Topic awaiting preservation: Deprogramming Oneself

Hey all,

I've had a change of heart concerning the whole of the Bush administration, and all politicians and their elitist associates. Without boring anyone with the details of my personal journey, suffice it to say I took a refresher in the US Constitution (major wake up), learned the Federal Reserve was a private bank (even though I specifically remember being taught otherwise), got tired of trying to defend the increasingly indefensible, realized labels are an illusion perpetrated on us by the media and politicians (there are more than 2 sides), and everything else pretty much fell into place.

Anyway, I came across a few documentaries on the web and thought I would share. There are a lot of them, be sure to page through.

Recommended:
Martial Law 911: Rise of the Police State
Power of Nightmares
9-11 The Road to Tyranny
The Money Masters

This one is out there, but also very interesting:
Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove

Ramasax: Interesting resource - thanks for sharing I'll have a nose around later.

I can't recommend the Power of Nightmares documentary series too highly.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

*Picks up jaw*

Ok, I'm all for a new approach on things, and I will underscore what Emps said about the resources - nice, thanks for posting them.

Mmm, I rather like the Libertarians.

I'm gonna wait for the "GOTCHA !"

These resources seems interresting. Some seem extreme though.
I never heard about thet Bohemian Grove thing.

I have to say that it sounds a lot more like "reprogramming" than "deprogramming".

While I agree more with the point of you seem to be holding now than I did your previous, consider me just as skeptical as to the realness of it, and of your grasp on it, and your ability to really judge the issues at hand from your own perspective.

When you really started to go farther into the 'right wing' view, you had just read a book espousing such ideas.

Now you've seen a video espousing something different and are jumping ship...

You'll have to forgive the raised eyebrow...

ROFL, got any bridges for sale?

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
Oscar Levant
(1906 - 1972)

DL-44: So basically, to sum it up, you are saying that you believe me incapable of independent and/or critical thought; someone who is swayed by the flavor of the week and goes whichever way the wind blows. Did I get that right?

I suppose you have a right to be skeptical and I can't really blame you considering what you know of me from in the past.

I did not say that any one video was responsible for this shift in opinion as you seem to allude to. Granted, the seven hour constitution seminar linked to above was a catalyst, and I would recommend it to anyone, but it wasn?t like I just sat down one day, watched the video, and believed without question, thought, or further research, the ?information? presented.

In fact, thought had everything to do with it, because once I did do the research, went through the mental exercise of weighing different POVs, and realized the foundation on which some of my perceptions stemmed from was severely flawed, the mental path for the conclusions I was reaching changed, and thus the conclusions themselves changed. Different foundation, different end result.

It was, and continues to be, a process where I put my opinions to the test while maintaining as much objectivity as I possibly can. Inevitably, certain perceptions crumbled, while others strengthened. I know for a fact my perceptions may still be flawed, but I am coming at things with a more open mind, and that is really the best anyone can do. Of course, now I have more questions than answers, but I have taken to believing that those who do not question themselves and their positions do not learn and do not grow.

I really do not think there is any way for me to prove this to you further, and honestly, no offense intended, but I feel no real need to prove it, as I didn't come here to prove anything to anyone, just to share something that I thought might be of interest to people here. If you wish to dicsuss this further or hear my positions as they are now, perhaps I will take part in some of the future conversations, but I cannot give you them in one lump serving as that would entail a lot of writing and time.

Ethiest: You seem to be under the impression that you are funny.

The Federal Reserve
While The Fed is an independant unit and needs no ratification from any other government body, it is quite distant from being a "private" organization. America's desire for a central bank goes back to 1791 when the First Bank of the US was franchised (priveledged) by the government.
It's basic job was to set a standard system of banking. It was abolished in the late 1800s and "free banking" ensued.
The Great Depression changed the pace of world Banking and Americans called for a new central bank system, so The Fed was formed. It was formed outside of legislative and formal beauraucratic systems so that it would not be influenced by politics. The only government involvement The Fed ever sees are its submissions to certain federal laws (freedom of information, etc) and the selection of a chaiman by the President.

