they are unlikely to appreciate a "Solution" for a Problem of which they are unaware.

BTW, in your article herein you mention the phrase "fiat money", a term used quite often by internet pundits and others encouraging us to "back" our  money with gold and/or silver, to describe the currencies in North America.
The actual working definition for "fiat money" is "unbacked legal tender". In other words the government decrees that you, the individual or merchant will accept this currency in payment of goods or services, whether you want to or not or whether it is backed by any reasonable asset, or not. Remember that Money is an "IOU" and it is backed by the Integrity and Ability of the Issuer to redeem that IOU for goods and/or services, as promised by the IOU.
With that in mind can anybody tell me what has ever in History backed more soundly the currency of a nation than the Homes and Businesses of the people?! If one can come up with such an example, I wonder if those who have lost their homes in America would agree with their suggestion?
The fallacy with proclaiming that the Canadian and US dollar are "fiat" is that the Principle that is put into circulation IS backed by the assets used to collateralize the so-called "loan" (it is actually a "monetization" and not a "loan")...but, the interest demanded by the Banking Syndicate [BS](it is anything BUT an "industry") as part of the repayment of the "loan" is neither created, nor backed by anything.
So, at any one time there is Principle of, say, $100 Billion in circulation, virtually ALL backed by the REAL assets used to collateralize the "loans" extended by the BS to the unwary "borrowers"; whereas the Usury portion demanded by the banks, say, $10 Billion at any snapshot in time, is unbacked, giving the pundits the perception that ALL the Money is unbacked and therefore "fiat"!
This leads them to the erroneous conclusion that ALL paper money is bad and requires the backing by gold and/or silver.
There are many pernicious aspects to the advocacy of backing Money in this manner. I have written articles on this and other "myths". Please ask for them if you are interested
Regards to you

Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: Social Crediter Peter Haines answers the difficult questions Fw: Questions for Peter Haines

Hi Dick,
I do not like to get bogged down in discussions. There is too much verbiage being circulated on Social Credit which, from questions being asked indicate that very litttle has been done in reading Dougas.
If I can offer a few brief comments.

1. Social Credit means the credit of society.
2. The credit of society is based on its resources which are its assets
3. The utilisation of resources requires the use of money
4. If we require to use our resources for the benefit of mankind and we have the men, knowhow as well as the resources and we need hospitals, schools, housing, transport or anything else, it is simply nonsense to say we cannot use them because we have no money.
5. Money should be a reflection of the reality.
6. The backing for money is the credit of society and the credit of society belongs to the people who comprise society.
7. Money therefore belongs to the people and not the private banking system.
8 The creation of money should be based on correct National Accounting principles be related to a proper Balance Sheet of the nation showing all real assets and liabilities. This should be constructed from an     operating account similar to a Profit& Loss Account detailing the results of Production & Consumption in a given period.
9. A National Credit Authority whether as an institution n its own right or as an adjunct to the Reserve Bank would be responsible for the production of the national Accounts
10. The Reserve Bank should be the authority for issuing new money
11. The banking system would not create money by offering a credit facility as now but offer credit based on their holdings. Banks could borrow from the Reserve Bank if necessary. Banks are in the best position to make commercial decisions on lending to clients.

These are a few comments which may clear the air.

The National Dividend and the amount available for the Compensated Price discount would depend upon the results of the National Accounts.

"What I meant to ask about is the purpose of the discount to the retailer?  How is the amont of discount determined?"

 "Also, the producer isn't going to tell someone outright how much is "A" costs and how much is "B" costs"

"Also similar firms may differ in that one has high interest payments and the other low interest payments.  Should they both get the same rebate?"
"We know that each producer has some amount A cost and some amount B cost   -- so accounting is required  -- or does it not matter if the Dividends do not exactly total to the sum of the B's for each factory?  Is it better to miss high or miss low?"

"How is the dividend price set"


. . . I did not comment on your article but did comment to Wally that you had put a tremendous effort into your presentation. I also mentioned that (a) I do not go along with "models: and never have since my early days in economics whereby the text books showed the "circular Flow" of money. It is not possible to state the problem using a static representation because the economy functions in a dynamic. In addition the main factor which is overlooked by economists is "Time". Douglas pointed this out.

I feel that sometimes too much detail is entered into in explanations. If I switch on the light switch I expect to see a light come on. I do not need to know anything about power generation. If my car won't start, it amy be out of fuel and my gauge should yell me this. Unless I am a mechanic or engineer I do not need to know about combustion engines. If there is a deficiency in purchasing power and yet the economy has not collapsed I do not have look far for evidence. The increase in consumer debt tells all. Anyone of any standing who wishes to prove Douglas wrong (economists or politicians or business leaders) just have to stop all consumer credit lending. Douglas pointed out that the system could only continue with increasing debt. The evidence is there so why bother to explain to the uninitiated why there is a problem? We know there is a problem and what is required is sufficient publicity to show what the problem is and how it should be corrected.

Keep up the good work.
Vic Bridger
"It is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit.  Why then cannot the people have benefit of their own gilt-edge credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency - instead of bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interestbearing bonds? If the United States Government will adopt this policy of increasing its national wealth without contributing to the interest collector - for the whole national debt is made up on interest charges - then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise."
                 -- Thomas A. Edison
                    Inventor, Scientist

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.";
"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions,
which, if not covered, will end in their destruction ... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity ... is but swindling futurity on a large scale."; and, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
                 -- Thomas Jefferson
                    3rd President of the U.S.A.

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men..."
                 -- Woodrow Wilson
                    28th President of the U.S.A.

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
                 -- Woodrow Wilson, In "The New Freedom" (1913)

"The Federal Reserve (privately owned banks) is one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen."
                 -- Senator Louis T. McFadden
                     Chairman of the U.S. Banking and Currency Commission

"The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to money power.";

"The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.";

