The G7 nations engaged in a three-ring circus of obfuscation, while demonstrating a convincing display of their institutional policy bankruptcy, at their August 24-26 summit in Biarritz, France, where they sidestepped discussion of the real issues facing humanity, by avoiding any discussion of the single, defining matter before mankind: The irreversible bankruptcy of the entire London-run trans-Atlantic financial system. While the circus was underway in Biarritz, the real agenda was presented quietly, without much fanfare or publicity, in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, on August 22-24. There, at the annual meeting convened by the Kansas City Federal Reserve, a gang of central bankers and other financial swindlers called for a “regime change in monetary policy”, in a desperate attempt to keep their empire intact. As described by the Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “The real story is that the Jackson Hole meeting declared a coup, what they themselves call a ‘regime change in monetary policy’. They are openly demanding the issuance, by Central Banks, of ‘helicopter money,’ which would basically eliminate the last aspects of national sovereignty of governments, by giving the authority to the central banks to directly pump fiat money both into official state, but also private channels—and naturally, this is also supposed to all finance the Green Deal.”
Zepp-LaRouche reminded listeners that her late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, in a famous December 1971 public debate with the prominent liberal economist Abba Lerner at Queens College in New York City, demolished Lerner, by forcing him to admit that he thought Hjalmar Schacht’s policy of opening the floodgates for the financing of the Nazi war machine, was the correct policy—and that if other politicians had only done what Schacht advocated, Hitler would not have been “necessary.” Schacht served as Hitler’s Minister of Finance, and had the full support of Bank of England Chair Montague Norman, and American bankers Roland Harriman and Prescott Bush, the father of former President George H.W. Bush.
There were three specific proposals put forward in the last days which elaborate this intent:
1.) Bank of England Governor Mark Carney proposed, at Jackson Hole, the adoption of a “Synthetic Hegemonic Currency”, a “virtual” currency to replace the dollar, to be issued with no constraints by Central Bankers. This would allow them to go far beyond Quantitative Easing (QE), zero interest rates and negative rates, to provide unlimited liquidity to bail out the worthless derivative and other speculative instruments, held on the books of the largest banks and financial institutions—as well as by central banks—to keep them at face value, so they could continue to be traded. He specified that a virtual currency is needed, one with no connection to anything which is “physical”;
2.) A proposal from four economists from central banks, issued by Black Rock, which called for moving from “unconventional monetary policy [e.g., QE] to unprecedented policy coordination” by the central banks. The call is for merging monetary policy, the domain of central banks, with fiscal policy, i.e., government budgetary spending. This would mean that all functions of government would be in the hands of central bankers, a “Committee of Experts”, which would decide the volumes of credit created, and where it would go. The credit would go obviously mainly to speculators, leading to an accelerated deindustrialization of advanced sector nations. This Committee would have the power to “put on the brakes” if they saw hyperinflation coming. One opponent of this plan asked if these “Experts” would be the same ones responsible for the Crash of 2008, and the post-Crash policy of bailing out bankrupt financial institutions, while starving productive sectors of credit. This plan is a straight-forward call for establishing a Global Banker’s Dictatorship;
3.) A global Green Financial Initiative (GFI), which would channel all credit to so-called green technologies, to “decarbonize” the global economy, is central to these scams. The GFI has the backing of leading City of London and Wall Street bankers, and is based on the fraudulent science behind “man-made climate change”. It would further escalate not only deindustrialization, but attacks on mechanized agriculture, use of automobiles and airplanes, etc. A prototype of this plan was presented by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who called for $17.8 trillion in spending over ten years, to dismantle the energy and wealth-producing sectors of the U.S. economy, while funding “sustainable” boondoggles.
These proposals are nothing but a new-fangled version of the same Schachtian hyperinflationary bailout of their bankrupt financial system—which has the same political attributes today as it did then, and can correctly by called by its real name, fascism. Such a “regime change”, which would further dismantle industry and manufacturing while funding inefficient “alternative” energy schemes, and would impose drastic austerity on the majority of people, to protect the financial swindlers who have created the world’s largest debt bubble, and allow them to expand it!….
“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 private meetings and conferences.”
— Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20
Carroll Quigley was a professor of history at Georgetown University from 1941 to 1976. He also taught at Princeton and at Harvard, and lectured at the Brookings Institution. He was a frequent lecturer at the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, the Foreign Service Institute, and the Naval College at Norfolk, Virginia. In 1958, he served as a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which set up the National Space Agency. Below are key excerpts on the history of money and banking from Prof. Quigley’s masterpiece Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.
