Peter, your article's very perceptive in its understanding. However it doesn't say anything we don't already know, nor gives viable alternatives. Our present system's dead, keeping any part of it will only drag the smell into anything new.

We need a new lateral system, one that's forced upon the elite by the people and circumstance, as seen in past history. Globalisation's failed as has economic growth and rationalism at any cost. Our present systems put all the power into elitist hands, destroyed our labour base, primary industry, small business and enslaved the populace.

The system we need to progress this country will give people a real say in the future, with those at the helm of society actually knowing about the portfolio they represent and fully accountable for their role and outcomes, with no political parties.

This will only come about by some form of revolution or collapse of the present system. Revolutions are normally bloody and never really assist all involved, its a collapse we need in this country. We don't want to go down the path of bloody revolution as we are seeing throughout the world.

We need a system free from the religious ideology currently controlling our parliamentary system by stealth. Other than that we need to find a way to make the transition painless, as well as remove the current useless overeducated idiots currently destroying everything they touch. We need an accountable bureaucracy, actually I doubt there'd be one head of department who is capable of doing the job their supposed to.

I believe it will be based on reason, environmental sustainable life style and sustainable non polluting technologies. Its either that or we end up in the stone age again, or with an unliveable planet.

Oh to be so lucky. I place my bet on the arrival of the catastrophes before the change. Did not see or hear, was not told, refusal to address the unpleasant preferring the escape offered by taboo labelling, like Terrorists. Human inability to see the future resulting in denial of change as Jared Diamond shows in Collapse, even resentment of change as many writers note, will ensure action taken too late. Religion will play its part in soothing or arming fighting hordes whose destruction of the environment can only speed catastrophe. Oil wasted in Israel/Lebanon! We in the rich world will have the voyeur satisfaction of observing this before our turn comes realisation being thwarted by the emotion of patriotic fervour and militarism as we compete for remaining resources. In the time available medals will be struck and handed out those that can will take as much as they can denying others. The media will be in profit. So roll on!

Alchemist,

I think you are one of the few posters on this forum that really can see the forest before the trees. (although I dont always go on along with your anti-religous rants, but they are great for a laugh). The current system is terminally ill, people don't see it yet because materially we are doing ok, but wait until the economy really goes belly up and then some major changes are bound to occur.

This article was ok but he probably dosn't go far enough. He is right about one thing, communication technology is THE vehicle for change. The MSM all over the world have completley let us down. They refuse to examine what happened on 911 even though millions online are realising that the official story has some major holes in it.

Alchemist you are right about revolutions, they are bloody and generally undesireable, but the system we have will not last, I just hope the transition dosn't result in WW111.

I'm not so sure the present system is dead - just in need of some emergency evolution.

Observing federal politics first:

On the one hand, we have the Coalition parties - the Liberals have become the most effective political party, while the Nationals have become utterly dependent upon them. The National Party either has to revert to the core values of the Country Party it was founded upon and accept it will only have a presence in rural Australia (and a limited one at that) or be entirely subsumed by the Liberals.

The crisis facing Labor is even worse - for too long they have been linked with unionism in Australia. Labor is trying to occupy a space that is dominated by a) the blue collar workers of unions and b) the predominant left wing party - indeed the only party that is even remotely connected with socialism.

As such, the Left in Australia have no real voice - the only option is labor, which is still effectively the unions. Should Labor lose the next federal election (and I'm almost certain they will) they will be faced with a total crisis - the realisation that the unions really aren't enough for them anymore - the only real choice is to become a truly progressive left party. Unfortunately, I suspect Australian politics aren't quite ready for that, as the countries in Europe that have genuine left governments have had decades of preparation.

On the State level, we have a situation where the state and federal governments are completely ideologically opposed - which results in the federal government undermining power from the states. This is not going to change anytime soon, in fact, the relevance of the states is certainly going to shrink, especially if Labor cannot undertake this dramatic shift in ideology.

