Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy!

Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System which thrives on the facade of Elections and Democracy!
Zahir Ebrahim
October 22, 2008
Footnote added April 09, 2009

© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice.
Document ID: PHBFZE20081022 URL: | Print | PDF | Comment.

This is Project Humanbeingsfirst's response to many people's idea of “write-in” independent candidates as an alternate means of creating a third choice in these facade of elections when one is not content choosing from the “lesser of two evils” paradigm.
It is greatly disturbing that some very conscionable peoples of the press are still crying hoarse of “election theft” and “voter fraud” when their entire country has already been stolen. It appears that all within the United States comprise only “the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.” As Hitler had put it,
Nowadays when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor; the decision lies in the hands of the numerically strongest group; that is to say the first group, the crowd of simpletons and the credulous.”
The master propagandist who had in fact learnt this art-form from the Americans and the British themselves, had further gone on to explain the positive role of the press in “informing” the public according to the wishes of the real rulers “when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor”:
It is an all-important interest of the State and a national duty to prevent these people from falling into the hands of false, ignorant or even evil-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the State to supervise their education and prevent every form of offence in this respect. Particular attention should be paid to the Press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all; since its effect is not transitory but continual. Its immense significance lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching. Here, if anywhere, the State should never forget that all means should converge towards the same end. It must not be led astray by the will-o'-the-wisp of so-called 'freedom of the Press', or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding from the nation that which is good and which does good. With ruthless determination the State must keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it at the service of the State and the Nation.”
And we can observe that the systems of governance in the United States have stolen a page from the Third Reich (well one among its many pages), and astutely led its gullible peoples to actually believe, from the day they are born, that the elections are empowering to them. A fuller excerpt with more context for the role of propaganda and indoctrination for manufacturing both consent and dissent when “when the voting papers of the masses are the deciding factor” can be gleaned in Project Humanbeingsfirst's report: “Weapons of Mass Deception – The Master Social Science”. It is shocking how much has been learned from the Third Reich. It is, almost as if, the Third Reich was merely an advanced laboratory testbed for the Fourth Reich.
The myth of elections being anything useful, has been so craftily cultivated over the past two generations that none are able to see through the fog of indoctrination that something else entirely, “a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive,” such that people only whisper in hushed voices “when they speak in condemnation of it”, runs the United States with the elected Representatives merely as its front faces.
President Woodrow Wilson, after being naively railroaded into agreeing to support the creation of the Federal Reserve System and because of which he had initially won the backing of the oligarchs as an unknown non-politician professor from Princeton, and after signing off on it as President on Christmas eve despite his better judgment since the bill had not actually been debated at all in Congress – in fact even less discussed than the trillion dollar banksters' bailout bill passed just two weeks ago as most of the people's Representatives had left for their home during that Christmas week in 1913 – was stricken with the usual belated disclosure-disease post fait accompli upon leaving his high office and stated:
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are of 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 breadth when they speak in condemnation of it.”
The evidence for this secretive power was once again witnessed when the Congress, despite its popular opposition, was arm twisted into passing the trillion dollar banksters' bailout legislation (including an additional 600 billion dollars in appropriation for the Pentagon which none of the legislators thought fit to mention). Which power “so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive” arm twists them so trivially? Former President Bill Clinton's professor, Carroll Quigley, exposed that power in his 1966 book “Tragedy and Hope - A History of the World in Our Time”:
The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland; a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.”
Why does the press not explain all this to the American peoples? Why are respectable dissenting journalists like Greg Palast, appear no different than any mainstream journalist when it comes to the core axioms that really need exposing? They all dutifully and unquestioningly retain them, and create a facade of providing a choice of sources by debating all the corollaries and other derivatives built upon the doctrine of keeping the axioms intact.
So they will energetically debate whether or not it is better to enforce economic sanctions alone, or combine it with 20 bombing runs of nuclear first-strike, or 20000 of Daisy Cutters, but not what right United States has of doing any of it when she herself possesses more than 20,000 atomic weapons of all nomenclature and is the biggest war monger on the planet. They would never remind the American people as the retired and/or serving Generals are paraded before them on television arguing this and that option, of the 1967 words of Martin Luther King: “my country is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”. Watch this principle in operation with astute wordsmithing in the conversation between Henry Kissinger and Charlie Rose on PBS. Of course, in that entire hour long conversation, Charlie Rose did not think of asking Dr. Kissinger whether he had uttered the following famous statements at the secretive Bilderberger meeting, or whether they were merely fiction:
Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
Similarly, the press all pretty unanimously agreed, both the mainstream, and dissentstream, the “left” and the “right”, that 911 was an invasion from abroad, fully parroting the White House and the Pentagon version of events as gospels of truth. They still retain that very axiom.
Similarly, here too, for these elections, they all tend to pretty much agree that there is something useful in the way members are elected into the ivory halls of Congress and the White House, and the methods by which they govern, and therefore the integrity of that process needs to be worried about. But they mainly focus on the actual act of balloting and counting or not-counting of the votes, often rehearsing the famous line of Joseph Stalin on “who counts the vote”. So that is great journalism – look, also quoting Stalin!
But do they ever bring to light that the contestants have already been pre-filtered in secret oligarchic meetings at the Bilderbergers and the Council on Foreign Relations? Or that those so anointed are subsequently run in the races with one side artificially pitted against the other, with careful exclusion of any realistic challenge to the 'chosen ones' from all other quarters through fully financing their campaigns and giving full media prominence and editorial support (as all the private presses too are owned by them)?
Obviously that can't come to pass – or they would be out on their bum! So it goes without saying that the press will never uncover how these elected officials are subsequently so cleverly kept on their co-opted short-leash by means “so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive,” just as the world witnessed during the bailout bill proceedings.
Project Humanbeingsfirst has analyzed that bailout magic in its report: “Why Bluff Martial Law?” and Press Release “This may be a psy-op! Response to Wayne Madsen's 'FEMA sources confirm coming martial law' October 09, 2008”. More about media and indoctrination can be read in my book “Prisoners of the Cave”. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the entire system itself has been corrupted and co-opted to its very core. In that entire coverage of the financial crisis, and still on going, I have still not the heard the American newsmedia give sustained prominence to the distinguished name of David Rockefeller, to the Council on Foreign Relations, to private banking, to money as debt which is needlessly paid by the American tax payer to the bankers making them more and more wealthy while simultaneously strangulating the majority of the public in their debt-trap, and to the pernicious planning of these oligarchs to get rid of nation-states altogether in favor of a world government that is run by them. In fact, if any one wanted to, they could simply open up David Rockefeller's Memoir and read the following out to any audience – be it C-Span with energetic Congress folks making their Floor speeches, or newsmedia trying to figure out what's going on:
Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it”
If there is any mention of any of this at all, like journalists Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs and Congressman Ron Paul occasionally seem to dabble in wondering out loud about the North American Union or the financial crisis, or it being orchestrated, it remains all isolated and unconnected, without any cohesive analysis and overarching perspective brought to bear by connecting the widely disparate dots and events which President Kennedy had demanded of the press in 1961 (fuller excerpt follows):
And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in America, specifically protected by the Constitution. Not primarily to amuse and entertain. Not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental. Not to simply give the public what it wants. But to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers, and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
I am still waiting for any of them to even mention David Rockefeller in the context of the import of his monumental words “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order”, and link it to 911, and to the subsequent “imperial mobilization” of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a baby-step to North American Union by first bankrupting America and crashing the dollar while simultaneously using its might for beating the rest of the world into submission as the lone superpower! I am still waiting for them to connect all that to these 1992 words of Strobe Talbot, President Bill Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all.”
We won't even go into Rockefeller's agenda for population control and his family's significant role in the UN as their private instrument for orchestrating coercive policies which are inflicted upon the third world nations. His minion, or perhaps personal friend, Henry Kissinger constructed NSSM-200 for President Gerald Ford's National Security Council in 1974. See its detailed analysis in Project Humanbeingsfirst's report “The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government”. See the 2003 6-part description of the Rockefeller systems of governance which America has become, with his counterpart bankster family, the Rothschilds, controlling Europe and the UK, in Will Banyan's, “Rockefeller Internationalism”.
Who connects any of this, as not just the American press, but also the global press (in this age of globalization and international multinational corporations with interlocking ownership and presence on the board of directors of parent companies) mindlessly rehearses “Bin Laden” and “War on Terror”? And now they have one more thing, the global financial collapse, to scare the American people's with, in order to lead them, with incremental baby-steps that are fait accompli once taken, into the desired direction of the North American Union and the Amero!
To borrow a graphic and unflattering description of the bewilderment of the masses, from the late Israeli Defense Minister Raphael Eitan who had famously uttered it to describe the endgame which he thought was the destiny of the valiant Palestinian peoples, the United States peoples too are also being primed to mainly “scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle” in trying to figure out their predicament as they rudely get awakened too late from their “American Dreams”. Like David Icke pointed out in “Turning of the Tide” in 1996, the secret conspiracy for world government has to break surface in order to finally affect it, because, as the philosopher-theologian of world government had correctly observed in his classic book “Impact of Science and Society” in 1950:
There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to follow that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.”
Does 90 percent of voting public in the United States know anything about this backdrop as they are being repeatedly told elections are being stolen as if they were meaningful to start with? When they are meaningful and a loose canon ends up on the gun-deck of the White House, or when an earlier anointed patsy refuses to follow abhorrent directives as his eyes open up from the seat of power, he is trivially assassinated.
On April 27, 1961, assassinated American President, John F. Kennedy gave a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria to the American Newspaper Association. Time magazine of May 05, 1961 observed in its article “The Meaning of Freedom”, the following statement of JFK who had expounded upon a commonsensical role for the press in the backdrop of the ideological Cold War challenges facing the world:
This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern to both the press and to the President—two requirements which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril.”
Below is my transcription from an excerpt of that amazing JFK speech because it precisely underscores what Hitler had tried to inculcate in the Third Reich and what a supposedly free nation and free press had to avoid in order to not get where we are today. Please be advised that the speech was transcribed from this narration1, and verified against this narration2, as I have been unable to locate the official recording, or its official transcript. I have discovered that many enterprising rebels have extracted out of context segments from this speech, and concocted it into something far more sinister than what JFK was ostensibly referring to. [1]
However, these portentous words of JFK seem to also accurately capture the descent of America into its Fourth Reich state today. It is, as if, JFK might as well have been talking about America of today, 2008. However, back in 1961, he had the Cold War upon his mind.
I use these portentous words of JFK, in the context that he originally conveyed them, to make the nuanced point, that the American peoples have been indoctrinated into believing the facade of elections primarily through the deliberate errors of commission and omission by the press and all its newsmedia outlets in order to deliberately keep up the pretense of democracy (watch these courageous American youngsters of wearechange run around exposing far more than the American press ever did, but lending an ominous import to Raphael Eitan's unflattering description of their efficacy).
The following is what David Rockefeller admitted of the complicit role of the press in his planning and orchestration towards his version of the new world order at a Bilderbergers Meeting in 1991 (why the press never asks him about it and even offer him a chance to deny it should not be surprising):
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications, whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
JFK uttered the following prescient words in 1961 – it is unremarkable how the same truthful and un co-opted words, sometimes, can become so enormously clairvoyant that they begin to speak across time and space. This is the ordinary power inherent in any truism. What is actually remarkable however, is the Time magazine's footnote to the opening sentence of JFK: “The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant, in a free and open society.” Time wrote in its coverage:
*To more than 20 million Americans, the word "secrecy" is not as repugnant as all that. They are the members of U.S. secret and fraternal societies, which include, besides student fraternities, such respectable organizations as the Masonic orders, the Elks, the Independent Order of Odd Fellows and the Loyal Order of the Moose. Of the U.S.'s 34 Presidents, 13 have been Masons. President Kennedy himself is a member of the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic counterpart of masonry.”
I have deliberately ignored this “secret society” BS line of reasoning in this analysis. The low hanging fruits of empirical reality is sufficiently self-validating as noted in the “The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government”. Here is JFK singing a timeless tune: [op. cit.]
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant, in a free and open society.
And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
We decided a long ago, that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment, of pertinent facts, far out weigh the dangers which are cited to justify it.
Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society, by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.
Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger, that an announced need for increased security, will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning, to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it's in my control.
And no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight, as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public, the facts they deserve to know. [...]