Note: The below excerpts are taken from chapters 5, 9, 20, 65, and 77 of Tragedy and Hope, with a focus on Prof. Quigley’s excellent discussion of the role of money and banking in world history. This is a 10-page summary….
The Fed just dumped $75 Billion into the economy…. and possibly to avert a massive financial crash Monday morning, large short term loans became unavailable and rates for these gigantic loans shot up. High interest rates caused financial crashes in the past . The Fed panicked and flooded the market with lots of money! The question is why were short term loans unavailable, where did that money go and what shot up the interest rates? Richard Wolff
The same financial interests which have raped and pillaged their way across the world (including russia) are doing the same to the USA. What a surprise.
The role of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is to protect the public by regulating the Telecom Industry. They are not a health or environmental agency and have a long history of kowtowing to the Telecom Industry at the public’s expense (see 1, 2, 3, 4). They have been forcing widespread 5G installation despite the telecom industry providing NO evidence that it is safe – and many credible sources saying it isn’t (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
Current federal RF safety limits for cell phones and all other wireless technologies were established before most people had or were exposed to cell phones or other wireless radiation emitting technology. They don’t apply to how most of the population uses or are exposed today. They don’t consider more recent research and risks from all sources of exposure (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). These limits need to be changed but the FCC refuses to change them.
Thanks to Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York and Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon for addressing all of this in writing. Thanks also to Citizens for 5G Awareness for posting their letter on their website:
Please contact your representatives to encourage them to sign the letter as well.
New research presented at this year’s Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain (16-20 Sept) reveals that vitamin D deficiency is strongly linked to increased mortality, especially in younger and middle-aged people, and is particularly associated with diabetes-related deaths.
The research was conducted by Dr Rodrig Marculescu and colleagues at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. It analysed the effects of low 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25D) (referred to as vitamin D) levels in the blood on overall and cause-specific mortality in a large study cohort covering all age groups, and taken from a population with minimal vitamin D supplementation in old age.
Vitamin D deficiency is a widely prevalent and easily correctable risk factor for early death, and evidence for its link to mortality comes from numerous studies and clinical trials. The majority of this research to date has however come from looking at older populations, and the authors believe that many of the largest scale studies may have been affected by increased rates of vitamin D supplementation in old age. They also note: “Cause-specific mortalities and the impact of age on the association of vitamin D with the risk of death have not yet been reported in detail.”…
Iran’s foreign minister on Thursday shot back at Pompeo’s Wednesday remarks from Jeddah characterizing the Aramco attacks as an “act of war” by Iran. FM Javad Zarif warned of “all-out war” if the US or Saudis attack Tehran in response. “We won’t blink to defend our territory,” Zarif told CNN.
Though the White House is said to be weighing “options” — including “substantially increased” sanctions which Trump announced this week, the consensus is the administration is cautiously walking back from a war footing. As the WSJ reports:
The White House is pushing to build an international coalition to exert pressure on Iran through the United Nations as its chief response to the attack on Saudi oil facilities, an approach consistent with President Trump’s aversion to military intervention, but also reflecting limits on his retaliatory options.
And the following section of the WSJ report sounds an apt description of Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to avoid the disastrous global military interventions represented in the Bush, Obama, and Hillary legacies — a dovish instinct which helped propel him to the White House in the first place:
“This president, he didn’t want to go to war with anybody, OK? That’s not his inclination,” said Sen. James Risch (R., Idaho), the Foreign Relations Committee chairman. “He will do everything he can to avoid a kinetic engagement with another country.”
Trump’s aversion to taking a war-footing with Iran was also seen in the president’s latest Fox interview Thursday morning, set to broadcast Friday, where with characteristic ambiguity toward the ratcheting gulf tensions he said he wants a “peaceful solution” which would be “good” but it remains that “it’s possible that that won’t happen.”
“You may have some very strong hit, we’re the strongest military in the world by far,” said Trump during the interview. “We’re very powerful. We have new planes, new missiles, new everything.”
Iran has also repeatedly expressed a desire to avoid a direct war, but has assured that any US-Saudi military strike would result in certain “all-out war”. Forbes has described a potential war with Iran as “disastrous and enormously costly”.
But the president has at every turn resisted the urging of hawks in his own cabinet and in Congress, such as Lindsay Graham who this week urged a response “painful enough that they won’t do it again”.