It is not a private organization. It is a part of the Federal Government, buy has no supervisor. Essentially, there's no "check" to the Fed's power. That's what it doesn't actually issue the bonds.

Gah, one correction, the Great Depression did not give rise to the Fed, the Owen-Glass act did (brought about by the popularist movement) and helped lead to the Great Depression... but that is for another thread.

Accidental double post... Please delete.

(Edited by Nada`King on 03-28-2005 18:33)

quote:

---

While The Fed is an independant unit and needs no ratification from any other government body, it is quite distant from being a "private" organization.

---

The emboldened part says it all. While the Board of Governors, "appointed" by the president, is considered a government institution, the Fed itself, along with its 12 regional banks, is private, and its shareholders comprise the most powerful institutions in the world.

If you look the Fed up in the yellow pages, under banks, or in the white pages nearby Federal Express you can clearly see that they are a business. You won't find them listed in the blue (government) pages because they are not part of the government. Your statement in itself is a direct testament to that. If not publicly controlled and maintained, without input from the people, representatives, or Congress, what is it?

The Fed uses fractional reserve banking, greatly decreasing the worth of our currency through inflation. It allows them to loan out more than they have in reserve, and allows lesser banks (see shareholders) to do the same and collect interest on that which they do not have, making profit from inflation and hardship of the little guy. They control our money supply and flows of the economy, and thus they control our nation.

IMO, they are more private than a private company, regardless of their rhetorical claims to the contrary.

We do seem to agree on the important thing, they are unchecked and they do profit, directly or indirectly, at our expense. Unless you see that as a good thing.

quote:

---

America's desire for a central bank goes back to 1791 when the First Bank of the US was franchised (priveledged) by the government.

---

No offense, but that sounds like something copied straight from the Feds website.

America's desire or the banking and government elite's desire who manipulated us with dishonest political rhetoric into accepting it? Surely the American people had no desire to be issued "money" with little or no value from a small group of individuals who determine policy without feedback or regulation from "we the people." Surely the American people did not desire their "money" to decrease in worth every time they purchased something. Surely the American people would not approve of a system of business which distributes more than it has, causing said inflation and eventually crashes (boom/bust economy). And most certainly the people who were fighting against a money trust, would not have agreed to a much larger one if they were told the truth.

No, it was not America's desire, but the desire of a select few manipulators and co-conspirators and has morphed into a consumerist society where really the only true freedom we have is whether or not we want Pepsi or Coke, Ford or Chevy. Our options for gaining actual wealth have been severely limited. We are nothing more than serfs. We work our jobs, pay our taxes with smiles, buy the goods presented to us, listen to false promises of prosperity, and continue to get poorer even though we may think we are making more by means of a selective hidden tax known as inflation. A tax which does not go toward the betterment of society, but into the pockets of a rich and powerful elite.

The panic of 1907 set the precedent for the Fed, and is akin to Hitler's burning of the Reichstag in 1933. create panic --> fear --> control. Rinse and repeat. 1929 stock market crash --> Roosevelt collection of the people's gold --> Abolishment of gold standard --> New Deal/ Big Government --> downward spiral to imperialism and corruption.

The boom of the 90's is another perfect example. They inflated the money supply to allow for rapid progress and business expansion, but eventually, as that money was filtered down to common Americans and was circulated, it lost value, and there was a bust. Big business cleaned up by investing profits in actual commodities and the fact when they got the money, before entering circulation, it was worth more. We were left with play money which consistently decreases in value, nothing more. How do we get back on track? Well, war can be profitable, how can we convince the people that it's a good idea? 9/11?

I'm not sure what to believe on that one, and it is purely speculation, but it seems to make much more sense than crazy Arabs with dreams of virgins who hate freedom. Upon further review of the evidence that becomes more a conspiracy theory than the alternative.

But I digress. This system of banking has been implemented by the greedy all throughout history, but did not fully entrench itself in America until the Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which has questionable origins.