For we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covet means, for expanding its sphere of influence.
On infiltration, instead of invasion. On subversion, instead of elections. On intimidation, instead of free choice. On guerillas by night, instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted, vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine, that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised.
No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. [...]
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For, from that scrutiny comes understanding. And from that understanding comes support, or opposition. And both are necessary.
I am not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task, of informing and alerting the American people.
For I have complete confidence, [lukewarm clapping] in the response and dedication of our citizens, whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers, I welcome it.
This administration intends to be candid about its errors, for as a wise man once said, an error doesn't become a mistake, until you refuse to correct it.
We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors, and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive.
That is why the Athenian law maker Solon [2] decried it a crime, for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment. The only business in America, specifically protected by the Constitution.
Not primarily to amuse and entertain. Not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental. Not to simply give the public what it wants.
But to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers, and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news, for it is no longer far away, and foreign, but close at hand and local.
It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission.
And it means finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation, to provide you with the fullest possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security. [...]
And so it is to the printing press, to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news, that we look for strength and assistance. Confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be, free and independent.”
Well, that did not transpire. American public remains the most ignorant on the planet. Even Henry Kissinger disingenuously and openly admitted that failing (or success) on PBS to Charlie Rose as he pitched his WMD mantra to the American peoples in the drumming up of the propaganda warfare, before the actual “shock and awe” warfare was visited upon the poor souls of Iraq.
Now the American public is seeking to vote-in their new crop of leaders – to cement the final touches to the precipitous transitions now on their exponential path of fruition. Therefore, the oligarchs still need the pretense of “election” and “democracy” for a while longer. And they will likely continue to use it in the world government as well in order to defuse any prospect of the majority mainstream actually fighting back with any efficacy.
I predict that new faces will adorn the White House because the police-state is not ready to overtly break surface just yet, and people still need to be given the illusion of choice less they revolt before they have been fully enslaved and microchipped. Since you people seem fed up with the taste of vanilla for 8 years, we shall now give you chocolate! And wouldn't that be a revolutionary step for America?
And therein lies the immediate power today for those able to think on the Grand Chessboard scale and mobilize their troops effectively.
Force the 'ubermensch' hands by creating an extremely low voter-turnout to show the world that the American public, by denying any legitimacy to these elections, finally voted YES to NOT grant its co-opted system of elections and its governance, any further credibility whatsoever.
These elections are the American public's final peaceful chance to make a shocking statement to the world – just as the Congress had its great alignment of stars and blew it two weeks ago.
A 5% voter turnout, as opposed to the 40% that is minimally expected, can potentially, significantly alter the loci of control on the Grand Chessboard by disturbing its causality planning in a very macro way.
The people who started, based on a son's concern for his country, have the correct idea in principle. That principle being, repeating it once again for emphasis, to create a useful third option that is beyond the pale of the staid “lesser of two evils” paradigm being forced upon the American peoples in this election. The following is Project Humanbeingsfirst's response to:
October 22, 2008.
Is this “I” bit realistic?
If so, any conscionable person who realizes that both the major parties are merely the two-headed deception dialectics of the same philosopher, two sides of the same imperial coin minted in the same factory, would be hard pressed not to pursue it.
Since this is such a commonsensical approach to cleaning the house, why don't people actually pursue this obvious path? Its history in prior elections would be indicative of the real issues that corrupt the American system behind the scenes.
What are the actual implementation pitfalls? Do those votes count? How is one assured that one's vote to a "write-in Independent" is counted? How is one assured that the new Independent does not make the old "dependent"?
My own limited thinking is along the following lines - that the system itself is corrupting, co-opting, and that despite the good intentions of many who serve within its ambit, it cannot be corrected by the process of elections, by the process of what has become the biggest game show in town, called Congress.
I don't think it is the peoples. I believe it is the system and those who corrupt it. If you only remove those who get corrupted, and keep intact the corrupters and their intricate web of how such corruption is done, it will keep on corrupting.
The first step towards this reform, is to reject the corrupt system itself.
So with that as the backdrop, while your thinking is entirely wholesome that since the "Lesser of two evils" paradigm in life still sticks one with an evil (never mind that in this election which is "lesser" remains rather un-obvious and an arbitrary partisan choice at best), therefore, not choosing any evil at all makes rational sense, my humble thinking is as follows:
Reject them both by withholding one's vote from both sides, by NOT voting in the elections, period, in order to have the lowest turnout in election history. Not through apathy, but through deliberate calculated political-science based purpose.
That is the way to get the third option pushed into the consciousness of the world - that the American public rejects the entire imperial coin minted in the banksters' mint. Not only do they reject the coin, but the whole concept of banksters running the United States of America as their own backyard and using its military might to usher in their long dreamed of world government.
This world government itself sees the destruction of sovereign nation-states, and that included the United States of America. A North American Union is under construction, like the EU, and both parties are complicit in its planning and execution as the front faces of the oligarchs.
Not-voting is the only Constitutional, legal, and supremely astute political-science based political option left to the peoples of the United States when that vote only selects, regardless of who counts it, which pair of socks the "Rockefellers" will wear the day after the election on their way to business as usual.
Very loudly deny both pair of socks any legitimacy in the world's most audacious democracy that is out to teach the rest of the world how to live.
Please compare these two approaches rationally, and pick the one with most realizable efficacy towards really finding a curing protocol for the systemic disease that your son has been worried about. You have already taken the first courageous step, of rejecting to choose from "lesser of two evils".
Not-voting is a legitimate political act. Voting is a privilege, not a right, and it is not mandatory, such that if you didn't vote you'd go to jail, or fined, or denied some rights - at least not yet. But that may happen if the system endures under its 'white man's burden' to control the world.
In order to adjudicate on this political-science driven matter by people more believable, perhaps you could enlist Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, and other prominent members of Congress whom you think are good peoples, like those who actually spoke out against the trillion dollar bailout bill and made a great show of dissent on C-Span, to discuss this concept of systemic disease in their public appearances by getting them to focus attention on the system itself. Ask them – the point raised here.
I doubt any of them will bite. And that is why the system will linger on towards what now appears to me to be a well orchestrated fait accompli – it has been a long time in the making.
Zahir Ebrahim
P.S. For more detailed analysis of some of the statements made above, please see the following:

[1] The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association,Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, April 27, 1961, transcript located: ; download official audio:
[2] Solon, one of the seven wise men of Athens,

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at
Copyright Notice:
All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted, provided the URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at The rights of the author to express these views are based on inalienable rights noted at, and to do so freely without suffering intimidation and duress. All quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit "fair use" in the greater public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at Full copyright notice and Exclusions at

First Published October 22, 2008 | Footnote added April 09, 2009
Links fixed Saturday, April 16, 2016 5667

Not-Voting is a 'YES' vote to Reject a Corrupt System 16/16

Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?

Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?

Zahir Ebrahim


October 19, 2008

© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice.

Document ID: PHBFZE20081019 URL: | Print | PDF | Comment.

This is Project Humanbeingsfirst's response to many people's great ideas on fundamental Monetary Reforms.

The worldwide western capitalist monetary system is apparently a very complex subject, requiring many doctorates in economics to manage. It is so complicated, that it is least understood in the United States despite her thousands of distinguished economists, some even Nobel Laureates, who are now acting even more surprised at the spectre of the global economic and financial collapse haunting mankind.

It is now suggested that Capitalism, free market or not – and its quintessential engine, debt-financing through private banking, monopolistic or not – is even more convoluted than had been imagined. Dr. Ben Bernanke, my co-alumnus from MIT, Ph.D. in Economics, 1979, is busy trying to fix the problem at the Federal Reserve System by staying up late nights, and pulling his remaining hair out with worry.

It must be a real tension job at the FRS. Especially after Dr. Ben Bernanke having admitted to Milton Friedman's technical analysis of the Great Depression [1]:

The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe [monetary] contractions of 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38. No other 20-year period in American history contains as many as three such severe contractions”

This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War 1 is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System ... and the severity of each of the major contractions - 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38 – is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities...”

Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, [so] that mistakes – excusable or not – can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic -- this is the key political argument against an independent central bank...”

To paraphrase Clemenceau money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers.”

uttered the belated mea culpa, ex post facto, more than half century after the money trust had bought up, pennies to the dollar, the thousands of collapsed businesses and banks, “we won't do it again” [2]:

As a personal aside, I note that I first read A Monetary History of the United States (Friedman and Schwartz, 1963) early in my graduate school years at M.I.T. I was hooked, and I have been a student of monetary economics and economic history ever since.

As everyone here knows, in their Monetary History Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces [p. 300; all page references refer to Friedman and Schwartz, 1963]. ...

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

As nature would have it, where it permits mankind to create complex systems, it also simultaneously creates elegantly simple.

Thus unremarkably, the solution-space is also almost as straightforward as taking away the monopolistic power to coin money from the private central banksters, and putting it back into the hands of the respective national governments, to be treated as a public trust and fiduciary responsibility of good governance in the best interest of its peoples. And most significantly, making the process of coining national money, entirely interest free. Making its control, like national defense, a government's mandate, instead of a banker's monopoly.

In the famous words of assassinated American President Abraham Lincoln:

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity.”

And Thomas Jefferson – the founding father of the legacy which Lincoln fought to maintain, and paid for with an assassins bullet – had expressed the dangers of not doing as plainly as can be in these well rehearsed words of history:

If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property, until their children wakeup homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.”

In fact, the simple solution-space, like hegemony, “is as old as mankind.” And certainly, at least as old as Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ. It has repeatedly been captured, time and again throughout history, as the perennial battle between the “evil” moneychangers and “good” state sovereigns.

The best straightforward articulation of it, to my mind, which even any common man or woman in mainstreet USA can trivially comprehend, never mind those with fancy doctorates in economics from MIT, is the common sense exposition of both Henry Ford and Thomas Edison – the two giants of western capitalism, and among America's greatest real wealth creators – almost 90 years ago. The New York Times reported the following candid observations of Thomas Edison in its special edition of December 6, 1921 [3]:

Certainly. There is a complete set of misleading slogans kept on hand for just such outbreaks of common sense among the people. The people are so ignorant of what they think are the intricacies of the money system that they are easily impressed by big words. There would be new shrieks of 'fiat money', and 'paper money' and 'green backism,' and all the rest of it – the same old cries with which the people have been shouted down from the beginning.”

But maybe we have passed beyond the time when the thoughtful 2 per cent – you know, I gather from my questionaire that only 2 per cent of the people think,” and Mr. Edison smiled broadly.

Maybe they can't shout down American thinkers any longer. The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea. I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question. The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong, and that the wrong somehow centers in money. They have an instinct also, which tells them when a proposal is made in their interests or against them.”

... Well, [in the old way of doing business, Congress] must authorize an issue of bonds. That is, it must go out to the money brokers and borrow enough of our own national currency to complete great national resources, and we then must pay interest to money brokers for the use of our money.

Old Way Adds to Public Debt

That is to say, under the old way any time we wish to add to the national wealth we are compelled to add to the national debt.

Now, that is what Henry Ford wants to prevent. He thinks it is stupid, and so do I, that for the loan of $30,000,000 of their own money the people of the United States should be compelled to pay $66,000,000 – that is what it amounts to, with interest. People who will not turn a shovelful of dirt not contribute a pound of material will collect more money from the United States than will the people who supply the material and do the work. That is the terrible thing about interest. In all our great bond issue the interest is always greater than the principal. All of the great public works cost more than twice the actual cost, on that account. Under the present system of doing business, we simply add 120 to 150 per cent, to the stated cost.

But here is the point: If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent., whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute to Muscle Shoals in some useful way. ...

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurers, and the other helps the people. If the currency issued by the Government were no good, then the bonds issued would be no good either. It is a terrible situation when the Government, to increase national wealth, must go into debt, and submit to ruinous interest at the hands of men ...”

Look at it another way. If the Government issues the bonds, the brokers will sell them. The bonds will be negotiable; they will be considered as gilt-edged paper. Why? Because the Government is behind them, but what is behind the Government? The people. Therefore it is the people who constitute the basis of Government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edged credit by receiving non-interest bearing currency on Muscle Shoals, instead of bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds?

The people must pay any way; why should they be compelled to pay twice, as the bond system compels them to pay? The people of the United States always accept their Government's currency. 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 of interest charges – then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise.

That extended excerpt leaves no room for imagination to run wild trying to figure out what 'first-principle' of finance gone wild has precipitated the global crisis today, as it explains the most complex E-con gibberish in the most straightforward way.

So let me ask the economists: which is it – the straightforward explanation, or the complex calculations that are little more than high falutin gibberish to fatten the banksters gullet?