In response to some of the comments that the author doesn't go far enough in his article I should add he has sent me another article to follow on from this one. It will be published in about a fortnight and I will make sure it is linked to this one.
Regards
Susan Prior
Editor

Peter,

I quite liked your article but agree that it doesn't seem to explore the fundamentals of the issue deeply enough. How is this exactly going to start and continue to work? - I am not criticising I am really interested to know more.

I find the idea of a 'quiet', relatively painless tech driven democratic revolution fantasic. What a brilliant idea! I would be the first to sign up to such a movement, but how will it work exactly? How is it going to evolve and ultimately supersede the existing power structure?

Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve, stated: "Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry."

The coup took place in 1911, sorry we have no say in any government

I think that's a tad pessimistic Steve - you could most definitely call me a cynic, but I still think Australians do hold the keys here, even if they are very easily manipulated.

Anyhow - following frommy last post, I'll offer a snapshot of the nextdecade.

The Liberals are going to remain in power for the foreseeable future. The next term, and I dare say the one after that too.
As stated in my previouspost, Labor is at present, ideologically crippled.

Whether or not Howard remains in power is anyone's guess, though I see no sign of the old battleaxe retiring - my punt is he'll fight the next election, serve the nextwhole term, and not give way until towards the end of the following one. Costello will sulk quietly for the foreseeable future.

Anyhow - conservatism is going toget evenmore extreme. The seeds have been sown now, butwe haven't really seen anythingmore thanthe seedlings.

Labor will languish following their defeat at the next federal election. Beazley will be gone. Forgood, if Labor knows what is wise. Following this, there will be leadership squabbling. Gillard and Shorten will be pushed as candidates, but neither have enoughsupport so Rudd will be seen as the happy medium.

Support for the liberals will besolidified in theircore constituencies, while the borderline voters willgrow dissatisfied.

The public will begin togrow restless in response to a widening rift in social services offered to the rich opposedto poor.
Inthis, Australia will follow the US model, and there will be a further decline in services suchas education and health.

Eventually labor willascend the throne, probably in two terms. The resources boom will have slowed somewhat, andwhile the present prosperous economic conditions will have been lengthened by the liberal attitude, they will come to an end, probablyin line with a globalrecession. Labor will take the helm, but it won't be amid a time of economic favour, andthey may not last the distance, though if they have made their ideological transformation they may be able to hold onto power if they've boosted core services for the lower income earners.

Peter, thank you so much for an excellent essay which comes like a ray of intellectual light.

Also you have revived so much hope in an oldie who was starting to believe that all the philosophical and historical studies in his retirement years, including Honours was a waste of time, considering using up his last few years in simply following AFL footy and international cricket.

Also congrats to the majority of our so far Posters who aclaim your point of view, as well as the suggestions that you take it much further, as Susan Prior has so thankfully indicated, possibly concerning phone calls regarding the topic.

As one whose main study has been international relations and historical philosophy, it is believed that Peter’s argument should now involve the United Nations, which has been deliberately been rendered negative by the US with the help of its present Angliphonic allies Britain and our Australia.

And yet indeed the US will still use the UN in such a way that it is American diplomacy that still calls the tune - as is happening today with Condoleeza Rice playing bandmaster or bandmistress, or whatever.

Don't care much for religion these days, Peter, but must say periods like this, turn one’s mind back to the simplicity of the Sermon on the Mount.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Thanks Carl, I assure you, when I write comments on religion, its always a jovial affair.

The problem we face can only be solved by laterally rethinking how we operate our country. Expecting change from within the current system is the same as thinking a heart transplant from a rock using a sky hook, will rejuvenate the patient, solving the problems. We have to use the current system to destroy it.

If you get control, you need the right changes for anything new to work. A political movement has to be established to instantly implement the policies that'll destroy the new parties power, giving it to the people. You need candidates, campaigning for specific portfolios. Putting before the people what they'll do to make their portfolio successful, in statuary declarations removing them if they fail to do the job. Receiving token renumeration with bonuses on actual results.