Previous attempts had been thwarted to gain control of America?s finances. The War of 1812 was a war funded by the British Central Bank in an attempt to gain control of America?s financial sector. Andrew Jackson did away with central banking and claims the assassination attempt on his life was payback for that. Lincoln and Garfield both bucked the system as well, and you know what happened to them. Lincoln actually commented once saying that he faced to foes, an army in front, and bankers to the rear, and that the latter was the most dangerous. Coincidence? Who knows, but it sure makes sense and the motivation was powerful.

As John D. Rockefeller once said, "Competition is a sin." If competition is a sin, then we must (a) get rid of said competitor and (b) create a cartel in which all members profit. That is what the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 accomplished.

quote:

---

It was formed outside of legislative and formal beauraucratic systems so that it would not be influenced by politics.

---

Just by money and profit. When you own the nations money supply and have a firm grasp on it?s economy, there is no need for political influence, it comes naturally.

quote:

---

the Owen-Glass act did (brought about by the popularist movement) and helped lead to the Great Depression... but that is for another thread.

---

Indeed. Whether on purpose or through bad policy, we may never know. Right now, I tend to lean to the former.

In the six years leading into to the 1929 Crash, the Fed inflated the money supply by 62%, inducing unwise investments and market speculation by the public. When everything was in place, the bankers, who had been financing market speculation, called in their loans, thus causing the crash.

While I am still learning about this whole thing, filtering through massive contradictions in historical accounts, the implications are astounding and angering. If the American people knew the root of this evil, this invisible power, which in essence can be blamed for many of the ills in our society through chain reaction, they would revolt.

Of course, these are all outrageous ?conspiracy theories? as anyone in the position to know or financed by those in the position to know will tell you.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-29-2005 03:40)

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-29-2005 04:10)

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

We do seem to agree on the important thing, they are unchecked and they do profit, directly or indirectly, at our expense. Unless you see that as a good thing.

---

I certainly agree to the fact that they are quite dangerously unchecked. There is, in this nation, an organization in charge of all possible value of our money. Basically we end up with an organization that can abandon the law of supply and demand.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

No offense, but that sounds like something copied straight from the Feds website.

---

A possible negative side-effect of taking economic history.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

We work our jobs, pay our taxes with smiles, buy the goods presented to us, listen to false promises of prosperity, and continue to get poorer even though we may think we are making more by means of a selective hidden tax known as inflation. A tax which does not go toward the betterment of society, but into the pockets of a rich and powerful elite.

---

The only way by which one can make money off inflation is to be a loan officer/creditor, and this is still only a slight possibility. If a loan agent presents a figure for a loan and you accept, you are give an amount to spend. Here there are two possibilities. The first is that you spend the money immediately while the market is equal to your sum of money. The second is that you hold and spend your money after the market has deflated (this is often referred to as hoarding, but I'll forgive it for now). In the second situation you actually save money because you can increase the utility of your funds across a relative base. In the first situation you lose nothing in actual expense. The creditor wins because he gave out money when there was a great deal of it around and it was easy to come up with the paper. There is the possibility that you can lose by spending the loan immediately and being forced to honor it in a time of deflated currency.
Inflation generally rises in a linear form each year, so it's not likely it will decrease for long periods of time and you are on equal footing with banks (or wherever you got the loan).
To the next step, inflation is bad for large business as well because large businesses take out loans too! In addition to that, inflation lowers investor and consumer confidence. People have a remarkable ability to detect inflation at their common stops like the grocery, wal-mart, etc. and often begin to restrain themselves on expense--regardless of the knowledge about the current rate of inflation.
On a final note, smart banks restrain themselves from making loan judgements on inflation rates that are intended to "screw" the debtor. The reason is not compassion but rather the unpredictable nature of inflation. There's just no way of telling where it'll go next (look at the 90s).
There is one way to produce a predictable rate of inflation and it is through metal standards.