To be fair, there is indeed some degree of sophistication needed to manage money astutely in an advanced civilization. However, the profound principle of such management, once again, turns out to be as simple can be (especially when the inventor of the light bulb, explains it) [4]:

There is just one rule for money, and that is, to have enough to carry all the legitimate trade that is waiting to move. Too little or too much are both bad. But enough to move trade, enough to prevent stagnation on the one hand and not enough to permit speculation on the other hand, is the proper ratio.”

The actual implementation of that simple principle, the management of the “proper ratio”, well, what is the fundamental problem that a government can't manage this “proper ratio”, and requires private banksters, like the Federal Reserve System, to do it on its behalf?

The failure of FRS to actually create that equilibrium of “proper ratio” is grotesquely pronounced, and empirical. In the Great Depression, they caused it by swinging the pendulum one way and severely contracted the money supply after having deliberately expanded it willfully to create the speculative boom of the “roaring twenties”. In this new global collapse that is now reminding the erudite of the “Weimar Republic”, they swung the pendulum the opposite way and sharply expanded the money supply to enable wild speculation just like they had done to create the roaring twenties. They created the roaring 2000s, and burst that bubble quite predictably in 2008. Another mea culpa is waiting in the wings, after fait accompli.

The only fundamental macro economics Ph.D. thesis anyone need write in the near future starting their research today, and the only useful Nobel Prize that is even justifiable to award for macro economics when the world is increasingly divided in wealth disparity the images of which only bring shame to anyone calling themselves a human being first, is the exploration and answer to this 'first principle' question of why a private banking cartel, like the Federal Reserve System, can do a better job of managing this “proper ratio” than a government?

Since empirical evidence commonsensically always trumps any theoretical immanent theories, the proponents of the FRS, including those burning the midnight oil in its plush offices trying to save the world instead of going to jail and losing their own shirts and skirts, have a hard thesis before them. To underscore the gravity of this commonsense, I draw on poor Albert Einstein, always being called upon to adjudicate on matters commonsense. He had insisted, as possibly the greatest scientific mind of the twentieth century, on the existential value of empiricism in any theory construction in order to develop accurate understanding of reality [5]:

Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world; all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.”

Apart from this only technical question for the possible raison d'être for a private central bank, the other question of who ought to coin money has already been indisputably settled by the verdict of history. It is now such a blasé question that devoting so much space to such a simple topic is an insult to the intellect. Unfortunately, since such simplicity has grotesquely been occulted by E-con gibberish, trumping all commonsense, one has to endeavor to continue rehearsing it.

We already know, since time immemorial, that permitting the monopolistic coining of money and paying interest on it to private bankers, has no commonsensical, no intellectual, no rational, and no moral grounds whatsoever. Except of course, when one's intent is to actually fill the coffers of the moneychangers. Then indeed, privatizing this most essential public common, the privilege of coining public money and charging the public gratuitous interest, is the most rational, commonsensical, and intellectual approach. For indeed, the power of debt upon a people is an intoxicatingly absolute power. It is the profound understanding of the most reviled of immoral principles upon which it is based, compound interest, that the successive Rothschild family elders, in different generations, have each made the now well known pronouncement to the effect:

Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws”

It is frightening that there appears to be no limit to the intoxicating effects of such power, nor to its concomitant ability to co-opt. Banksters like Sir Josiah Stamp – the Director of the Bank of England and Chairman of this and that – can 'in your face' flaunt it in the following words which are attributed to him, and the glorified E-cons with doctorates and Nobel prizes can simply pretend not to notice the defecating elephant in the bedroom [6]:

Banking is conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from the, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen they will create money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from the bankers and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want continue the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of our own slavery, let them continue to create money and to control credit.”

Or to be more charitable, the level of ignorance among the educated financial technocrats who continue serving against the interests of their own nation is unfathomable, when the well known imperialists themselves vouch for the veracity of these first-principles of domination [7]:

If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

Why do sophisticated and revered economists like Ben Bernanke, and Paul Krugman, not know this? Why does the MIT department of Economics, course 14, not teach this in its courses, but it has poverty alleviation labs which look at lack of population planning as the biggest source of poverty? How about debt to bankers? Or as EHM John Perkins revealed, faking mathematics to get the developing world to believe that taking mega-loans from the World Bank is the cure to their developmental problems [8]. My first introduction to macro economics at MIT was 14.02 – and unremarkably, I never learnt all that I know today. I am glad I was only “imperfectly educated” then, for it has been easier to throw off my own yoke of ignorance.

Well their ignorance, of these famous economists, and of the pioneering free market Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman who only classified the Federal Reserve System's 1929-1938 debacle as “mistakes – excusable or not”, has been addressed elsewhere. In the addendum to the Project Humanbeingsfirst's report “The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government” [9], I had made the following straightforward observation:

Money is an even bigger existential necessity today in the producer-consumer global paradigm than it ever was in the past, even though the imperial coin is as old as mankind!

And yet one has to come by its accurate understanding only as a detective assembling a jigsaw puzzle from empirical analysis. And even then, sometimes, the analysis suffers from one's philosophies which almost act like “religion”.

Thus it is unsurprising that some propose platitudes as solutions, forgetting that the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are at least 3000 years old but have made little impact on the real world of avarice and plunder. These include proposals for radical transformations as if revolutions are just around the corner. Some propose solutions which merely favor the private central-bankers themselves, knowingly or unwittingly is immaterial. Many of these are almost always cosmetic bandaids. These also include partial solutions that leave the core problems intact. “Religion” is most apparent in these arguments. An example of this is the gold standard, or the gold-equivalence standard as the now defunct Bretton-Woods has come to be known.

In the ability to tell the nuanced differences therein, among BS, idealism, and usefulness at different application hierarchies, lies the key that can practicably and immediately unlock the world from the debt shackles of the perpetual capitalist conspiracy for world government.

But as those given to even a modicum of realism well understand, rectification of injustices is only possible either with the mighty hand of the victor's justice, or under the astute gamesmanship of balance of power. In this case, political power to affect legal solutions at all levels. Never on its own, regardless of the soundness of the platitudes or the solutions.

To build such a balance of power today that might be effective, does not seem to be in the capability arsenal of those proposing monetary reform solutions. A largely powerless peoples who cannot even fund one single economics think-tank of national consequence, and one single financial political action group of influence, never mind mustering the kind of lobbying-power before which powerful Congress persons and local law-makers, mayors, state governors, attorney generals, and newspaper editorialists might bow their head.