Introduce laws making beaurucrats responsible and accountable for their departments actions. Change the education system, removing youth unemployment by introducing 4 years of community work experience from 16 to 20. Filling hospitals, essential services, the bureaucracy, defence, with kids rotating through different jobs. Once they reach 20, they choose their career or study to undertake. We'd have a constant flow of people capable of most tasks in society and experienced in the real world. Crime, car accidents would reduce, no shortage of hospital staff, as everyone would've spent time in casualty, police, rescue services, becoming responsible useful citizens.

This would give older people jobs, teaching the young skills and knowledge they've learnt during their lives. Youth would have something to look forward to after early schooling.

Currently politicians support big business using our money and assets, we should only support small business and tax all religions as businesses.

Economic rationalism's designed to strangle competition, reducing the populace to slaves of corporate conglomerates hell bent on expansion and economic growth at any cost. Doesn't anyone wonder why we're working longer with less time for anything but corporate dictates in every aspect of our lives.

• Steve Madden ..."Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of Federal Reserve, stated ...'Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry'... The coup took place in 1911, sorry we have no say in any government"... Yeah, in the circumstances you may recall German Jew Mayer Amschel Bauer (born in 1743), who changed his name to Rothschild (symbolising hexagram rotes-schild). Significantly giving-a-birth to Zionism, towards-the-erection of the Zionist-Vatican upon the Haram-as-Sharif, on-the-national and-totalitarian-basis, bound by the treaty with the Nazi-Reich.

Well, he was quoted-to-say in 1790 ..."Give me control of a nation's money, and I care not who writes it's laws"... Accordingly his wish was granted by the almighty, as a result US Federal Reserve is neither federal nor has any reserve! Due to the fact that the Bank of the United States (introduced by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury under Washington) was replaced by the Federal Reserve. So what is the federal reserve? A cartel of private banks owned by the elders-of-zion 20 founding families, which decides the interest rates and lend non-existent money.

Such a scheme-evolved-into present-day-banking and monetary-system. What is more commonly known as fractional-reserve deposit-expansion. The modern-day banking-system and its new form of "electronic-credit" has grown out-of-such earlier master-strokes and shows no-sign of stopping. The evil-of-not-being-able to-pay both debt-and-interest is deeply entrenched. What has now-grown-into a multi-tentacle monster, which is destroying our-economy, our-lives and our-country. We are racking-up vast-amounts of personal, corporate and public debt totaling vast trillions-of-dollars. What cannot-be ever-paid-back, under current-system. As long as the banks have the almighty privilege-to-create and issue-money, the people will continue-to-slave.

As a result of what started-as-precious metals (such as gold and silver) primary form-of-money in early days. Because of its weight and the danger-of-being-robbed, the goldsmiths were entrusted with the safekeeping. Who learned fast from the experience that although their notes-of-exchange were payable-on-demand, in practice not every-note-holder came in to ask for redemption at the same-time. So Jewellers always had a stock-of-metal on hand, while taking advantage of this fact, they wrote extra notes-to-borrowers as means-of-exchange while charging hefty interest.

Personally, I think Aaron Russo's new film says everything there is to say about the illusion of "Democracy," "From Freedom to Fascism":-

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

In a nutshell, until we're free to sack the bankers, everything else is just froth. And here's a key quote from a recent lead letter in my local rag (from me):-

"At its heart the global system of “Fractional reserve banking” is an unsustainable fraud – a pyramid scheme. It’s only possible when the basic commodity, energy, is expanding. All our lives, we’ve been on the up-curve. Now we’re in a new place, the down-curve. In these circumstances, our current banking and money system will tear lives apart if it’s not checked by people power."

Link to full letter here:-

http://www.kimspages.org/beaudesertshirepeakoil.htm#leadletter

Leo

would you mind listing those 20 founding Elders of Zion families and
giving some links to information about them ?

Thanx.


KimB I tend to agree about the 'downcurve'.