I forgot to mention that the style of crediting during inflation which you mentioned is often horribly negative in spikes of inflation. If money deflates rapidly, then the debtor is left in bankruptcy, leaving the bank high and dry having lost whatever loan sum it was. Both parties lose.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Whether on purpose or through bad policy, we may never know. Right now, I tend to lean to the former.

---

It's likely, from what I have read, that it was very bad policy. During this time, British banks were fixed to a gold standard. With a gold standard comes a fairly objective means of evaluating money and money supply--the bank writes checks which represent X amount of gold and the recipient of the check may trade it for the hard product or ask that his funds be transferred to his name or institution. Loans are issued in the same manner they are now with one major exception: standard monetary systems have micro-recessions or contractions when the bank lends too much.
When England's money began to become inflated, the government ordered banks to continue to issue loans despite the urgent need to raise interest rates and increase the value of money. Across the Atlantic, America assumed it would try the same thing. Releasing our money from any standard, we set about printing more money. Why, OF COURSE! If we print more money we will never hit another recession! Well, the value of money collapsed and the Great Depression ensued. (we can imagine how an apparent rise in the money supply led to over-zealous stock market activity)

Greenspan, Hayeck, and a number of others agree, though I am still seeking a mathematician to bring about more proof of this.



____________________________________

ON THE WELFARE STATE AND BIG BROTHER
____________________________________

Any economic system based on a standard, be it oil or platinum, makes deficit spending a near impossibility. Let's go at it from the first step.

Any welfare state is marked by deficit spending. It is an inevitability regardless of what you think about social programs of any degree. Socialized medicine, life insurance, or any other mass programme will lead to a deficit. The traditional means of accounting for some of the defficiency in welfare programs is to tax the wealthier tiers of society. This, however, can only stretch so far before it has negative effects on the economy or political power. So governments resort to borrowing or the issuance of bonds and present a promise to pay their debts back at a later time (currently the Iraq war is being paid via defict).
If a nation were affixed to a standard then it could only lend to the government some ratio of the gross national product (tangible assets that can be represented by gold). It is like lending solid rocks, if you will. In lending rocks, some tangible part or number of them will be missing and to get them back (honor the loan) you must physically receive them (or an equivalent item). With fiat standards, however, the value of the money lies solely in a government promise that it will be repaid. Money can then simply be printed, making it relatively easy for the market to absorb. There are no immediate taxes, but bonds are planned for the future to help relieve the stress of the deficit.

Wars in the past century as well as now have been fought on deficit. Would it not be more directly related to the will of the people if wars could only be levied on limited deficit and primarily on direct taxes? That is the question and the answer is yours to discover.

(Edited by Nada`King on 03-29-2005 09:41)

quote:

---

Inflation generally rises in a linear form each year, so it's not likely it will decrease for long periods of time and you are on equal footing with banks (or wherever you got the loan).

To the next step, inflation is bad for large business as well because large businesses take out loans too! In addition to that, inflation lowers investor and consumer confidence. People have a remarkable ability to detect inflation at their common stops like the grocery, wal-mart, etc. and often begin to restrain themselves on expense--regardless of the knowledge about the current rate of inflation.

---

Most businesses, in my understanding, get that money first in many cases, before it hits main circulation and the value begins to decline. Also, corporations who do government contracting clean up big, as we are seeing with Iraq right now. When the Fed creates all this money and Congress pays them, the value is higher than six or so months later when it filters down to the bottom of the money chain, hits main circulation, and value begins to decline.

Also, isn't there a form of selective inflation? Say the price of common goods will not rise, but the percentage of your income that goes toward maintaining a home will rise. I think on average it becomes harder every year for an American family to own a home. Don't hold me to these stats, as I read this about a week ago and did not bookmark, but I believe that people who rent generally pay around 4.5% of their yearly income on their living space, whereas homeowners, on average, spend around 24%.

Many remember a time when one working person in the family was enough to sustain an entire household, and sustain it well. This has become a thing of the past, not because we have become lazy, but because our money is not worth what it used to be. Most American households today require two working partners. This has created less learning and supervision of the young, which has increased our crime rates and caused a deeply troubled society.