Realistically, I see no impact by monetary reformers at the national or international level. For it is but a truism that those who control purse strings, control nations' destinies – the real golden rule on earth, as old as mankind!

To confiscate their purse-strings – as easy as a stroke of pen – is a revolutionary act for which there is no “Jesus” today to cleanse the Congress of the moneychangers. The Wall Street bailout with the new crown of thorns, and which the US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is now brazenly attempting to extend to crucify all of mankind upon the new cross of a global monetary system, is proof-sufficient.

Indeed, commonsensically concluding that report with the blatant recognition that the solution-space is not what is the unknown variable. But only who, and how are, given the entrenched and awesome monopoly power of the central banks, all given to them legally by Congress, and signed off by President Woodrow Wilson.

The only thing the poor gullible professor from Princeton, after whose name the foreign policy imperial arm at Princeton University is aptly named – perhaps in gratitude for his maneuvering the United States into the First World War at the urging of his influential advisors like Col. Edward Mandell House who un-apologetically fronted for the banking interests [10], the money trust – could do is lament in the style that has become characteristic of co-opted patsies in power when writing their autobiographies.

Yes, confessionals after faits accomplis, is a characteristically “cleansing” Christian tradition. Somehow, it only seems to work for those in absolute power, never for the common man. “You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again” doesn't seem to be part of the ordinary judicial system where the common man is made accountable for stealing bread. But it is part of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals which let Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, the former governor of the Reich Bank [11] – the bankster who orchestrated the financing for Hitler and enabled his war machine with funding from Wall Street [12] and the City of London financiers – go scot-free!

Whence such awesome power to even let a fascist banker who caused the destruction of all of Europe – as per the Nuremberg established principle of “all the evil which follows” – become a prominent and influential member of the financial community once again in post-war Germany “as though there had never been a blemish on his character”? [13]

Whence such omnipotence that the White House Coup plotted by Wall Street financiers to overthrow President Roosevelt gets trivially buried by the United States Congress after a “911” style hearings in 1934? [14]

Well, the former President of United States, Woodrow Wilson suggested the answer [15]:

Shall we try to get the grip of monopoly away from our lives, or shall we not? Shall we withhold our hand and say monopoly is inevitable, that all that we can do is to regulate it? Shall we say that all that we can do is to put government in competition with monopoly and try its strength against it? Shall we admit that the creature of our own hands is stronger than we are? We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of the government. Have we come to a time when the President of the United States or any man who wishes to be the President must doff his cap in the presence of this high finance, and say, “You are our inevitable master, but we will see how we can make the best of it?”

We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. ...

However it has come about, it is more important still that the control of credit also has become dangerously centralized. It is the mere truth to say that the financial resources of the country are not at the command of those who do not submit to the direction and domination of small groups of capitalists who wish to keep the economic development of the country under their own eye and guidance. The great monopoly in this country is the monopoly of big credits. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men.

This money trust, or, as it should be more properly called, this credit trust, of which Congress has begun an investigation, is no myth; it is no imaginary thing. It is not an ordinary trust like another.

There you have it. The American President who signed the Federal Reserve System into existence, lamenting the power granted to the money trust. Time to take it back. But who and how? That is the question. Not what reforms to make – at least to the first order.

The following commonsensical elaboration of this blatant point was again reiterated by Project Humanbeingsfirst to yet another new proposal for monetary reform, pointing out that to bell the cat is the issue, not which bell to use.

Project said: Who will bell the cat?

Twelve Steps to New Financial Structure - Money of the Natural Economic Order by Bart Klein Ikink

Let's just concede that yours is a great alternative proposal to the existing system, Proposal A.

I think there are in existence, great proposals at least up to Proposal Z.

Each proponent insists that their proposal is provably better than the existing system in some very erudite way. That's just great. More great ideas to choose from. Let's further assume that yours is the greatest invention. Or that after a major battle in some economists gathering at Harvard, one proposal unanimously comes out on top. Yours. Proposal A is now the best alternative to the existing system, and all economists, experts, and even some key government officials agree. Even perhaps the President of the United States.

I start my humble argument from that point.

Since your wonderful Proposal A relies on platitudes and does not show how, and with what new external or internal powers of enforcement, can the entrenched power of the moneychangers which sustains the existing system, be countered, it will remain a good idea, on paper. Just like the Good Book, and all Good Books.

Meaning, your “hey this is the greatest idea since slice-bread, a natural idea, let's use it”, is qualitatively no different than “Hey, I am God and I Command you: Thou Shall Not Kill as that is the natural order for mankind so they may live in natural harmony, and furthermore, Thou Shall Not covet their neighbors' cow and wife, Thou Shall Not charge interest, Thou Shall Not screw your fellow man ...” which are even greater ideas with even an absolute [divine authority] backing it, and these are of such commonsensical obviousness that they are understandable by all and sundry without even needing any elaborate exposition (certainly it was all supposedly printed on a single stone tablet taking much less space than your erudite article).

And so what of it? Israel today decimates the Palestinians with impunity and the world watches silently. What happened to the good idea from the good god himself? At the risk of stating the obvious, that is because the existent power-structures in the world support Israel in its conquest of Palestine – and with a devilish cleverness of baby-step incremental fait accompli that is hardly explainable fully even in a long missive like “The Endless Trail of Red Herrings”. Even their own Israeli historians, never mind their great founding fathers, gloat of, or at least narrate of, their state's and peoples' crimes – can anyone reverse that genocide which goes on even as I write this?

I hope you are able to understand my humble critique – good ideas are aplenty.

It is not meant to discourage or disparage excellent ideas, but only to point out that it is not the lack of solution-spaces that plague us. We have known the solution since Julius Caesar banished the moneychangers and started issuing his own coin. That was even before Christ threw them out of the Temple. If only good ideas could create practicable solutions, then the 3000 years old Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule might have taken care of all matters, and there'd have been heaven on earth. I hope [you] can suggest how might one proceed, given that two past presidents of the United States who tried to go against these power-brokers were immediately assassinated.

Norman Dodd disclosed to G. Edward Griffin in an interview in 1982, the following statement that was made to him by a Morgan bank official in 1929 in the aftermath of the Great Crash and Depression: “Norm what you're saying is we should return to sound banking ... We will never see sound banking in the United States again.”

This interview with the late Norman Dodd can be watched here.

