IT'S THE MONEY CREATION, STUPID!

President Obama continually states that he has done just about everything humanly possible to "jump start" the economy. He has greatly enriched Wall Street banks and other large banking and financial institutions. Surely they will soon loan enough of this money to industry - both large and small - to promote job-creation.

Why should these large banks invest these funds given to them by Uncle Sam in the name of the people in risky enterprises, when they can take this money and put them in Treasury bonds where they can safely double or triple their money? They can borrow additionally money from the "Federal" Reserve at near zero interests and invest this in U.S. bonds (or other relatively safe bonds) and double or triple their money.

They exist, as do bloodsucking parasites (bedbugs, leeches, ticks, et al), and there is little reason to free themselves from Uncle Sam's body and risk the dangers of finding other hosts. Only after swelling to immense size will they take a risk, usually setting up the next cycle of increasingly bad loans.

President Obama hasn't come close to tackling the problem, as the problem is systemic. It is founded on the originating of money through private banks in a system that creates about 90% of it monetary aggregates by means of debt. The U.S. provides the "Federal" Reserve with bonds as collateral for "cash" which are merely ledger creations out of nothing.

Commercial banks take 10% (or whatever the reserve figure required) of all deposits and set that amount aside as a "Federal" Reserve deposit. They loan out the other 90%, if they choose to do so. This created money ends up as a deposit in the originating bank or another, and goes through the same process, the bulk of the funds reloaned. Hence, a pyramiding of "created money" takes place. Inevitably, a deflation of the "created money" occurs, as bad loans increasingly appear on bank books.

Instead of this complicated nonsense, the system should be changed to one in which the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Bureau of the Mint in conjunction create positive legal tender. The whole of the American economy can easily adjust to it.

The money can be injected into the economy by means of infrastructural works paid for by the issuance of legal tender (as Abraham Lincoln did with his original "greenbacks"). It could also be injected through the Social Security Administration's Social Security and Medicare payments. The Defense Department could pay for its war equipment and personnel by means of this money.

All our relationships with foreign nations should be altered to reflect these changes. All our "connections" with the extra-American nations and companies/peoples were man-made by our "statesmen" and can be unmade by patriotic, wise statesmen. It is not a declaration of hostility toward the world beyond our shores, but that we place our interests first.

As part of the latter adjustment, tariffs should be applied to all products coming to our shores on the  basis of labor costs. Our workers should not be consigned to slave labor rates because our competition employs slave labor. American industry should not be obliged to flee America to survive. Equality of rates should be obtained by adjusting extra-national rates to reflect the rates our workers in the same or very similar industries are paid. This would also encourage the outside world to pay decent wages.

Lastly, American industry that operates entirely domestically should receive tax reductions, as compared to international corporations. In no case should an international corporation operating in the United States have lower taxes than an entirely domestic company.

All internationalist citizens should be encouraged to leave their property in America and go to England, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, et al, where they would reside among kindred spirits. 

President Obama was, is, and will always be a Wall Street and Lasalle Street agent. What he can squeeze in as an expression of solidarity with Karl Marx, he will no doubt do. He will never solve the systemic problem of negative money. He will only participate in the jump-starting of the next episode of inflating the debt-balloon. 

CIVIL WAR?

There is a Biblically-based bromide in regard to a "house divided." The force of the comment is that such houses cannot stand. Unfortunately, the Celto-Germanic population has accepted quite the opposite assertion: "Diversity means strength." A racially-based assessment of "house" is the proper way of looking at "house." A house is a place for a family. Families are typically  units of clans or tribes. Clans or tribes are typically units of nations. Nations are typically ruled by governments. The form of a government may be agreed upon mutually by the tribes or clans (and ultimately by the families), or it may be compelled by tyrantical force.

Since nations carry a difficult-to-escape racial foundation, an attack on the concept of "nation" is also an attack on the concept of "race."

Many times in history a powerful leader of a skilled army has conquered many nations and welded them into an unnatural governmental unit which has been termed "empire." The former nations have sometimes had a degree of autonomy returned to them by the conguering tyrant. Both Darius and Alexander the Macedon did this. In these cases the empire took on a feudal character where by the conquered nations provided tribute, certain services, including fighting men, and received the protection of the tyrant in return.

An empire is only as strong as the tyrant who leads it. The strength of nations rests upon its people. Therefore, strategically, miscreant advisers to tyrants, or functional tyrants, such as powerful secret societies, advise an attack on the people of any given nation.

In ancient Biblical examples whole groups of people, such as the Norther Kingdom of Israel, were moved to other areas, while their former territory was occupied by alien people, who typically were also forced to move into the vacated land(s). If a trouble-making group of people were moved from their accustomed homeland, then they would have to spend much time and energy trying to adjust to the new environment. That would tend to make them both more dependent on the tyrant and less of a problem, as they devoted energy to rationalizing their new homeland.

The last four hundred years in Europe and in their developing overseas arms (colonies) witnessed the decline of monarchs. There the idea developed that sovereignty resided in the people of the nation. This latter idea was most naturally and wholesomely expressed in the Republican form of government. The view that "kings" as a carnal extrapolation of the people and symbol thereof began to decline in favor of legislative bodies.

In regard to legislative bodies the ideal of noble-minded individuals meeting for purposes of lofty debates on the best course for the "ship of state" was soon exposed. Increasingly, legislatures became seen as sites where venal men took bribes from private interests or simply "ripped off" the public purse. Naturally, the Republican form of government became hostage to the plutocratic forces in the nation - and beyond.

Legislators continued to use the idioms of accepted, noble thought, but they were mere shells. Corruption has certain visible signs. The increase of national debt was one. The constant involvement in distant wars was another. The sheer length and density of legislature was another.

In regard to involvement in distant wars, this must be viewed in context. However, there could hardly be justification on a national basis for a string of such wars. In these the signature of the "merchants of death" should be apparent. They have the influence with "patriotic" politicians, with powerful sections of the military, and even with sections of organized labor. They also work hand-in-glove with the great banking interests, which are, today, international institutions not necessarily loyal to the nation in which they began.

As plutocratic power grew in America and Europe, its agents in secret societies infiltrated all major sectors of the nation's spiritual and material infrastructure to set up the mechanisms for imploding them. A New World Order required a new set of supporting structures; ones that secured the rule of the rich and their ideological "break-legs." The latter, assisted by communist hoodlums and/or civil protestors, provided the "law" to create order out of the chaos that they caused to occur in the first place.

The basic means whereby Western nations have been defeated by underlings yearning to be rich and powerful was provided by Mr. Charles Dickens in his novel DAVID COPPERFIELD. In the episode involving the vile Uriah Heep, the British and the world were warned prophetically of their danger. The high became low, and the low became high. Dickens' message was totally missed.