The WSJ’s commentary suggests we are witnessing a return to the original foreign policy of candidate Trump, who tapped into the broader American public’s desire of non-interventionism and to stay out of needless quagmires which cost untold blood and treasure:
Mr. Trump’s aversion to a more bellicose response — he publicly rebuked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) after he advocated for a military response against Iran — aligns with his “America First” approach to foreign policy and his distaste for military adventurism in the Middle East.
Of course, a commander-in-chief who desires to avoid costly wars (true to his campaign promises) has been met with general derision by mainstream pundits — some of which even on the left have suddenly begun championing uber-hawk Bolton as some sort of exiled “resistance” figure.
It must be remembered that anytime President Trump bombed Syria (he’s done this twice) major network pundits momentarily gushed over him looking “presidential”….
… Interestingly, doctors are taught in medical school that the cervix does not feel pain. This is similar to how they are taught that babies don’t feel pain, and to the way veterinary students are taught that animals don’t feel pain. This lie is repeated over and over again in the cult of modern medicine as a means of creating new initiates who will be willing to inflict violent and painful procedures on their medical victims without the benefit of pain relief.
“I saw my then brother-in-law – he went from college – a really good person who wants to help people, and as he went through med school, it changed him… As you have to try to prove yourself as a doctor… basically you have to feel like you’re God… [Y]ou have to act in a certain way to get obedience from people… Throughout the years… he changed. He couldn’t keep himself. If you did one thing wrong that they didn’t agree on, then all of a sudden you’re not at the top your class, you’re at the bottom. And you don’t get to do the procedures or get the top doctors to work with… So you had to comply…
His dream was to go to Africa and help poor people. But [after medical school] he was saddled with all this debt [and so] he had to go and get a practice… I worked in his office for a while. He’s an OB-GYN… I was his office manager, but I’d also be the technician in the room with him…
[W]hen a woman has a pap smear that’s not quite right, they’ll go in with an instrument and take a bite out of it [the cervix]. So there’d be women going ‘AH AH AH! – IT HURTS! STOP! STOP!’ And he’d go – ‘well the cervix doesn’t feel any pain…’ And the women are jumping off the table and screaming OW! OW! OW! and he’s just repeating the mantra of what was told to him and going ‘well, I’ll give you something to numb it, but the cervix doesn’t feel any pain.’ I must have seen it at least five times. As this woman was screaming and jumping off the table begging him to stop, he’d be saying over and over that the cervix doesn’t feel pain because that’s what was told to him…” 1
Clearly, this doctor’s behavior is a vivid example of how people behave when they are operating from a place of mind control. Their programming causes them to go into a hypnotic trance and deny their connection to their own feelings, their own bodies and, indeed their own soul. Every ounce of this doctor’s being should have been screaming at him to stop what he was doing because it was harmful. Yet due to his medical “training”/programming (which training, as we will see, mirrors the techniques of trauma-based mind control and clearly conditions medical initiates to do horrendous and very cruel things), this doctor habitually dissociated and robotically repeated absolute rubbish, even when it flew in the face of his own observations!!
So how does the medical system do it? How do they turn good and decent people into biological robots who parrot nonsense and can’t seem to think for themselves? The answer lies in the indoctrination process that medical students are put through, which process is set-up to systematically break down the morality and the will of medical students and, if all goes according to plan, will cause a split in their psyche that will result in dissociation and the assimilation of an alter personality that will be willing to conform to medical norms. This indoctrination process involves repeatedly exposing medical students to high levels of stress and trauma as well as sleep deprivation, nutrition deprivation (i.e., junk food and fast food are the norm), sunlight deprivation, shaming the non-conformists and taking away any privileges they may have gained through conforming, and keeping the students enclosed in artificial and toxic settings for days, weeks, and months at a time so that they cannot connect with nature or any semblance of their spiritual and ethical identities.