The fact that this secretive power which “will never see sound banking in the United States again” is the same today as when it boasted of its intent to Norman Dodd almost 80 years ago, and is quite alive and even more powerful than it ever before, was just witnessed in the passage of the not-so-secretive trillion dollar bailout Bill by Congress – and its analysis can be read here.

Any great ideas and proposals to fix the monetary system which do not take into account the reality of this entrenched power of the private banksters, and how to effectively counter it, is merely just that, good ideas on paper. Even great for Ph.D. thesis rehash, but of little practical use. And so long as these ideas stay there, on paper, the secretive power brokers, who, right before our very eyes just put the American nation in debt for another trillion dollars, has no qualms with them.

And if you read the following press release, you will note that this new bailout debt is merely a down payment towards putting the entire world in similar straightjacket – Paulson is recommending all governments do similar bailouts with their own central banks.

And you have yourself convincingly demonstrated that the monopoly power to coin money legally, awarded to the private central bank, caused the experiment in Worgl to be abandoned by the Central Bank when it exercised its legal authority to blunt it: “At this point, the central bank panicked, and decided to assert its monopoly rights by banning complimentary currencies. The people unsuccessfully sued the bank, and later lost in the Austrian Supreme Court. It then became a criminal offense to issue 'emergency currency'.”

The same carte blanche monopoly powers were awarded to the private central bank not only in the United States, but every [private] central bank in the world enjoys that legal protection – today! This is not news to anyone surely. These legal entities can choose to enforce that legal right whenever threatened.

And as the following article indicates, there are 65 alternate local/regional currencies in Germany alongside the Euro, and these are only allowed to exist because the European monetary authorities think these fringe elements are not any threat to their main currency Euro:

And in the 1996 video, The Money Masters, at around 3:13:00, you can also see another success story of local currency, in Guernsey, a small principality off the coast of France.

And the aforecited video further quotes economist Milton Friedman, in its conclusion after a long and very informative historical analysis, all the good platitudinous stuff, on commonsensically reclaiming back the power awarded to the Federal Reserve System.

But as the video also narrates: these central banks are now deeply entrenched in the world's power structures, with a history of at least 300 years of legal legitimacy and institutionalized experience. These are now global institutions protected by entrenched laws in every nation, protected by paid politicians and media. They are owned by the richest families in the world which control them from their central headquarters – the Bank of International Settlements ( through an opaquely interlocking and complex ownership structure that no one can penetrate through.

So find me a “Jesus” courageous enough to alter that reality, who will cleanse the lawmaking bodies of the world of the presence of the moneychangers' influence, and bring forth new legislation which will effectively repeal those laws which originally gave power to coin money out of thin air to the moneychangers.

Unless a proposal for monetary reform addresses these issues of the grotesque reality of immeasurably entrenched global power, as an integral part of their implementation architecture, it's like I read on some website once (probably “dreams without funding [power] are hallucinations”

I keep repeating, that there is really no shortage of solutions. Julius Caesar knew it, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and JFK knew it. You know it. G. Edward Griffin Knows it. Norman Dodd knew it when he made a proposal to the Morgan Bank to return to sound banking practice in the aftermath of the Great Depression of 1930, WebOfDebt knows it, MoneyAsDebt knows it, MoneyMasters know it, and both know it. Richard Cook seems to know it too. Even Alex Jones knows it. Certainly [Congressmen] Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich [apparently know it] too.

And I say – very good. Hallelujah.

Now go fund a political action group, an economics think-tank, some newspaper editorialists in the New York Times and the Washington Post, and at least [a majority of] Congresspersons' election campaigns who would [effectively] vote 'Yes' on the monetary reform Bill, and bring to power an occupant in the White House willing to sign it even at the risk of assassination, with a Vice President and a House Speaker who will not rescind it if the abhorrence comes to pass, if you want to stop hallucinating.

This is how the banksters did it – and all the time their well meaning antagonists, and at least since 1913, have only been spouting platitudes. Nothing new is being said today, that has not been stated tens of times before. And I can now verify this because I have spent considerable time researching this topic. But this is hardly news to anyone who can write such an outstanding proposal as the one in this article.

The game is lost in the current round my friends. And I pray that I am entirely wrong, that indeed, the sheer think-system invented by the “Music Man”, and the platitudes of the prophets of antiquity, do win out in the real world at some point – not today though.

Only access to, and harnessing of, real power, to minimally construct the balance of power, if not overwhelming victor's power, and fighting political power with political power, military power with military power, can alter any existent reality that is counter to the interests of those presently wielding the power. Sorry to be stating a blatant truism to make the obvious point.

Hope this helps clarify matters and helps focus or redirect attention of those with the wherewithal and genuine stamina to endure the course, to how to politically instrument monetary reform. Of course this is intimately tied to what reforms, because that determines the level of inertia and opposition, but nevertheless, without political power (and access to wealth to get that power), it is meaningless to spend further time in researching what reforms to make.

There are plenty of known solutions, many are even proven solutions which need no further study to pick from as the first pass reform. Fine tuning can occur over time if suitable legislation is drafted.

Who will bell the cat?

How will the cat be belled?

We already have several shiny new and antique bells to choose from. It's pointless crafting any more new bells. That's all your proposal is, a new, or even an old, bell. Get to the next stage please.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim


[1] Ben Bernanke, Remarks At the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, November 8, 2002,

[2] Milton Friedman. Transcription from The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America - 215 min. At 3:08:24

[3] FORD SEES WEALTH IN MUSCLE SHOALS, Special to the New York Times, Tuesday, December 6, 1921, page 6. See online abstract and photocopy

[4] Ibid.

[5] Einstein’s Herbert Spencer lecture of 1933, cited by Dr. Abdus Salam at the 1979 Nobel Prize Dinner speech,

[6] Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, Transcription from The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America - 215 min. At 3:21:58

[7] Times of London Editorial. Ibid.

[8] John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, 2005, page 101, first edition hardback.

[9] Zahir Ebrahim,

[10] Col. Edward Mandell House, Philip Dru: Administrator, A Story of Tomorrow 1920-1935. It is a fictional narrative like Machiavelli's The Prince, and hides a deep political discourse enacting the role actually played by its author. Col. House remained an influential force behind Woodrow Wilson's presidency.