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war."
                 -- Abraham Lincoln
                    16th President of the U.S.A.
                   -letter written to William Elkin, less than five months
                      before he was assassinated.
From an article forwarded to me by Vic Bridger  -- (Ratch?)
The main ideas of this discussion [ not included] on money are:
1. Money is an IOU, not a commodity.
2. Banks have no money to lend because the value of the money comes from those who make and keep promises.
3. Banks and governments are merely accountants who are responsible for maintaining the value of your work and credit. (All those who have lost or are losing their homes through mortgage defaults might at least ask the banks or "lenders" to prove that they have actually "loaned money" to the "borrowers".)
4. Taxes, Interest, (and Currency adjustments?) are largely, if not wholly, unnecessary.
5. Economics, Government, and related financial machinery must be decentralized down to the local, observable, minimum functional level, such that a TRUE global society, one which recognizes the value of diverse global cultures, may emerge.
6. The prevailing structures of the world have emerged due to our own acquiescence, apathy, and self-imposed dis-empowerment. Regaining our rightful status is also ours to do. We are ultimately responsible for our own fates and that of this planet. Solutions are alluded to as one goes through the material, but they have not been thoroughly considered thus far. Tentatively, I would offer the following points in considering solutions:
1. There is nothing essentially problematic with the accounting systems as they now function. The main problem lies only in the inappropriate claims to ownership of the benefits of the system- i.e. the claims of governments and banks, for instance.
2. De-centralization of government and financial power would seem to be in order.
3. Canadians (and all other countries for that matter) require proper constitutions which reflect the sovereign rights of individuals as above those of the state. (See appendix 5)
4. Parliamentary, monetary, and legislative reforms are in order. Imagine a world where you have up to ten times the purchasing power with the same amount of effort you currently expend. Or better yet, one in which you need "work" only 10% of the time to meet your current needs and the rest of the time is spent in any way you wish which feeds your spirit in the fulfilling way that was originally intended. A proper understanding of the following material leads directly to this kind of world, if only we have the foresight and determination to take back what is rightfully ours- the power of money.
- - -
In effect, while money is a promise by the public in general to honour the collective IOUs of us all at some time in the future, promissory notes, (including those promised to banks) are promises of individual parties in society to honour their promises to other individuals in society, as I've already said.
All promises taken in the aggregate, however, can be thought of as the very same as currency money since it is the same collective honouring of these promises that backs all of the promises that we otherwise call "money". In fact, these promissory notes are money. Taken in the aggregate, they are all quite likely to be honoured and hold the same value as any other form of money.
The receiver of a loan is giving the "lender" the same promise as that contained within the currency of the land- the promise that future value will be given in due course. To guarantee his promise, he offers his collateral as value in the case of default. Fair value will be given in due course, as is the same for all forms of money.
So, on your promise to deliver fair value in the future, the bank accepts your promise and adds it to the total volume of other monetary promises in the economy. In its function as the accountant and clearance house, and in accordance with its obligations as the provider of funds (accountant) to the economic activity of the country, it accepts the promise on behalf of those from whom fair value will be given towards your cause, those to whom you will write cheques to be drawn on your account. This promise is then passed on to others who accept it at face value and exchange it for value in the future. It could be said that it is not the bank which accepts your promise, so much as it is the collective economy. In any event, the bank has your collateral as a guarantee which is available for distribution to those who may not receive the full value of your promise.
One might ask if the bank is offering value for service. To some extent it is, in that it is the intermediary between those who wish to exchange values in the amount of the "loan", but that is more of an administrative function and hardly justifies the exorbitant cost of the service which is represented in the interest charges.
So it seems to me, and to many others who have inspired me to give extensive thought to this entire issue, that the bank does nothing to warrant a claim of ownership of the funds that are created by a "borrower's" promise, nor in fact does its service warrant the ownership of the claim against the collateral. The promise is the money, which goes into circulation along with all of the other promises. If the promise is broken, the collateral should belong to those who have extended the value to the borrower and have not received fair value in return. I suggest that this is not the bank. Since the promise has been added to the aggregate of all promises in the economy, thus becoming a part of the money "supply", the default should trigger the distribution of the collateral to the aggregate- the economy as a whole.
Finally, as a control to regulate the supply of money according to the demand as determined by the chosen activity level of the economic community, it would seem that the reserve ratio is largely redundant, since economic activity is self-limiting according to the willingness of participants to make promises and their intention and ability to keep them. In the event that this process of self-regulation is somehow compromised, the reserve ratio may be a valid mechanism. It would seem preferable to the status quo which utilizes interest rates as a regulator and leaves the banking industry as the beneficiary of the monetary system rather than the people for whom it was ostensibly created. In fact, it is more likely that it is the presence of interest as a charge on IOUs which created the need for the reserve ratio as a regulator in the first place.
What About Interest?
Why should banks earn interest rather than have interest accrue to the public? What purpose does interest serve other than to enrich banks? Is interest necessary at all? Is the time value of money argument valid as a justification for interest? Why does the federal government have to borrow money at interest when they alone have the right to "print money" and therefore to fund the operations of the country without paying interest (or collecting taxes for that matter)?
Since, in the case of a bank loan, money is not sitting there waiting for someone to use for some other purpose in any case, but is in fact created by the promise of new value by the one who requires it, should the "loan" not be sufficiently paid when the value of the principal has been paid (i.e. recognized value has been transferred to all contributing parties)?
These are all very valid and interesting questions to consider now that we have thought about the concept of money and what money really is.
If you accept the premise that banks do not loan you money, but merely accept your IOU and place it into the stream of outstanding IOUs that we call the money supply, then it seems difficult to justify the banks' right to collect interest, at least not in their own name. And if not in their name, then in whose name is it to be collected. More importantly, why is it collected at all?
The common understanding that the bank owns the money and has the right to charge for the lending of it has been called into question by the premise that they do not own the money nor can they fulfill the promise of future delivery of value. Why then, do they have the right to charge interest?
- - -
Money as a commodity
Aside from the banks' claimed right to do so, the economic argument for the value of an interest charge on outstanding loans lies in the concept of the "time value" of money. The "time value of money" (i.e. interest) notion comes from the idea that a favour is being conferred to a "borrower" and that a price must be paid for this favour. Moreover, and this is the really important part with respect to economic theory, the price is set by market forces as there is a demand, and thus competition for, the funds which are being "lent" which, we are to presume, are in limited "supply".
In hand with this "limited supply" theory of money, we find the complementary idea that money made available now is worth more than money that you have to wait for, so it's worth it if you have to pay a price to get it now. You could call this the "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" theory. Of course, this is absolutely true if money is actually in limited supply, but if money is only an IOU, the only real limits are particular to the transaction and have to do with the quality of the promise and the willingness of the giver of value to accept it in good faith.
With this understanding, the "money supply" operates at the personal level and there is no limit, certainly not at the macro or societal level. Aside from abilities and intentions at the transaction level, the relevant supply factor is the availability of paper to write the IOU on. The currency system then, as I have mentioned, is merely an efficient social mechanism for recognizing IOUs and distributing benefits and risks of the system.
However, notwithstanding other reasons why a bank may be limited as to the number and amount of "loans" which may be outstanding at any given time, there is no competition for the funds that I request when I ask for a "loan" at the bank, since the funds do not exist until I create them with my promissory note. The bank merely offers its own promise in exchange for mine.
We do this because there is generally accepted confidence in the note of the bank and it is not necessary that others then have confidence in mine. (In this respect, the bank's promise functions much like the currency of the country.) If I did not offer my note as promise, the funds could not exist at all. I, therefore, am the one who creates the demand and also the one who fulfills the promise, thereby justifying the supply of the funds. Market forces, in and of themselves, do not impact my ability to make a promise, so why should there be a limit on the promises that I can make other than my inability to fulfill them?
This ability to make a promise and keep it is the real funding. This is where the value lies.
It supports the ultimate confidence which drives the real economy, in my estimation. We all benefit as long as we are able to meet our promises.