Dr. Leonard Horowitz describes the initiation process this way:
“In medical schools, dental schools and these other professional training organizations and institutions it is a hazing process. It is trauma based education at its worst. These interns are kept up for three nights in a row. What can you do under that highly stressful situation? What you can do is make a lot of mistakes and be susceptible to mind control – virtual hypnosis. You graduate with no education in nutrition, you graduate with no knowledge of holistics and natural healing, and you are ultimately a mind controlled manipulated slave of the pharmaceutical industry…” 2
“Medical schools conduct a virtual hazing process they call professional training. After prolonged intense studies, and life-and-health-jeopardizing clinical exposures, medical residents are deprived of sleep, sometimes for days…
This form of high-stress trauma-based education is completely consistent with standardized techniques used in mind control and cult indoctrination programs. This is commonly called brainwashing, but it is really a subtle form of hypnosis that relies on fear and trauma to capture and control your attention and shape your behavior.” 3
Dr. Alvin Mahoney adds:
“[You suffer from]… sleep deprivation, light deprivation – you never see the sun for an entire summer… It’s brutal. It’s traumatic. And almost everybody that comes out of there has some kind of post-traumatic stress disorder…
When it came exam time… they would take you to this special room in a special building that you had never been to before called the red room. And you would pile up like sheeple – like cattle – outside of the red room. And you’ve got 100+ students altogether about to take a big exam and, you know if you don’t pass this exam, you don’t get to move on. And there’s a good chance you’re going to get kicked out of school, right? So everybody is super stressed. I mean, the energy in that room was so negative and so full of fear and toxic, it was unbelievable… And they would have you standing there for about a good 30 minutes and then they would let you into the exam room and then you would take the exam after you had this congestion of energy… It wasn’t until I started looking at mind control that I said – Man, that’s a mind control thing! There was no reason why the door shouldn’t be open, we go in and take our seats. And if we have to wait 30 minutes before the exam, that’s fine. Why did they put us in this thing with all this energy and everybody’s tripping out and everybody’s worried? It was just ridiculous… And why the color red? …The room itself was red. Outside it was red. Inside it was red. The walls were red. The chairs were red… There’s a reason why the damn thing was called the red room… I’m not quite sure why they used the color red… I know that there was a reason for that room being red. There was a reason for us to be shackled up like cows going to the slaughter…”” 4
Indeed. Several authors have noted the significance of using the color red if one wishes to evoke stress, fear, or trauma.
“[R]ed is associated with a sense of urgency… Red is known to be stimulating… Exposing students to the color red prior to an exam has been shown to have a negative impact on test performance. Could it be that red overstimulates the mind, making it difficult to focus?” 5
“On the flag itself, we have the red of trauma, of the bloodshed of war and sacrifice, mixing with the white of pure consciousness, next to the blue skies of intellectual thought full of stars, re-presenting all the illuminated brotherhoods, fraternities, orders, lodges, etc, working together behind the scenes to create the trauma that makes prisoners of everyone under their influence…” 6
In addition to subjecting students to extremely high levels of stress and fear, medical training also involves repeatedly traumatizing students by forcing them to engage in atrocities that only a sociopath would feel OK about. Let’s listen to the words of Barbara Rivera, founder of www.BirthPower.Org, as she describes some of the “training” she was subjected to before she ultimately quit working toward her animal-science degree at Rutgers University.
“…I’m not sure whether they’ve changed anything, but the belief is that puppies don’t remember the pain or that puppies don’t feel it. So they just do those tail dockings and they take off the dewclaws with no anesthesia…
Usually at the vet that I worked at, you would hold the puppy… I only did one because I didn’t realize I could say no – it was so horrifying cause you had to hold the puppy and the puppy would poop and pee all over your pants screaming… then they would… sew it back up at the end of the tail while the puppy is crying…
Back when I started (20 years ago), they didn’t give animals pain medication… because they said that if the animal is in pain, they rest better… and that basically animals don’t feel pain like we do and there’s no need for it…
Conceding that their grip on the economy is slipping, central bankers are proposing a radical economic reset that would shift yet more power from government to themselves.
Central bankers are acknowledging that they are out of ammunition. Mark Carney, the soon-to-be-retiring head of the Bank of England, said in a speech at the annual meeting of central bankers in August in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, “In the longer-term, we need to change the game.” The same point was made by Philipp Hildebrand, former head of the Swiss National Bank, in an August 2019 interview with Bloomberg. “Really there is little if any ammunition left,” he said. “More of the same in terms of monetary policy is unlikely to be an appropriate response if we get into a recession or sharp downturn.”
“More of the same” meant further lowering interest rates, the central bankers’ stock tool for maintaining their targeted inflation rate in a downturn. Bargain-basement interest rates are supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging borrowers to borrow (since rates are so low) and savers to spend (since they aren’t making any interest on their deposits and may have to pay to store them). But over $15 trillion in bonds are now trading globally at negative interest rates, yet this radical maneuver has not been shown to measurably improve economic performance. In fact new research shows that negative interest rates from central banks, rather than increasing spending, stopping deflation, and stimulating the economy as they were expected to do, may be having the opposite effects. They are being blamed for squeezing banks, punishing savers, keeping dying companies on life support, and fueling a potentially unsustainable surge in asset prices.