[11] Dr. Hjalmar Schacht (Reich minister of economics until 1937, Reichsbank president until 1939). David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 160. “[Jackson] regarded the former president of the Reichsbank as the most contemptible of all the defendants. He had provided the finance for the spectacular rise and rearmament of Hitler’s Germany. More than any other, this man’s financial genius had paved the way for the violation of the Versailles Treaty.” (page 157) “Ambitious and arrogant, Schacht [Highest IQ 143, page 292] had walled himself in behind a belief in his own righteousness. He seethed with rage at being imprisoned with Hitler’s henchmen. He admitted to having violated the Versailles Treaty, but countered that since the Allies were in collusion against Germany this was no crime. .. He admitted rebuilding Germany’s run-down economy, but not for the purpose of waging war; Hitler had dismissed him as soon as he balked at the aggressive planning that began.” (page 293) “Hjalmar Schacht – ‘after Göring the toughest of them.’ He [Jackson] had always regarded Schacht as one of the most despicable defendants. The banker’s arrogant attitude since the trial had begun only vexed him all the more.” (page 327) “Even more irritating for Jackson was that Schacht was overheard in the cells confidently predicting that he would be acquitted. Irritating rumours circulated that the prosecution of Schacht was not in earnest. Letter-writers taunted Jackson that he would never succeed in convicting a big banker – whether friend or foe, they were the new Untouchables. He soon became aware that the Nazi banker did indeed have friends in the most unlikely places and influence everywhere. One day one of his team, the eminent New York international lawyer Ralph Albrecht, reported to him that the British assistant prosecutor Colonel Harry J. Phillimore – later a lord justice of appeal in London* – had accosted him in the hall outside the courtroom and urged the Americans to relax their remorseless pressure on the banker. When Albrecht, perplexed, asked ‘Why?’, Phillimore uneasily explained that certain representations had been made by Sir Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944. ‘It would be most unfortunate,’ murmured the British colonel, ‘if anything were to happen to Schacht.’ In fact Schacht had been an informer of Sir Montagu, secretly apprising him of the political and financial decisions taken at the highest level in Berlin for sixteen years before the war.” (page 328) “There is in the records of His Majesty’s treasury in the British archives an illuminating file on the efforts made by Sir Montagu Norman to get Schacht released.” (page 329) “He [Jackson] regarded the case against the banker as a test of the good faith of the entire prosecution. As he had said in a secret meeting of all the chief prosecutors in April, of which there is a shorthand record in his files, ‘If the court, for instance, holds that we have no case against Schacht, then it seems clear that we can have no case against any industrialist, as the case against him is stronger than the others.’ ... He [Jackson] privately recorded later, ‘I would at least stand out forthrightly in demanding his conviction, convicting him if I could.’ He harried the banker mercilessly in the witness box, addressed him as ‘Schacht,’ tout court, confronting him with the evidence of his participation in Hitler’s aggressive planning until eventually the defendant had to admit that he had been untruthful about his dealings with the Führer. Jackson showed the Tribunal newsreel film of Hitler’s triumphant return to Berlin in July 1940 after the defeat of France – long after Schacht would have had them believe he had fallen into disfavour. There was Schacht, in Prince-Albert morning coat and top hat, the only civilian among the generals waiting on the station platform to pump the Führer’s hand – indeed with two hands he caught hold of the Führer’s, stepped out of line, and followed him ‘in almost lickspittle fashion,’ as Jackson remarked later. And this was the Nazi gentleman for whom the British lawyer Phillimore and banker Sir Montagu Norman were interceding. All the more acute was Jackson’s fury when the Tribunal – with only the Russian judge publicly dissenting – acquitted Schacht. Biddle, who read out this part of the judgement, claimed some months later that he had also wanted to convict, but the British had insisted on an acquittal and had left him no choice.” (pages 329-330) Also see page 392.

[12] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, 1976

[13] David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, 1996, page 402: “As he was released from his [Nuremberg] cell, German police stepped forward and arrested him. A German court sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment as a major offender under the denazification laws enacted by the Control Council in Berlin. He served two years in solitary confinement, and was eventually released in 1948. The world of banking absorbed him again as though there had never been a blemish on his character.”

[14] BBC Radio 4: Document The White House Coup, exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler.

[15] Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom – A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, Chapter 8: Monopoly, or Opportunity? Text from Gutenberg edition

The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at He may be reached at Verbatim reproduction license at

Copyright Notice:

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted, provided the URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at The rights of the author to express these views are based on inalienable rights noted at, and to do so freely without suffering intimidation and duress. All quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit "fair use" in the greater public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at Full copyright notice and Exclusions at


Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat? October 19, 2008

Full Copyright Notice

All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified, for any purpose, granted, provided the full URL sentence and the copyright notice contained within each Document are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, along with any embedded links within its main text, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at All figures, images, quotations, and excerpts are used without permission based on non-profit "fair-use" for personal education and research use only in the greater public interest. The usage is minimally consistent with the understanding of laws noted at In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of US Copyright Laws, you are provided the material from Project Humanbeingsfirst upon your request, and taking any action that delivers you any of its documents in any form is considered making a specific request to receive the documents for your own personal educational and/or research use. You are directly responsible for seeking the requisite permissions from other copyright holders for any use beyond “fair use”. Exclusion: All rights are expressly reserved for the usage of the terms (c) HumanbeingsfirstTM and (c) HumanbeingfirstTM which are the copyrighted and trademarked intellectual property of Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Reproduction Note: It is acceptable to reproduce any document in smaller serialized parts provided the full URL sentence and the copyright notice within each document are also reproduced in each part and the entire document is reproduced. Please read

Caveat Emptor

Please be advised that Project HumanbeingsfirstTM fully cooperates with all law enforcement and other governmental agencies worldwide in rooting out Terrorism in all its nuanced shades and stripes in order to end its Neanderthal reign of terror upon all who are human beings first. Project Humanbeingsfirst does not distinguish between terrorists clad in turbans and those wearing suits, nor between the predatory rampages of the pirates vs. the emperors, albeit each is apportioned the measure of crime and guilt commensurate to their respective station of power and impact on their victims. Law enforcement personnel worldwide, but especially in the United States and the West, are encouraged to participate with Project Humanbeingsfirst. It is essential for all nations' state security apparatus to learn how to forensically identify the monumental supreme terrorists hiding in plain sight among us under legal cover, the real merchants of death, while they dutifully chase down the easy to spot handful of often deliberately manufactured pirates at sea.