Interest as a monetary policy tool
Ostensibly, interest is a valuable tool in controlling the demand for money when the economy is "too hot", "too active", too much of something we never really get. It controls demand by controlling supply. It controls supply by controlling the price. Undoubtedly, if one were to question a formally trained economist as to the rationale of this theory, he would pull out all the stops and his vast repertoire of mathematical and theoretical models to show the complete devastation through "inflation, over-production, over-capacity, devaluation of the dollar", etc. that would ensue from the suggestion that interest may not be justified. Within his argument, however, there would be no mention of, or justification for, the fact that banks are the happy beneficiaries of the interest and debt which is the solution to all of our economic woes.
Unfortunately, I believe that economic theory arguments for the justification of interest are cyclic. They certainly do not have the power of nature that is suggested by the economic bibles that are written by the money gurus that dictate policy and economic direction in society.
Believing, however, as strongly as we do in the infallibility of the theories certainly serves the purposes of those who claim ownership of the money and the interest they charge.
One can certainly understand the potential for hyperactivity in the marketplace under a zero interest policy. However, as I have already suggested, the activity level should be determined by the parties to the transactions. People will limit their financial activities according to their desires and abilities. (Of course, this does not preclude the rights of affected third parties [including the collective] to invoke regulatory measures to limit activities that negatively impact them in some material fashion.) In any case, the proper use of a reserve ratio mechanism, coupled with adequate collateral ratios, income requirements, etc. as deterrents to default, should be adequate with respect to this kind of intervention in our collective mutually agreed exchanges.
We must keep in mind that the real danger we are attempting to avoid is not over-activity per se, but the probability of default among economic participants which may come about if they become "over-extended". Commonly practiced methods and due diligence in lending practice would still be a valuable component of any monetary system, whether interest forms a part of the mix or not.
The other major concern that seems to preoccupy the "powers that be", and for which interest is offered as the solution, is the ever-present "threat of inflation". Inflation has been defined in many ways, but what we usually are talking about is an escalation in prices such that our purchasing power is eroding.
- - -
The Price of Tea in China
It's interesting that the thing that we single out as being the most dire warning of impending economic doom is the increasing demand for higher wages. This is usually taken to be the sign that everything is "going to hell in a handbasket. People are living beyond their means. We have to stop this madness before we all land in the poor house." Of course, you can imagine who the "we" is in the previous sentence. It's certainly not the wage-earner demanding higher pay and taking the blame for the whole mess. It couldn't be that they are merely trying desperately to keep up, could it? The answer should be obvious. Are your wages keeping up with the cost of food, housing, cars, energy, or any other thing of major economic value? No, but, no irony intended, they are keeping up with the price of tea in China.
Unfortunately, the answer to the age-old question, "What does that (my wages) have to do with the price of tea in China?" is moot. The answer is, "Not much." But the price of tea in China is deemed to be quite important to our favourite measures of inflation, which is the "consumer price index" or the "core inflation rate", which happens to include the price of tea in China but not the cost of energy or interest.
As a matter of interest [no pun intended], interest rates are not included in the list of expenditures for Canadian and Alberta households [Check out Statistics Canada table "Average Household Expenditures", 2005]. Interest charges must be included (buried) in the various categories. I guess the cost of borrowing has nothing to do with the fact that you can afford less each year. Considering that, over the lifetime of a mortgage, you will pay as much or even double the value of your house in interest alone, I can't see how this little gem gets missed in our obsessive accounting of the inflation figures. Incidentally, over the lifetime of the house itself, it is entirely possible that interest has been paid as many as 5 or 6 times over and above the principal if there have been numerous owners!
Apparently, if the price of tea in China, as measured in Canadian dollars, is not going up too fast, we are fine. But if your wages are increasing faster than that, we are in trouble. "We have to raise the interest rate on your mortgage. Sorry about that. Nothing personal, but people are beginning to live beyond their means again, as if the price of tea in China was not low enough."
It's interesting that whenever we have an atmosphere of ever-increasing corporate profits, the business community, and certainly the banks and government, do not throw their hands up in the air in frustration over the plague of rising profits and taxes. Maybe there's a clue in here somewhere. On the other hand, maybe it's just me.
In any case, now that I've got that off my chest...
"The few who can understand the system (check money and credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests."  -- the author of the "Protocols of Zion,"  whomever she may be
As far as I'm concerned, solutions will begin when we realize that we collectively have the power to change things for the better and that we are the rightful owners of our collective government and financial systems. Governments and banks exist to serve us, so let's take back that power and redesign whatever needs redesigning.
For instance, there is no real problem with the money system and the technologies that support it. (If American Express can run a credit system, surely we can as well.) The problem is with those who claim ownership of it. Failing any attempt we may make to somehow re-capture these institutions as our own, I see no reason why we cannot set up a similar system for ourselves, one which is not usurious but which serves the purpose of the general public rather than a select few.
As far as government is concerned, reforms seem to be in order. Governments have to be reminded of who they work for and that the monetary system is something that we all should benefit from rather than be slaves to.

Many years ago I was a computer guru; I read the books and did what the books told me to do.
Most of my coworkers just wanted to do it their way, never listening to anyone else.
I never invented nothing. Everything I ever did came out of the heads of my coworkers.
I was a Systems Analyst who could program computers, and I did a very good job at both tasks, analysis, synthesis.
Okay. So I don't know squat about Social Credit.
I do believe this (I know I don't know for sure, belief is like that): Adolf Hitler in his early years,1933-1938, did one heck of a good job at bringing back Germany from the pits to one of the best lands to live in (my best years, 1956-1957, were spent in Germany, as a draftee in the army). In my mind Hitler used a lot of Social Credit concepts to accomplish same. And he didn't get it done all by himself; he had other minds to advise him, so not only was he one of the best speakers ever, he was a good listener too (a talent we are never told about).
In other words, Social Credit is in the doing, not in the constructing of grand plans. Bernanke and other Fed.Res. jerks are the tools of the grand planners, and they are intentionally taking this nation down the tube. The grand planners are the unseen string-pullers ... we call them Rothschilds and Rockefellers, trillionaires aided by billionaires, Buffet and Soros and Gates and . . . and their tools, Monsanto, Walmart, and a host of corporations. POTUS and SCOTUS and CONgress are their willing tools, all for money, soon worthless money. So it just keeps going on and on and on, grander and grander, and we lose more and more.
Oh well, the world is going to end the 2nd week in November, so fuck it.
After that comes the Wonderful World Tomorrow where our present political and financial systems are replaced with Social Credit concepts and a new Hitler (some might call him Jesus Christ).
From: Ardeshir Mehta
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: who is anti-usury? Beware the phony monetary reformers who seem to be but are not. Fw: Includes Verne Warwick's book "Clear Money"

On 27-Oct-10, at 12:59 AM, Dick Eastman wrote:

> Is it the interest or is it the fractional reserve banking?

It's the interest. If you could get an interest-free loan to buy your house, you would pay back the price of the house over time, and would therefore be able to afford one.

There should be banks which offer interest-free loans. One easy way for that to be done is for the Central Bank of a country (the Bank of Canada here in Canada) to open its doors to the GENERAL PUBLIC, and offer them interest-free loans, as outlined in my article "The Abolition of Interest on Loans", available for view at 

Other alternatives are also possible. Some are outlined in my article.

Mind you, if you cannot work - say, due to an injury - you will need Social Credit to help you live. The amount of Social Credit should enable you to have at least your Five Needs of Life, namely (1) Nutrition (2) CLothing (3) Home (4) Education and (4) Health. These should be available to you whether you work or don't work.

Fractional reserve banking cannot be eliminated. If you try it will simply go underground. This is what happened with prohibition. Credit can be created by anyone. If the banks are forbidden to create credit, the home-builders and stores and car dealers will give you the option to pay off your house or car or furniture over time, because they don't want to lost customers.