You seem to have a little better understanding about the whole financial process than I, so thanks for the thoughts. Need to read up in that area, perhaps it will balance my view a bit. I still see the banks, and especially the certain form of banking currently in use, as very bad and have a hard time seeing them not make large sums off loans and whatever else. Particularly the credit industry, who has consistently outranked some of the largest American companies around in way of profits, although the ABA keeps a tight lid on a lot of said information. It is pretty much common knowledge that the credit industry deliberately targets high risk peoples, the revolvers, and clean up big on interest and fees.

quote:

---

I forgot to mention that the style of crediting during inflation which you mentioned is often horribly negative in spikes of inflation. If money deflates rapidly, then the debtor is left in bankruptcy, leaving the bank high and dry having lost whatever loan sum it was. Both parties lose.

---

Do both parties still lose if said funds which the bank loaned out did not actually exist? Perhaps I am missing a piece of the puzzle. Sure, they do lose out when debtors go belly up, but to what extent is what I would like to know.

quote:

---

Releasing our money from any standard, we set about printing more money. Why, OF COURSE! If we print more money we will never hit another recession! Well, the value of money collapsed and the Great Depression ensued.

---

One would think that in all the instances in history, and a particular one in American history, that we would have learned a lesson. After the founders signed the Articles of Confederation they all went back to their respective states and started printing money like it was going out of style to pay off the revolution debt. Eventually, with little or no backing on this paper, the Continentals became worthless and it was a large part of the reason they went back to the drafting table and created the Constitution, which gave congress the ability to coin money, fix a standard of weights and measures.

I have been reading a lot of economists lately who are predicting another great Crash to make the Great Depression look like small potatoes. What is your take on that?

On Big Brother and the Welfare State, I totally agree with everything you said. "Any welfare state is marked by deficit spending," sums it up nicely.

quote:

---

Wars in the past century as well as now have been fought on deficit. Would it not be more directly related to the will of the people if wars could only be levied on limited deficit and primarily on direct taxes? That is the question and the answer is yours to discover.

---

I would have to say yes. Although, considering I believe direct taxes to be totally illegal and unconstitutional , and in reading, or rather deciphering, the tax code only solidified this opinion, that possibility is out. Section 861 and supporting regulations - DEFINE net income - pans out to income from foreign sources.

Then again, the real question is, would wars be fought at all without financing from banks and bankers?

Most big wars of the last century and before had begun in large part because of the banks. Hitler was funded from banks right here in the states and other nations. Chase Bank, its owners, the Rockefeller family and the family's other main business, Standard Oil (Exxon), were an integral part of Hitler's war effort. There are also connections with JP Morgan, Prescott Bush, etc. This is just one example. I faintly remember Napoleon being funded by a certain bank, then turning on them, and it was at this point that he met defeat.

Forgive my scattered thoughts or if I missed any of your points. Since you seem to have a knowledge in this area, perhaps you could recommend some websites and/or books for me to look into. It would be appreciated. Post here or email to ramasax (at) ramasaxdesign (dot) com.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Most businesses, in my understanding, get that money first in many cases, before it hits main circulation and the value begins to decline.

---

Let me, for a second, put a real definition on inflation. Some people use inflation as a general rise in prices. Others (Austrian school and myself) like to say inflation is just a general increase of money supply and no increase in prices. Previously I haven't had a need to distinguish this, but from this point on let's say that inflation is an increase of money supply. There is a natural order to inflation in line with the GDP (gross domestic product) of any nation. If the price stays relatively stable, inflation is good in small (and slow) increments. In this instance, the businesses to see the money first and it does trickle down in the form of wages, but is then offset by rising prices. There is an adjustment period and eventually there will be a price to money supply equillibrium (of sorts). This point is called "price stability."
The sense of inflation you speak of, is often called "hyper-inflation," because it occurs out of sync with the sum of all wealth in the nation (fancy way of saying GDP) and is the kind which can benefit (in short term) banking and crediting institutions. In this instance, banks see inflation first and businesses second--because they start to acquire a general fear of the market and brace for impact, if you will. This may be more than you asked for, but it's worth stating, imho.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Do both parties still lose if said funds which the bank loaned out did not actually exist?