Capitalism by definition depends on 'growth' of capital and markets. But resources are limited.

Perhaps it will behave like a house of cards in an earth tremor sooner than we think.

But Socialism is limited to the economic and human raw materials also.
Not only does Socialism destroy the vision of intelligent men and women, and limit them to glorified lemmings, it is an unsound economic system based on a flawed understanding of human nature.

Leo..back to you.. not sure where you are coming from, are you in fact laying into the axe of the world system and the Jewish string pullers (as you see them) ? if so, what are you advocating in place of the current relatively restrained capitalist globalism ?
Please inform us in 'point form' so we don't get submerged in your VERY tight typing.

Where are you and Kim on the political spectrum. Left... Right... Centrist... Perhaps we are having some contributions from those from the Australian Electoral Lobby ?

Yep Pete, (a few further comments), you're right. And the sooner the better. The spin doctors, politicos and media barrons are clueless about the tsunami of change coming their way (a terminal case of "Hubris"?) Me? I'm just a part time RN (casual/part time, by choice) - but I'm wired to internet news . . . And here's me co-ordinating "Queensland After Oil":-

http://www.relocalize.net/groups/queensland

And my recent open letter to John Howard re fighting for oil (note cc list):-

http://www.kimspages.org/openmessagetoJH.htm

Until very recently, I wouldn't have had a clue about all this stuff. Now it stares me in the face everyday.

Peter,
What we need is evolution not revolution. A revolving body will return to its original position, and given the least malfunction will spin-off with incalculable results. The evolution that I have in mind is the ever increasing realisation that greed and anger are the cause of the world's ills. No amount of technological innovation will improve the lot of humanity unless that innovation is put to the service of humanity, which greed prevents. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate but has the world beneffited? (Think 3rd world countries, thik global warming etc.)

The greedy will never give up their wealth unless forced to do so. What do I suggest.

First, all wealth and tax records, for both individuals and corporations, should be in the public domain. When the populace knows who has abscene wealth and how little of it is returned to society,the clamour for genuine tax reform will be irresistible.

Now you will say that this is pie in the sky and will never be achieved. So secondly we need a political party that puts principles before power. Such a party would be appropriately called the unelectables.

Looks like Peter's really started something we really need.
As yet there is not much nasty sniping. Seems the deep thought processes are really working for the good. One Poster suggested to use more reason. Certainly Socrates would have agreed when he said, out with the Gods and in with the Good. Just another way of saying that we must balance our faith with more reason, as even St Thomas Aquinas came to admit, bringing on the Age of Reason onto the Age of Enlightenment, and now into the Age of Democracy, we hope?

Peter,
Thanks for this much-needed thought trigger.
You have evoked worthwhile replies, each deeply reasoned and each pointing out that the status quo is changing.
I suggest that, among some aspects of the need for change, is the acceptance that change is inevitable - nothing ever remains the same.
Many conservatives cannot acept this, and try to preserve life and living in a form which they understand and which they are most comfortable. They fear change.
Fdixit hits at this succinctly - what is needed is EVOLUTION, not revolution.
We need to remember that our political leaders are just that - leaders, not commanders! They manage at our behest.
The enormous complexity of their task often obscures that fact that they depend largely on society's cooperation for success in making our laws work, despite the ultimate sanction of enforced compliance.

In one form, lack of cooperation can manifest in revolution with attendant violence. This results in ongoing competitive hatreds.

In another form, lack of cooperation can result in society's questioning, and its refusal to accept dutifully what it is being told as truth.
Reasoned understanding can lead to acceptance and the evolvement of the new.
This is one of the mighty benefits of today's increased ability to share ideas; no longer are we beholden to a small number of media controllers for our knowledge.

Like Fdixit, I support evolution as a pathway for change.
Happiness cannot be bought or won; it results from truth, personal honesty, and the rejection of anger, delusion, hatred and greed.
Accepting that we are all responsible personally for our outcomes will result in our choosing actions which benefit mankind.
Now these choices can be made from a better and deeper knowledge reasoned by ourselves, not from political or corporate spin.