> Editor's Note: This message comes from an
> anonymous source believed to be within the US
> intelligence community. Some of the statements
> cannot be verified for authenticity, but the
> general themes and references speak for
> themselves. I've researched everything that is
> possible to research and it all stands up. I have
> no reason to believe any of this is untrue. Read it and decide for yourself.
> Confessions of a Covert Agent
> Psychological Operations is my specialty. PsyOps.
> Everything I've done has been highly classified,
> all black programs and black operations. Some
> people I know thought I worked for the CIA, but
> it's much more complicated than that. I've worked
> with people in the CIA, DIA, NSC, NSA, SAIC, Army
> Intel and many more lesser known agencies within the intelligence apparatus.
> Before focusing on PsyOps I started out running
> covert combat missions, special operations. I was
> good at what I did and rose through the ranks
> fast. When the "War on Terror" started I was paid
> a lot of money to consult with private military
> contractors. When private paramilitary units
> needed to get the jobs done that paid the most
> money they would come to me with checkbooks filled with US taxpayer dough.
> I've seen the worst things imaginable, hell on
> earth. Had friends die in my arms. Seen piles of
> rotten corpses. Seen men, women and children
> tortured. I've seen the eyes of terrified and
> confused children being sold into a vicious life of slavery and an early
> death.
> I could get a lot more graphic, but you get the idea.
> That was my life, and all along I was told that I
> was fighting for freedom and working for the
> "good guys." What a ridiculous comment that is!
> In the black world, that is, in the covert world,
> there aren't any "good guys" - just varying degrees of evil.
> As Brigadier General Butler famously stated, "War
> is a racket." It doesn't have anything to do with
> freedom and democracy. It is not good fighting
> evil. There's just a bunch of old greedy gangsta
> motherf**kers making obscene amounts of cash and
> breeding hatred, violence, terrorists and sex slaves.
> The truth is, there is no oversight! Meaning, you
> can get away with anything, nothing is illegal
> because no one knows about it, or the few who do
> are either in on it or have a vested interest in
> keeping quiet. Whether you're runnin' guns,
> weapons, drugs, gold, diamonds, women, children,
> it just doesn't matter. As long as the old guard
> gets their resources, it's all good. And in the
> end, it's all about power. The people who really
> run this planet know that natural resources (oil,
> water, coltan, cobalt, etc.) are the key. The
> "War on Terror" is just a front for a
> geo-strategic resource grab on a massive scale.
> Even the wars in Northern Africa are all about
> exploitation of resources. Once the good ole CIA
> boys at Bechtel did their NASA satellite studies
> of the Democratic Republic of Congo's (DRC)
> mineral resources and discovered that it was the
> "richest patch of earth on the planet," all hell
> broke loose! They figured out that the DRC has
> 80% of the world's coltan, among many other vital
> resources. Without coltan, you can't have any
> technology that requires a computer chip:
> computers, cell phones, satellites and weapon
> systems, of course. So Bechtel, the Citibank
> boys, the World Bank, IMF and various covert
> elements have been supplying brutal regime after
> brutal regime in the region. Well over four
> million and counting have died there.
> Same thing with oil in the Middle East. Do you
> think they really give a shit about Iraqi
> freedom? We worked hard to make you believe that,
> but c'mon, they don't give a shit about the Iraqi
> people. They've killed about a MILLION of them!
> And that's NOT an exaggeration! They sure as hell
> give a shit about Iraqi oil though. They also
> care about Saudi oil, and have a nice deal with a
> dictatorship that brutally oppresses their
> people. If freedom and democracy are the issue,
> how about freeing the Saudi people? Why do you
> think 15 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi
> Arabia? We support a regime that oppresses those
> people. We support them because they cooperate on
> the oil front. So, why strike back at them? Let's
> hit Iraq. They don't give us any oil - let's get'em!
> If you look at the history of covert special
> operations, it's all about securing a piece of
> land that has some valuable resource. Once the
> resource is identified, special ops figures out
> the most efficient way to suppress or extinguish
> the population that is unfortunate enough to live
> near it. Then the big companies come in, from the
> United Fruit Company to the Bechtels and
> Halliburtons of the world. That is the way it has
> been and still is, from John D. Rockefeller and
> Allen Dulles right through Kissinger, Bush Sr.
> and Cheney. Millions of innocent civilians have
> been slaughtered. Let me repeat that: Millions of
> innocent civilians have been slaughtered. And I'm
> not kidding you. These are evil motherf**kers and
> they are no friends of ours. These things don't
> have anything to do with protecting the US people
> or standing up for freedom and democracy. They
> don't give a shit about the average American. In
> this age of the global economy, the concept of
> nation state is obsolete. If only proud Americans
> could understand that. Pride in the American way
> is just another propaganda device for PsyOps
> agents - people like me - to use to manipulate
> you and make you think that black is white and white is black.
> If you were to ask me who is a bigger threat to
> the people of the US, Cheney or bin Laden, or who
> has done more damage to the US, I would say
> Cheney without hesitation. Cheney, along with
> Bush Sr. and Kissinger, has been running the
> covert world for about 40 years now.
> A little side note for you: I firmly believe
> Robert Gates, the current Secretary of Defense
> and Bush Sr.'s right-hand man in the covert
> world, used computer cryptography and software
> security assets to get Bush Jr. elected both
> times. I do not have direct knowledge of the
> operation, but research "Robert Gates," "Bill
> Owens," "electronic voting security," "HAVA,"
> "VoteHere" and "Scientific Applications
> International Corp." [We will post more on this
> in the near future.] The operation went so well
> that Gates was going to be made the first ever
> Director of National Intelligence. He turned down
> the job, but then took the Secretary of Defense
> position when Rumsfeld was removed from his
> public position. I don't think there will ever be
> solid evidence linking directly to members of the
> administration; it's all a tangled web of
> plausible deniability. But I do think it will
> eventually be proven that the elections were
> manipulated to deliver Bush the victory. Many
> people in the covert world take this for granted, as common sense.
> Please don't confuse this as partisan propaganda.
> I don't give a sh*t about the Democrat or
> Republican PsyOps mind-f**k dynamic. They're just
> labels to divide a potentially powerful united US public.
> It's hard to get the average American to
> understand these things. Most everyone in this
> country has been mind-f**ked since birth. For a
> very blatant example, you can look at the
> advertising industry and the way they have
> increased intensely their focus on the youth.
> It's all about breeding impulsive emotionally
> driven consumers through repetition - over and
> over again - buy, buy, buy. You hear something
> enough and you internalize the message. It
> becomes something like the air you breathe, like
> gravity. It's there, omnipresent, but you don't
> realize it or consciously think about it. It
> becomes the spring from which your thoughts leap forth.
> What it all boils down to is the exposure rate.
> You take a simple message and you repeat it over
> and over, such as mentioning Saddam and 9/11. You
> don't have to say Saddam was involved in 9/11,
> because that is not true. You just have to
> mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same simple
> repetitive message thousands of times and people
> will support an attack on a country that didn't
> have anything to do with 9/11 because they've
> been psychologically conditioned to link the two.
> It's psychological operations on a grand scale,
> mass psychology. The scientific art of
> manipulating public opinion is 100 years old now.
> PsyOps have evolved to the point, thanks to the
> all pervasive mass media, where we can make you
> believe, or at least passively accept, whatever
> we want you to. I secretly worked with the
> world's most powerful media companies to get you
> to believe what "they" want you to believe. The
> media is the most efficient weapon of tyranny and
> oppression ever created. No need to physically
> control populations anymore when you can do it
> mentally - program it in, internalize the rules.
> To give a little more background on publicly
> revealed psychological operations, in 1977, after
> the Congressional Church Committee investigated
> CIA manipulation of the news media, and right
> after George Bush Sr. left his post as the
> Director of the CIA, famed Watergate reporter
> Carl Bernstein searched a little deeper into what
> was known as Operation Mockingbird. He revealed
> that over 400 US journalists were actually
> carrying out clandestine CIA PsyOps services.
> Bernstein identified operations involving almost
> every major US news outlet, most notably The New
> York Times, CBS and Time magazine. The CIA
> responded to all of this with a "limited
> hangout." A "limited hangout" is CIA speak for
> when classified information gets out and you have
> to make it seem as if you are "coming clean" with
> all the information on the operation, but in
> reality you are really just admitting part of the
> operation so you can cover up other deeper parts
> and continue the program. This worked very
> effectively for them, as the US public quickly