So what is a central banker to do? Hildebrand’s proposed solution was presented in a paper he wrote with three of his colleagues at BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, where he is now vice chairman. Released in August to coincide with the annual Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers, the paper was co-authored by Stanley Fischer, former governor of the Bank of Israel and former vice chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve; Jean Boivin, former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada; and BlackRock economist Elga Bartsch. Their proposal calls for “more explicit coordination between central banks and governments when economies are in a recession so that monetary and fiscal policy can better work in synergy.” The goal, according to Hildebrand, is to go “direct with money to consumers and companies in order to enliven consumption,” putting spending money directly into consumers’ pockets.
It sounds a lot like “helicopter money,” but he was not actually talking about raining money down on the people. The central bank would maintain a “Standing Emergency Fiscal Facility” that would be activated when interest rate manipulation was no longer working and deflation had set in. The central bank would determine the size of the Facility based on its estimates of what was needed to get the price level back on target. It sounds good until you get to who would disburse the funds: “Independent experts would decide how best to deploy the funds to both maximize impact and meet strategic investment objectives set by the government.”
“Independent experts” is another term for “technocrats” – bureaucrats chosen for their technical skill rather than by popular vote. They might be using sophisticated data, algorithms and economic formulae to determine “how best to deploy the funds,” but the question is, “best for whom?” It was central bank technocrats who plunged the economies of Greece and Italy into austerity after 2011, and unelected technocrats who put Detroit into bankruptcy in 2013.
In short, Hildebrand and co-authors are not talking about central banks giving up their ivory tower independence to work with legislators in coordinating fiscal and monetary policy. Rather, central bankers would be acquiring even more power, by giving themselves a new pot of free money that they could deploy as they saw fit in the service of “government objectives.”
Carney’s New Game
The tendency to overreach was also evident in the Jackson Hole speech of BOE head Mark Carney, in which he said “we need to change the game.” The game changer he proposed was to break the power of the US dollar as global reserve currency. This would be done through the issuance of an international digital currency backed by multiple national currencies, on the model of Facebook’s “Libra.”
Multiple reserve currencies are not a bad idea, but if we’re following the Libra model, we’re talking about a new, single reserve currency that is merely “backed” by a basket of other currencies. The question then is who would issue this global currency, and who would set the rules for obtaining the reserves.
Carney suggested that the new currency might be “best provided by the public sector, perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies.” This raises further questions. Are central banks really “public”? And who would be the issuer – the banker-controlled Bank for International Settlements, the bank of central banks in Switzerland? Or perhaps the International Monetary Fund, which Carney is in line to head?
The IMF already issues Special Drawing Rights to supplement global currency reserves, but they are merely “units of account” which must be exchanged for national currencies. Allowing the IMF to issue the global reserve currency outright would give unelected technocrats unprecedented power over nations and their money. The effect would be similar to the surrender by EU governments of control over their own currencies, making their central banks dependent on the European Central Bank for liquidity, with its disastrous consequences.
Time to End the “Independent” Fed?
A media event that provoked even more outrage against central bankers last month, however, was an August 27th op-ed in Bloomberg by William Dudley, former president of the New York Fed and a former partner at Goldman Sachs. Titled “The Fed Shouldn’t Enable Donald Trump,” it concluded:
There’s even an argument that the [presidential] election itself falls within the Fed’s purview. After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy, to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.
The Fed is so independent that, according to former Fed chair Alan Greenspan, it is answerable to no one. A chief argument for retaining the Fed’s independence is that it needs to remain a neutral arbiter, beyond politics and political influence; and Dudley’s op-ed clearly breached that rule. Critics called it an attempt to overthrow a sitting president, a treasonous would-be coup that justified ending the Fed altogether.
Perhaps, but central banks actually serve some useful functions. Better would be to nationalize the Fed, turning it into a true public utility, mandated to serve the interests of the economy and the voting public. Having the central bank and the federal government work together to coordinate fiscal and monetary policy is actually a good idea, so long as the process is transparent and public representatives have control over where the money is deployed. It’s our money, and we should be able to decide where it goes.
They created the problem that they propose to remedy by gaining more power.