Peter, great to see your optimism, I am following these post with interest.

I have become increasingly pessimistic and cynical about our political processes.
I think the base contributing factor to the rank political smell is the centralisation of power within the political parties. I believe I experienced this as the root cause of the Democrat problems.

With power centralised, spin doctoring comes into its own as the preferred way of presenting a cheap, controlled message with little substance.
The shallowness of this process is what turns people off involvement in the political debate.

So I see the road ahead as the decentralisation of power within the parties, something their elites will fight against. I can see the internet bringing this about by weight of numbers overwhelming these political elites/insiders.

I also do not see the need for any dramatic changes to take place. Aside from the party hacks, another byproduct of centralisation, we have a group of decent men and women serving our political needs. All we need to do is remove the shackles of centralised party power.

• Alchemist ..."Economic rationalism's designed-to-strangle competition, reducing the populace-to-slaves of corporate-conglomerates hell-bent on-expansion and economic-growth at any-cost. Doesn't anyone-wonder why-we're working-longer with-less-time for anything but corporate dictates-in-every aspect of our lives"... Yeah, due to early goldsmiths created money by writing notes against which they had only-a-fractional reserve.

Thus began banking business, and for a long-time anyone could-become a banker just as easily as he could become-a-grocer or a barber. The large-banks-however, were government chartered. The earliest ones include the Bank-of-Sweden (1656), the Bank-of-England (1694) and the Royal Bank-of-France (1716-1720). They issued bank-notes just as the goldsmiths did, and these printed-notes circulated-nationally, like today's paper-currency.

"If you want to-be the slaves-of-banks and pay the cost-of-your own-slavery, then let the banks create-money"... Josiah Stamp, Governor of the Bank-of-England 1920. Money is the medium which we use to-exchange-goods and services, so whoever controls the issue-of-money is potentially in a very-powerful-position. These facts give an-extra edge-of-topicality to what-in-any case has been already-a-highly controversial records-study of the infamous elders-of-zion.

In a July 1995 interview with Playboy magazine, Jew maverick Mel Gibson said President Bill Clinton was a "low-level opportunist" because someone was "telling him what-to-do". He said he thought Clinton and other politicians who-had-won Rhodes-Scholarships were part of a "stealth" trend-of-Rhodes-scholars becoming-politicians who were striving for a "New-World-Order". He said this was-a-form-of-Marxism and that "Karl-had the right-idea".

During the interview, Gibson also said the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy, along with attempt against Ronald Reagan may-have-been related-to-actions, they took regarding the Federal-Reserve. Asked if his movie would "upset Jews", Gibson responded: "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible".

Which brings to mind comatose Sharon (well before) in his hey-day of escalated fascism, quoted to say on Oct 3rd, 2001, to Shimon Peres ..."Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that, well I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it"!

Firstly, people are worried about a post-peak oil civilisational collapse, or at least a shake up. Australia should be well positioned to make a transition to bio-diesel or ethanol for instance, with self-sufficiency and exports aplenty (and the Middle East could finally become irrelevant!). I guess it might suck to be in a small, over-populated, cold and cloudy European country, but not here. At some point, other forms of energy to those being used now will be more attractive and viable, and people will use those instead. Maybe the Europeans have a vested interest in the doom and gloom because they realise sunny Brazil and Australia have little to fear.

Secondly, the terms "the market", "neo-liberalism" or "rationalism" get thrown around a lot, but there are a few things to consider. One is that these things are actually diametrically opposed to a notion of oligarchical figures running the show, which leads me into my next point. The market is what people make it. Much like the old adage of people getting the governments they deserve, maybe people get the corporations they deserve too. If jobs are disappearing off shore and the elite really are stealing the shirts off our backs (which I'm neither confirming nor denying), then that's ultimately the failure of individual consumers to take an approach that isn't incredibly short-sighted. Take responsibility. If you don't want a national supermarket chain running the show, then support your local greengrocer (or grow your own food!), but the trade off is that things are more expensive, less convenient, etc. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't complain when the bogeyman you got to micromanage your life because you were too lazy then starts micromanaging it too much.