> moved on and this operation has largely been
> forgotten. Currently, I would estimate, with
> cable news and the Internet now, that there are
> well over a thousand covert operatives spread
> throughout the news media. They have a firm grip
> on television, newspapers, wire services, radio
> and magazines. However, with the Internet -
> that's their weak spot - it's too decentralized and difficult to control.
> The Pentagon's Information Operations Roadmap now
> describes the Internet as an enemy "weapons
> system." The Pentagon doesn't hide the fact that
> they want total control over information, or as
> they call it "information dominance." They very
> plainly state that they seek to "control land,
> sea, space and information." This is what they
> refer to as "full spectrum dominance." If you
> don't think they see this as a top priority, look
> at Iraq. The plan to "embed" journalists with the
> military in Iraq was a strategic operation that
> considered "journalism as part of psychological
> operations." The journalists that weren't
> "embedded" were considered "enemy combatants."
> More journalists have been killed in Iraq than in
> any other war, and it is the US doing a large portion of the killing.
> Before I go too far here, the point I want to
> make to the US public, the bottom line is that
> the most power crazed and greed addicted people
> are above the law and get away with everything.
> In the covert world rules do not apply. Democracy
> is a fairy tale. Nothing is what it seems,
> reality isn't real. Through the looking glass Alice goes.
> I've fought against it and got nowhere. I've
> informed people that I naively thought could do
> something, but nothing could be done. I took all
> the blood money I've made and donated it to
> humanitarian causes. Will it make a difference?
> No. Not in the grand scheme of things, but in the
> short run it may save a few people. maybe. And
> that's all I can hope for at this point.
> I've become so cynical! I live with guilt and
> cynicism weighing on my every move, my every thought.
> When you've seen the things I have seen, been
> involved with the things I've been involved with,
> when you've spent the majority of your life
> living like I have, what do you do when you
> decide to give it up and get out? Can you ever get out?
> I was able to get out, thus far, when no one I
> knew thought I could get out. But once you lived
> in the covert world, "normal" civilian life feels
> like a prison sentence. Then again, the covert world was a prison sentence.
> I've been strongly advised to keep a very low
> profile and forget about things for a while. But
> I find it hard to just fade into the night when
> we are reaching an event horizon, a breaking
> point. Despite my cynicism, there is a part of me
> that knows I have to keep fighting. The stakes
> are just too high, higher then they've ever been.
> The human species is in serious trouble, facing a
> set of crises unlike anything we've ever faced
> before. Unless these covert forces are exposed,
> and ultimately eliminated, I don't see how we can
> even begin to make the bold actions that we need
> to start making now - and I mean right f**king
> now! These covert forces are a root cause and
> driver, a cancer spreading through the system and planet.
> As far as I can tell, you can't change the system
> from within the intelligence community itself.
> This includes the Senate Intel Committee. If the
> urgently needed changes are ever to happen, it
> has to come from the US public. Now I know first
> hand how the American public has been conditioned
> to be apathetic and not get involved in politics
> and has been fed a steady diet of misinformation.
> But propaganda only works to the point where the
> population being propagandized is not feeling the
> direct impact and negative consequences on a
> personal level in their daily lives. That's why
> the draft played a large role in bringing an end
> to Vietnam. We need another draft to push the
> mainstream over the edge and into action, but the
> façade is beginning to crack - 9/11 had some
> effect, the war in Iraq certainly, Katrina,
> massive job loses and an economic downturn that
> has really just begun have all factored into
> creating a critical mass. Even the most
> propagandized population in the history of
> civilization will have to act when their very
> survival and well-being is directly threatened
> and impacted. I just hope enough people will
> understand the need for bold decisive action now, before it's too late.
> So, to the people who have awareness of the
> problems facing us, if I could give advice, it would be this:
> 1. Try the Bush Administration for war
> crimes. If the case could ever be brought to
> court, the evidence to convict is definitely
> there. This is why the administration has been
> strongly against the International Criminal
> Court. If we are to begin repairing this country,
> and the world, we must begin by showing these
> power crazed and covert forces that they are
> accountable. If we can convict someone like
> Cheney, we will send a powerful message to the
> covert world. If we let them walk, we will keep
> having these problems. New people will follow them and take their place.
> 2. Investigate where all the military
> spending has been vanishing off to. There are
> literally trillions of taxpayer dollars
> unaccounted for. This money is fueling the covert
> world and terrorism in general. As part of this,
> I would include an investigation into war profiteering as well.
> 3. Make it mandatory that all electronic
> voting machines must have a 100% verifiable paper trail.
> 4. Get people into the Federal Communications
> Commission (FCC) who will smash the current media
> ownership rules. The concentration of media
> ownership is the foundation of the covert power
> structure. Without that, the whole thing is a
> house of cards. That's why the FCC is currently
> trying to ram through rules that will further
> consolidate media ownership before the Bush
> administration leaves office. As part of this, it
> is pivotal that we protect the open architecture
> of the Internet. The media belongs to the people,
> as does the government, in theory anyway, but we
> need an information system that actually serves the public interest.
> 5. Declare a national and global emergency on
> the environmental front. We have already reached
> the breaking point. We need organized,
> governmental, policy driven, bold action now.
> 6. We need to address entities that now have
> power over the Constitution, such as the
> undemocratic and unelected corporate global
> governing structure - institutions like the World
> Trade Organization (WTO) and the International
> Monetary Fund (IMF) and "agreements" like NAFTA
> and DR-CAFTA, to name a few. Most Americans don't
> even know what these power structures are, let
> alone that they have power that supersedes the
> Constitution. We must also address the National
> Security Act, that's where the ultimate power of
> our country lies. The National Security Act has
> effectively made the Constitution meaningless and
> is the primary driver of the covert world. The
> PATRIOT Act and various other newly granted
> powers must also be drastically revised or
> eliminated completely in order to protect our civil liberties.
> 7. Lastly, we need to have publicly financed
> elections. As long as we have a system that
> requires candidates to raise tens of millions of
> dollars to even be considered for office, we will
> have politicians who bend over backwards for the
> richest one percent and the most powerful
> elements of society at the citizens' expense. An
> important aspect of this has to be a requirement
> for large media companies to provide candidates
> with free airtime. Candidates have to spend the
> majority of their money on advertising in the
> mainstream media. That's why the major news media
> spend so much time focusing on who is raising the
> most money, because they are the ones who end up
> with all that money. Once we have publicly
> financed elections and free airtime for
> candidates, we will get people in office who will
> work in the interests of the public because they
> are not beholden to the large and powerful
> entities. When you have politicians depending on
> the public instead of the private sector for
> survival, all the issues mentioned above could be
> addressed because they won't have to fear the
> withdrawal of support from large corporations and
> the wealthy and powerful who do not want these
> things to happen. This will also enable us to
> eliminate tax breaks for the richest one percent,
> put an end to corporate welfare practices, and
> stop funding for obscene military and prison
> industrial companies that are profiting off of
> disasters and no longer serve security interests.
> Then we can redirect that money into
> environmental, education, health care and social
> security programs, to mention a few.
> In the current political environment this may all
> sound like an unrealistic pipe dream, but these
> are the seven pivotal things that MUST happen. If
> all seven don't happen within the next few years,
> we will have set the world on a disastrously
> irreversible course. This is "the unfortunate
> reality of our current situation." It is not
> going to be easy, but you better start fighting for it now, while we still
> can.
> It really does come down to us. You have to
> personally, in your daily life, do everything you
> can. With enough public pressure all of these
> things are achievable. Once we get a small
> portion of the population acting in this
> direction, it will quickly catch on and spread.
> Even though the overwhelming majority of the US
> population is incredibly propagandized on the
> surface, just underneath is the realization of
> the need for mass action. They just need leaders
> to point this out. The mainstream just needs a
> spark. Do what you can to set it off. It is a
> matter of unprecedented significance.
From: Undisclosed
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:36 PM