---

Once you go into bankruptcy you are freed from any financial obligations like loans. If a creditor has $5,000 tied around my ankles, and I go into bankrptcy, the government releases me from payment and the creditor loses. I also lose since I am bankrupt -- so yes. Kepp in mind with things as stated above: hyper-inflation is the only kind of money alteration creditors can cheat with. Some inflation is a sign of rising GDP (it is not, in itself, a good thing).

Economists
I have to run, but I can point you in the direction of some reading if you let me know how much you're willing to learn

[b]Ramasax:[b]
I promised a list of economists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economists

Even better is an item which I forgot was in my bookmarks
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/List_of_publications_in_economics

Personally, apart from the bigger figures like Marx and Smith, I'd suggest you read John von Neumann and Benoit Mandelbrot. Each are mathematicians but Mandelbrot has a number of books about applying fractal geometry to economics (with equations in the back instead of main text) and is a really, really interesting read. As a prerequisite to Mandelbrot, if you choose him, should be James Gleick's Chaos. Neumann invented game theory, worked on quantum physics, computer science, and a number of other economic concepts... Both a great reads and easily applicable to any other scientifc field.

Oh, be sure not to turn down Jean-Baptists Colbert. He is the true inventor of mercantilism and has had more influence on economic theory than most people think... and most people think mercantilism works with capitalism; this is wrong on many levels. I would rank him equally as important as Marx.

(Edited by Nada`King on 03-31-2005 04:34)

quote:

---

but I believe that people who rent generally pay around 4.5% of their yearly income on their living space

---

I'd like to live there!

Minor point in the scheme of all this, I know, but there is just *no* way that figure is accurate... 45% might be closer to the mark...

Nada: Thanks for the resources.

DL:

I believe that was supposed to be 14.5% but on further contemplation you are correct. I still am unable to find that source again, and all I was able to dig up was this snippet, which does appear to be a little more accurate, although being from 1997 and considering property taxes have continued to rise along with utilities it is going to be less than accurate as well.

Don't know where I was going with the rent vs. housing when the main point I was trying to make was that across the board, our money is becoming increasingly less valuable, we work more and pay more for less. And I suppose the main question I was trying to incite what where does the difference go?

quote:

---

Big spenders - household and discretionary income -
includes related article on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey -
American Demographics, August, 1997 by Peter K. Francese, John Rogers

Place to Call Home

Americans devote nearly one-third (32 percent) of total expenditures for the privilege of a roof over their heads, up 2 percentage points from 1985. In inflation-adjusted dollars, housing expenditures jumped 29 percent over the decade, compared with the 3 percent decline in total spending.

As we would expect, homeowners spend a lot more than renters. For every dollar an average renter spends on housing, the homeowner pays about $1.50. But renters get the short end of the stick. Total renter expenses have risen 32 percent in real terms since 1985; the total cost of owned housing is up only 26 percent. Renters in 1995 spent 36 percent of their after-tax income for a place to live, versus 29 percent for homeowners.

Housing costs have several major components: shelter (mortgage or rent, property taxes for owners, and property maintenance costs); utilities; furnishings and equipment; household operations (services such as child care and lawn care); and housekeeping supplies, such as detergent and postage.

Shelter is the largest component, accounting for 57 percent of total housing costs. Homeowners averave a little over $900 a month on housing, renters about $630. Homeowners have seen shelter costs increase an average of 53 percent since 1985 (8 percent after inflation), while renters have seen their average rent go up 60 percent (13 percent after inflation). The biggest shock to homeowners has been the increase in property taxes, which have more than doubled (up 104 percent) in the past decade--and this is after adjusting for inflation.

---

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 03-31-2005 22:16)