Anyhow, regarding the future of federal politics, I think it's worth noting that a lot of the time, governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them, which often means the replacement is even more of a dud, yet still gets in. The ALP may be a joke, but remember what happened to Kennett in Victoria.

Hi Shorbe - 2 things. 1, it's not possible replace oil, a massively energy dense substance we're using in massive quantities, with bio-fuels. To understand why, read Richard Heinberg's "The Party's Over." Here's a much shortened, pdf booklet version:-
http://www.postcarbon.org/files/EndOfOilBooklet_0.pdf

& here's a link to the book itself:-
http://www.richardheinberg.com/books

& Heinberg will be in Brisbane on 23 Aug, here's a link:-
http://www.brisinst.org.au/calendar/20060823_44.html

Also, we need to understand (and change), the current "Ecology of money." It's bigger than individual choices, as those that benefit from the current system don't WANT change. Check out economist Richard Douthwaite's writings:-
http://www.feasta.org/documents/moneyecology/chapterone.htm

Plus Brisbane economist Richard Sanders:-
http://www.brisinst.org.au/resources/brisbane_institute_sanders_sustain.html

Peter, a very neat and compact description of our circumstances. Thankyou. Yet I scry a glimmer of redemption for my grandkids.

How to fashion good governance while minimising the effects of the grosser aspects of human nature is a pretty conundrum. Put a seasoned politician in charge and he will waste no time in making the world a safer place for politicians. Put an economist in charge and he will waste no time in making the world a better place for economists. Put a general in charge and he will naturally compete for precious resources to fashion a more formidable army.

All of these things are being rubbed into our faces, even as we write. In principle, it is as normal and natural as turning one's home into a better haven for the kids. Yet real governance demands that the "governator" sees all men as his brothers and all children as precious as his very own.

Somehow it all seems to get lost in a competitive and confrontational system that favours the ascendancy of those with the most keenly developed sense of self-interest. The outcome is boringly inevitable.

Fundamentalists will point out that this Darwinian system is the inevitable result of being born into this lifespring, yet even Darwin wondered if the purpose of human intellect was to offer evolution the chance to escape it's Archean beginnings.

I wonder if the Internet might be the merest beginning of something that approaches the collective mind, given time and sufficient electricity? I do believe that good governance may yet be something that hasn't entered our minds to conceive.

As Catherine Austin Fitts says, "No-one is smarter than all of us".

fdixit wrote "greed and anger are the cause of the world's ills." More fundamentally, the ignorance and delusion which give rise to them. So long as the leaders of society lack wisdom, changes to the form and mechanism of government will have a limited capacity to bring about positive change. Of course, if you want wise leaders, you first have to develop wisdom yourself.

KimB: I'm not saying that we could continue to live our present lifestyles, but I think we're far from civilisational collapse. Civilisation existed for a long time without oil.

We don't necessarily need all of the tacky plastic crap produced from oil. Likewise with fertilisers and many other products.

Transportation could very easily be solved in a number of ways. Firstly, reduce what we use (or replace it with alternative fuels, public transport, etc.). Secondly and more importantly, all we need to do is be more localised. Rather than travelling ridiculous distances to work or anywhere else, we just need to focus such things at a community level, within walking or cycling distance. Likewise, for a long time in history, people didn't get food from a long way away (and even as recently as a few decades ago, people grew vegetables and fruit, and preserved them, and kept small animals for meat or eggs), or if they did, it was a real luxury. Sure, I miss not eating bananas, but given that I don't live in the tropics, it's ridiculous that I ever ate them to begin with. The trouble is often that people want to eat something from a long way away or something that's out of season, which is why we need so much oil.