Subject: Fw: Emailing: 19027

Mr. Cook:

        I saw your comment to Mr. Eastman to wit:  The jews are not the problem but just scapegoats.  With all due respect I beg to differ.  The weight of historical evidence is not only enormous but it is clearly against your position.   The evidence will bury you if you take the time to investigate.  My two cents on this subject is noted below.  In the spirit of free debate, I invite you to consider my comments.  

      One more point.  I think it is important to identify and define what is meant by the word Jew.  If you contend that this is not a jewish problem, but a Khazar/Ashkenazi problem then you and I are singing from the same hymnal and the same page.  T.R.A.     p.s.   these comments were written to a friend and relative.....

               The reason why we don't communicate is that you insist on giving the so-called jews, especially the Israeli jews,  a pass regarding all the trouble in the world today.  You also persist with this notion  that there is this amorphous, ambiguous and ill defined "elite"  in the layer of power that exists just above both the so-called jews, and the zionists. You contend that this layer of power consists of the "Illuminati" and that they are the ones responsible for all the violence.   According to you, the so-called jews are just unwitting tools of these wealthy and powerful plutocrats.   I agree there is another layer.  And for lack of a better word it is often called the "illuminati." The spin merchants like Henry Makow, and Alex Jones, also refer to these people as the Illuminati.    And like you, Makow uses the term illuminati as a code word or a metaphor for people who are NOT Jews.  The favorite targets that fall into that category are the Papacy, the Jesuits,  and of course the royal family of Great Britain.  Oh I almost forgot, the Knights of Malta somehow figure in there somewhere.  And let's not forget the Freemasons.  


            So, let me spell out my position as clearly as possible, one step at a time.  

            1.  For lack of a better word the so-called illuminati are behind the drive towards control of the entire middle east;  and ultimately  the establishment of a one world government with its capital in jerusalem.  (The biggest  problem for the illuminists? Those pesky Arabs and Persians, with their quaint religion of Islam are in the way.  Let's face it, the Muslims have a strict moral code, and they believe in one God. So, they just don't fit. The Christians don't fit either, but right now they are the useful idiots.  There turn comes next.)  (By the way, neither the Pope nor the Queen of England have anything to do with  financing the construction of the world parliament building in Jerusalem.  It is being paid for entirely by the Rothschild family.)

             2. The people who you call the "elite" or the "Illuminati"  are also referred to as "the thirteen Illuminati bloodlines."  If you look at the families that fall into that category,  they are without exception people who call themselves Jews.  (To be more accurate, their true ethnicity is Khazar).  The most notable of this group would be the Rothschild family, followed by Warburgs, Lehman, Speyer, Oppenhiem, Israel-Sief, Oppenhiemer, Bronfman, Goldman, Schiff, Sassoon Schroeder and so forth.  (Cannot think of the other two right now.)   In this regard,  in 1920, Sir Winston Churchill, the future Prime Minister of England, wrote an extensive article for the London Sunday Herald where he discussed at length the subject of the Illuminati. 

     For your edification  I quote one of many very telling passages in that article: 

            "From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela-Kuhn, Rosa Luxembourg and Emma Goldman,  this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing.  This conspiracy played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy for the French revolution. It has been the mainspring for every subversive movement in the nineteenth century; and now this band of personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."  

              Of course, Winston Churchill was referring to the Russian Revolution of 1917 which was, organized, financed, and led  exclusively by Jewish bolsheviks.  That is an undeniable historical fact.  This sad chapter of the human race resulted in the murder of millions of Russian Christians. (Some experts claim this number could be sixty million.)  This, of course,  included Czar Nicholas who witnessed his whole family, including his children, bayonetted to death.  

              Getting back to Churchill, what ethnic group do you think Churchill was referring too when he made the above statement?  Do you think  it was the Italian Papists? Or, could it have been the house of Windsor?  The Jesuits?  The Irish Republican Army? The Viet Cong?

             3.  The people who control Israel, (Is there any doubt in your mind that the Rothschild's are one of several illuminist families in control of Israel?), are responsible for  its racist/supremacist policies, and its warlike foreign policy.  They will only allow the people who call themselves jews to be citizens of the state of Israel.   In other words you CANNOT be an Israeli citizen without also being JEWISH.   Essential to the establishment of the so-called New World Order is the Zionist DREAM.  That would be the establishment of "Eretz Israel" which would include all the land from the Nile River in Egypt to the Euphrates river in Iraq and vast portions of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  (The two blue horizontal lines on the Israeli flag are symbolic of the Nile River and The Euphrates river.  The six pointed star---the socalled Star of David consists of six triangles, six points and six angles.  Sound familiar?)   That also means the people who call themselves Jews intend to go to a lot of places that they are not wanted.  So far, that aggressive behavior has resulted in non stop warfare with the Arabs.  Would it serve any useful purpose to outline in painful detail the unimaginable violence, including theft,  rape,  torture, and mass murder which has been inflicted upon the indigenous people of the middle east by the state of Israel in the last sixty years?  With that thought in mind,  are you willing to give the Israeli jews a pass because they are allegedly directed and used by  jewish illuminati families?  Do you consider the Israeli jews to be the "unwilling executioners" of Illuminati terror and control?  Are the Israeli jews,  the unwitting and ignorant dupes in this ongoing program of murder and genocide?  I don't think so.  I don't think so, and if you think about it I think you will agree.   If not,  I strongly suggest  you take some time and read what these people really believe.  You can find it in the Talmud.  My favorite quote from the Talmud is:  "Kill the best gentiles." That pretty much sums it up. There are 230 pages of the Talmud dedicated to the issue of killing gentiles.  These people thrive on conflict, violence and murder.    They regard anyone not of their tribe to be not only less than human but also their mortal enemies to be extinguished at will.   That is their choice, not mine.  But again, I digress.  My point here is that the Israelis are clearly willing participants in the program of zionist conquest.  They are just as culpable as the jewish illuminati wizards who are standing behind the curtain calling the shots.      

             4.   In short the drive towards the new world order is being organized, financed, and executed by so-called JEWS.   It is jewish to THE CORE.    And, they will never stop, until they are stopped.  Will they be stopped?   I think that is unlikely.  Thanks to the ignorant, bible-thumping, flag-waiving nitwits in this country and elsewhere, we have aided and abetted the zionists in the creation of a nuclear monster that now threatens not just the middle east but the peace and safety of the entire world.  I think you can count on the fact that they will eventually use these weapons to kill millions of innocent people.  In fact I will be surprised if it does not happen.  It is only a matter of time.

                What I just said is my opinion.  Whether you agree with me or not, is of no concern to me.  I just want to clarify why we seem to miscommunicate.  All your effort to convince me that the so-called Jews are "just victims" and that  "the real culprits" in this ongoing criminal enterprise are the so-called "elite" or "illuminati" will be unsuccessful.   So, please stop berating me over this issue.         

               There is nothing new about this reality.  These people, who call themselves JEWS are insular,  racist, and supremacists who believe that they are not just God's chosen people, but God's who walk the earth.  They also believe, that they are  destined to inherit the earth and all its resources.  They are convinced that they will dominate and control all the inferior races left on this planet.   The inferior races, in their eyes, are just "Amalek,""Goyim," "animals," to be used, and abused, and even killed if it suits their purpose.  This is what they learn from an early age.        

                This attitude, this dogma and this racist ideology is not some paranoid gentile nightmare.  Again, this reality is amply illustrated throughout the so-called sacred literature of the so-called Jews.  It can be found in abundance in the Talmud, the Zohar, The Old Testament The Protocols of Zion and the Kabbala.  Moreover, literally scores of so-called jewish leaders and rabbis have stated publicly that they are the "master race" and that they intend to take control of the entire globe.  Would you like some quotes?  The same revelations have been made by Jewish American patriots who disclosed to the world the true agenda of Judaism, Zionism, and Gobalism.  The names Freedman, Shamir, Lillienthal, and Bernstein come immediately to mind.   I will gladly send you this information if you so desire.     

               The reason why I continue to use the term "so-called jews" is to emphasize that this term is a mask. And, it is deliberately intended to be a mask.   It implies that the so-called jews are Hebrews,  and as such are descended from Abraham Isaac, and Jacob.   They are not Hebrews, otherwise they would call themselves Hebrews.  Or they would call themselves Judeans etc. etc.    They are just mongol Khazars who, for political reasons, adopted the religion of Talmudism over a thousand years ago!  Today they call it Judaism.  The so-called jews continue to use their so-called religion of judaism for political gain. They have convinced all of the evangelical christian nutters that they are the chosen people of God.  (For starters, research the history behind the Scofield Bible.) They also like to use their "mantle of divinity" to justify the atrocities that they routinely commit against the Arab/Muslim world.  They are allowed to murder innocent Arab children, because the so-called jews are "God's chosen people."  And these children are just Amalek!  Just animals!  You understand, I am sure, that It is a lot easier to pull the trigger on a five year old child, once you have removed their humanity.  And, to speak out against these ongoing atrocities is met immediately with the accusation of anti semitism.  In fact in Europe you can be jailed for saying the wrong thing.  They call it hate speech!  In the Orwellian Jewish madhouse that has been created for us, shooting Arab children is not hateful.  But, if you dare complain about Israeli Jews shooting Arab children that is considered a hate crime.  That is the level of insanity we are dealing with. 

                  When you think about it, this whole scene is a pretty good con job.     On the other hand, If the hundreds of emails I get every week, from all over the world,  are any indication of what people are thinking, then it is safe to say that the "stupid goyim" are finally figuring out just how bad they have been conned. (I suspect that the theft, of  trillions of dollars in wealth had something to do with this sea change in attitude.)   The greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the human race is slowly coming undone.    Are we witnessing a cosmic shift in human consciousness?  And this is global in scope.   We shall see.  


               By the way, the distinction between Hebrews and the so-called Jews is very ably illustrated by the late Jack Bernstein in his publication "An American Jew in Racist Israel."  I sent his essay to you.  I suggest you take the time to read it.  Mr. Bernstein paid with his life for publishing the truth.  He was murdered by the Mossad.  The book "Facts are Facts" by Ben Freedman is also excellent.   

                This is the last comment I am going to make concerning these issues.  God always gives us a choice.  We have free will.   We can continue with these infantile fantasies and delusions that give us a great deal of comfort, but fantasies, in the long run, will inevitably lead to a great deal of pain.   The other choice is to wake up and face what is real.  Sooner or later we will all come around.   That day of illumination will probably come when these people, who dare to call themselves "the chosen people of God"  incinerate the middle east, along with  the great capitals of Europe.  Unlike the Iranians, they have both the capacity and clearly the willingness to commit  unthinkable crimes against humanity.   They do it every day!!!     


                I hope for your sake, that you will eventually be able to sort this out.



Hugo Haig-Thomas of Richmond, England, draws attention Sunday, May 18, 2008 to the German colonel punished by modern Germany for revealing what he witnessed as a prisoner of the Soviets in Sachsenhausen camp: the faking of a gas chamber !!!!! -podkr.moje -Jerzy 

I was held by the Russians in Sachsen-hausen, and made to build a gas chamber there; this is what I saw 

HAVE YOU heard of the case concerning Gerhart Schirmer, a retired Bundeswehr officer who was prosecuted a few years ago for contravening the law, this time in Germany, which makes any denial or diminution of the 'Holocaust' a criminal offence? 

As a young officer, Schirmer was captured in 1945 by the Russians and held in Sachsenhausen which the Russians continued to use as a prison. Although the War and Nazism were over, Schirmer and a few fellow-prisoners were forced to construct a gas chamber and execution room, to show the world what the Nazis had done.
He described his experiences in a booklet entitled 'Sachsenhausen - Workuta, Zehn Jahre in den Fängen der Sowjets' (Grabert Verlag, Tübingen, 1992). 

When 'certain groups' drew the attention of the authorities to the booklet's contents, it was seized and banned in Germany. This is described by Schirmer below (my translation). I understand Schirmer was given the choice of a fine or prison and he chose the fine because, being over ninety, he did not relish spending his last few years behind bars, especially as he had already spent eleven years of his life in prison. 

Hugo Haig-Thomas 


Col (retd) Gerhart Schirmer, Sachsenhausen - Workuta. Zehn Jahre in den Fängen der Sowjets (published by the right-wing and independent firm, Grabert Verlag, Tübingen, 1992). 