The trouble is that in the past century (but especially the past half century), the notion of the city has been anything but self-sufficient or user friendly. This peak oil scenario is only a major issue because we let it be that way.

• Hang on, was it a kind-of-blessing or the curse in disguise, to be solicited by the silver-tongued Boaz-ben-David, provoking me to re-examine who controls Federal Reserve system? Well, as far as it's known Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation, so natural question arises, who owns the beast? Peter Kershaw provides an answer in "Economic Solutions", where he lists ten primary shareholders of the Federal Reserve banking system:

The Rothschild Family (London); The Rothschild Family (Berlin); The Lazard Brothers (Paris); Israel Seiff (Italy); Kuhn Loeb Company (Germany); The Warburgs (Amsterdam); The Warburgs (Hamburg); Lehman Brothers (New-York); Goldman & Sachs (New-York); and The Rockefeller Family (New-York).

Jim Marrs provides further data in his phenomenal book "Rule by Secrecy". Where he says that the Federal Reserve Bank of New-York (which controls other eleven Federal Reserve branches) is essentially controlled by two financial institutions: 32.3% Chase Manhattan (controlled by the Rockefellers) and 20.5% Citbank. So these two entities control nearly 53% of the New-York Federal Reserve Bank. Doesn't that boggles your mind?

Now considering how many trillions of dollars are involved and how the avaricious bankers are a way above the respectively exclusive gene-pool officials in Washington DC, wouldn't you think that the elders-family run banks have an inordinate say, in how US being run? The answer is blindingly apparent (lest we forget when US sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold). Yet where does the money comes from?

By now we know that the Federal Reserve corporation prints money, then loans it at interest to US govt (but wait until you see the scam of this process). Yet before we get into the root of the evil, please-pay-attention on the absent cardinal essence in banking. Primarily that the paper money must have some sort of standard, upon which its trust is being based. In US, it used to be "Gold Standard", phantom money backed by the gold reserve (long gone). Acting as a silent watchdog to prevent unlimited spending. In the absence "Gold Standard", there is no way to protect your savings from confiscation via inflation (reminiscent of Reichmarks outcome).

With a focus on the scam in money printing process, if the Federal Reserve wants to print 1,000 ($100) bills, the cost for ink, paper, plates, labor etc, would be approximately $23.00 in total (according to Davvy Kidd in: "Why a Bankrupt America"). So to produce 10,000 ($100) bills would cost $230, but here's the catch, as 10,000 of $100 bills equals $1,000,000. Staggering multiplications of which are lent to US Govt at interest. That's not a bad deal for elders-family run banking industry, who call this process "seignorage". I call it an outright robbery.

Why? Because of the immense profit margin (out of a thin-air) as a consequence of the huge interest payment. Where US govt extorts then in turn the money from the working class populous via broad range of taxes, to pay-off the debts to the mafia like run IRS agency. Created a while back by US Nazis who funded Adolf Hitler's crusade to re-establish Roman Empire via coordination by Prescott Bush. For an eye opener into interest-free greenbacks ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4737#50946

Lest we forget that Kaiser's Germany wasn't defeated on the battlefield in WWI, in spite of all the intrigues by coalition of the willing connivers, until international bankers withdrew their funding. Whilst the elders-family run US banks funded Bolshevik (zionist linguists) agitators, who infiltrated Germany, triggering strikes and massive popular unrest. All this disrupted supplies and totally undermined the war effort. Kaiser Wilhelm abdicated and Germany was forced to surrender.

As huge reparations were demanded, thus ensuring total collapse into debt of the Weimar Republic, elders-family run banking set-up Dawes recovery plan which plunged Germany into much deeper debt and economic chaos, creating conditions for the rise of Hitler's Nazi party. Whilst very same bankers tribe went-on as usual via its highly covert means to fund the rearmament of looming Third Reich (in spite of military sanctions) and later the allies. As soon as WWII was on the horizon, banks lending took place and the "Great Depression" came to an end, almost over night. So let's draw the line to expose master deceivers ... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4737#50347