Following a decision by the County Court in Tübingen of 21.8.2002-12.9.2002, this booklet was withdrawn and prohibited on the grounds of racial incitement (file reference 4 Gs 937/02). 

Extracts from pages 10, 13 and 37. 

There exists a notarized, sworn affidavit about the construction of a gas chamber and a shooting facility [at Sachsenhausen concentration camp] in October/November 1945 by eight prisoners, of whom I was one. Briefly described, this 'gas chamber' was a shower room with 25 showerheads in the ceiling. This was supposed to give the impression that the gassing was conducted in it. Adjoining this, we erected a separate chamber with an opening, in front of which the offender would sit facing the opposite side in order to receive a shot in the back of his neck. At least this was what the guide had to explain [to Soviet visitors]. This [guide] was our Fritz Dörbeck who, as a translator, had to act out this piece of theatre because - born in Russia - he spoke perfect Russian. [...] 

Concerning the falsifications in Sachsenhausen (autumn 1945): 

At the beginning of October 1945 Schirmer arrived at the former concentration camp, Sachsenhausen, which the Red Army had occupied since the end of April and which had been taken over by the NKVD [the much feared Soviet secret police that was responsible for political repression during the Stalinist era, akin to the Nazi Gestapo] who continued to run it as Special Camp No. 7. He describes some of his experiences from this time in his booklet 'Sachsenhausen-Vorkuta'. Of special interest is his statement concerning the alterations made to the former camp crematorium by German internees, including Schirmer, on the orders from the NKVD. Schirmer later made a statement under oath about it in which he said: 

... in early October 1945 I was placed in Oranienburg [ie Sachsenhausen] concentration camp (barrack room 19) which continued to be used by the Soviets. After about fourteen days I was brought into the 'Steinbau' (stone buildings) and there, together with seven other prisoners, presented to the political officer of the camp, Lieutenant-Colonel Kolowantienkow. From him we received an order to carry out certain construction work in the so-called Front Zone (Vorzone) of the camp. 

Among the seven other prisoners was Dipl.-Ing. Fritz Dörbeck. He was the son of a German geologist who in about 1905 had been tasked by the Tsarist administration to carry out some geological research in the region of Vladivostok. Dörbeck grew up there and spoke fluent Russian. In 1918 the Dörbeck family returned to Germany via China. After his release in 1956, Fritz Dörbeck became the sales director of AEG-Telefunken in Ulm and I remained a close friend of his till his death in 1982. 

The seven prisoners also included one Emil Klein, a Sudeten German who also spoke fluent Czech and some Russian. He supervised our construction work and then disappeared from the camp after its completion. We suspected at the time that this Klein was the intermediary [Vertrauensmann] for the Soviets. The seven also included four construction workers and a plumber. I no longer remember their names. 

In the middle of October 1945 we were taken to the construction site. There, in the so-called Front Zone of the Camp, was a large shower room with an ante-room. The shower room was about 8x10 square metres and contained about twenty-five shower heads. In the ante-room were about fifty coat hooks. 

When we arrived, the material required for the construction work was already there. Under the directions of Klein, we now connected pipes from outside the building to the water supply pipes [Wassernetz]. Outside, on the outside of the wall, taps were attached. Only now was Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck the first to understand what this work was apparently about. 

We built an additional concrete cell adjoining the bathroom measuring about 4x2 square metres with an opening into the ante-room of the shower room. The new opening from the ante-room to the newly built so-called 'execution room' [Erschießungsraum] was about 20 cms wide. It was made to look as if the offender who was to be shot would have stood at the entrance facing the concrete wall enabling the person with the gun to fire a shot into the back of his head. 

The construction works went on for about 14 days. When Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck and I realised what was being built, we went to the political officer and told him that we refused to undertake any further work. The political officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Kolowantienkow, spoke - often heatedly - with Dörbeck for about fifteen minutes in Russian. Dörbeck later told me that the political officer had said that we would be summarily shot if we ceased to do any further work or let slip one word about it.
The political officer said furthermore that we were receiving good rations (which was true) and that he - Dörbeck - would later be required to explain the installation to groups of Soviet visitors. The political officer also said that we would be well-treated in the future and receive good rations. As we were unable to prevent the construction of the installation, it seemed to make sense to us that we should continue the work and, in this way, learn what was being made there. 

After completion, at about the end of October 1945, Dipl.-Ing. Dörbeck was brought before the political officer alone and received precise instructions about the explanations he was to give to Soviet groups of visitors. He had to say the following: This installation, which was built by the Nazis, served to kill [Vernichtung] Jews and Soviet officer prisoners. Each day some 200 people were gassed and about twenty-five were shot. This went on from 1943 till 1945 (April). 

From about December 1945 until the end of 1947 an average of two tours a week, each consisting of some thirty to forty Soviet men, mostly soldiers and people from the GPU, and women, were escorted by Dörbeck round the installation. There were often officers amongst them who quite openly expressed doubts about the age of the installation because they saw that the concrete was new, that there were no bullet holes from the executions in the concrete wall and that the blood stains (red paint) were very meagre and unconvincing. 

Dörbeck reported to me after each tour. ... After Oranienburg concentration camp was closed down in January 1950, Dörbeck and I were sent first to Lichtenberg (Berlin) Prison and then in September 1950 to Vorkuta in the northern Urals. 

Signed Gerhart Schirmer 
Rastatt, 16.12.86 

Schirmer placed this declaration, in the same wording, with a notary in 1988. 

Concerning the detention in Sachsenhausen and Vorkuta. 

In the Soviet Special Camp No 7 (Sachsenhausen) Schirmer was first barrack room leader and then worked as an 'appointment assistant' for the Jewish prisoners' doctor, Dr Hirschfeld, whose surgery was situated in the pathology building. Schirmer 'enjoyed' the privilege of being permitted to sleep in Hirschfield's surgery. In this way it was possible for him to go into the mortuary at night and count the bodies of people who had died during the day. In this way secret body counts were carried out over the years, alternating or working with fellow prisoners. When Schirmer was sentenced to a whole year's solitary confinement in 1948, the secret counts were carried out in his absence by Artur Andres. In this way, the number of victims of the NKVD camp Sachsenhausen is known quite precisely. Schirmer reckons they amounted to about 24,600 ('give or take a hundred'). 

When the NKVD camp was closed in January 1950, Schirmer, like many others, was still not free but was sent via Berlin-Lichtenberg and Brest-Litovsk to Vorkuta. Only when the last 'war criminals' were released early in 1956 after Adenauer's negotiations in Moscow in 1955 was Schirmer able to return home. The fact that he survived four years of starvation in Sachsenhausen and the 6 years in Vorkuta borders on a miracle. 

Schirmer then entered the Bundeswehr [Federal German Army] and retired as a Lieutenant-Colonel. 

[b ]Gerhart Schirmer was rehabilitated by the Russian state. Without him the conversion work on the crematorium in the former concentration camp of Sachsenhausen might never have been known. [/b] 

Friedrich Stelzel of Munich relates April 22, 2008 that he witnessed similar fakery as a Soviet prisoner in Auschwitz after the war 


Palash Biswas
Pl Read:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Website counter


Blog Archive