What is a Real "DOLLAR"?
Vicegerent
that: "Federal Reserve Note is Not a Dollar"
I can't file I don't know what a "dollar" is under
penalty of perjury.
Saturday, June 30th 2007 Christopher Hansen
EXCITING BREAKING NEWS
Exclusive to the Independent American Press
A government witness in a Federal Tax Evasion
Case in Las Vegas , Nevada, testified on Friday
(June 29, 2007) that a Federal Reserve Note is
not a dollar but a silver dollar minted since 1986
AD is a real dollar.
When one of the defense Attorneys held up a
Federal Reserve Note and a silver dollar minted
since 1896 AD and asked, "Now these are both dollars,
correct?" the government witness testified that that
was not correct and the that Federal Reserve Note
was not a dollar. He also stated that a Federal
Reserve Note is not real money but the Silver dollar
is. He testified that a Federal Reserve Note is just
a debt note and not a dollar and has not been a
dollar since the United States would no longer
redeem them in gold and silver coins with the
same face value.
This licensed coin dealer called upon by the
government to testify in an effort to convict a
man accused of believing that "legal tender"
coins minted by the United States with dollar
values minted on their reverse sides just as the
law requires were actually dollars just like this
government witness said they were, also testified
that when he receives gold dollars that could be
traded in excess of 10,000 FRNs that he does not
report the transaction as being in excess of the
cash reporting requirements as he uses the gold
coins "face value" to judge their value. Remember,
this is the government witness. He is not on trial.
The government prosecuting attorney did not try
to challenge this testimony or even re-question
he witness in an attempt to get a definition of
"dollar" that, at least, included a Federal Reserve
Note. He just let it stand unchallenged.
For the rest of the article, go here:
www.solriders.net/forums/solr/viewtopic.php?
p=201&sid=4f167b1ceb71e47f4d9a75103e50dae4
For those who bitch about my
"cutting and pasting", I ask:
"Why re-invent the wheel?
Vicegerent
Topaz
The Federal Reserve is the problem but gold and silver has nothing to
do with it. The problem is the debt money system.
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Seth
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
>
> "If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
>under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
>has agreed to the impossible."
He pays back $5.
Then he sells you stuff for $3.
Then he pays back $6.
He's paid the $11, and even has $2 left.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Seth
Paul Maffia
of dollars moving faster through an economy is the same as having more
money.
Now watch the morons jump on this because they don't understand it and their
comic books don't tell them about it.
"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f7rsgq$our$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Abbot
> Please, you are asking the moron crowd to understand that a limited number
> of dollars moving faster through an economy is the same as having more
> money.
>
> Now watch the morons jump on this because they don't understand it and their
> comic books don't tell them about it.
>
> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f7rsgq$our$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>
>
>
> > Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
>
> >> "If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
> >>under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
> >>has agreed to the impossible."
>
> > He pays back $5.
>
> > Then he sells you stuff for $3.
>
> > Then he pays back $6.
>
> > He's paid the $11, and even has $2 left.
>
> > Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Abbot) I guess Eldon has given up his "name game" scam since now he is
posting cases in which folks like Hansen go into court clearly
accepting their names. . .as did Eldon when he paid his property taxes!
Topaz
wrote:
>In article <s3r2a3tdqfnghptqf...@4ax.com>,
>Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
>>
>> "If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
>>under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
>>has agreed to the impossible."
>
>He pays back $5.
If there was only $10 in existence, then you and he now have $5 each.
And he still owes you $6.
>
>Then he sells you stuff for $3.
You are a banker and you will accept nothing from him but money. Why
should you accept anything else, when he has agreed to the impossible
and he will shortly be bankrupt and you can take all his stuff.
Topaz
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
money that exists on the island.
And where does the banker get the money? He simply creates it out
of nothing by printing notes on his printing press. Every month the
banker goes to the island to collect his payments, to make more
loans, and to buy cars and things with his profits. If someone can't
make their payment he takes
their entire farm or business.
That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
their own printing press and
make their own money. To make the initial supply of money they would
simply print $100 for each
of them. This money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest.
But there is a money supply
on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more cars and
houses are built, from time to time more money would need to be
created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
No one of the ten workers can do this on his own. It is decided and
done at a town meeting.
A country is the same as the island. And the government is the same
as the town meeting.
The government should create money and not private bankers. The
government should be for
the people.
Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.
Kirby M. Wilson
> people but the bankers.
>
you sound as stupid as "knews4u2chew" (and probably as jew-phobic as
well!)
Vicegerent
> The Federal Reserve is the problem but gold
> and silver has nothing to do with it.
> The problem is the debt money system.
>
is still the law. So, that is the true alternative
to the Federal Reserve debt notes.
http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/coinageact.html
Good statements - clipped for brevity
> In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
> Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
> from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
> the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
> the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
> Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
> created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
> simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
> create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
> charge.
>
That BEP money is only a very small percentage
of the total money created out of nothing.
The vast majority is created on a computer
keyboard and screen at banks - in the form of
loans, and never sees the light of day as
"printed or coined" money.
Clipped for brevity
Vicegerent
Topaz
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that
was every invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin
. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the
power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create
enough money to buy it back again . Take this great power away from
them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this
would be a better and happier world to live in . But if you want to
continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own
slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control
credit."
Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second
richest man in Britain in the 1920's, speaking at the University of
Texas in 1927
This web site explains it more:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
Seth
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 02:54:18 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)
>wrote:
> If there was only $10 in existence, then you and he now have $5 each.
>And he still owes you $6.
>>
>>Then he sells you stuff for $3.
>
> You are a banker and you will accept nothing from him but money. Why
>should you accept anything else,
Maybe I like to eat and he grows food.
> when he has agreed to the impossible
>and he will shortly be bankrupt and you can take all his stuff.
It doesn't work that way on the blue-sky planet.
Somebody else will buy stuff from him if I won't. I don't have a
monopoly on money.
Seth
Topaz
wrote:
>> If there was only $10 in existence, then you and he now have $5 each.
>>And he still owes you $6.
>>>
>>>Then he sells you stuff for $3.
>>
>> You are a banker and you will accept nothing from him but money. Why
>>should you accept anything else,
>
>Maybe I like to eat and he grows food.
Maybe. But bankers are nothing but parasites. Why should they get rich
while they don't do any real work. We could easily have a system that
eliminates these parasites. All we need is a system to exchange our
goods. We don't need middlemen making millions off of the working
people.
>
>> when he has agreed to the impossible
>>and he will shortly be bankrupt and you can take all his stuff.
>
>It doesn't work that way on the blue-sky planet.
>
>Somebody else will buy stuff from him if I won't. I don't have a
>monopoly on money.
>
To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island with ten workers
on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
the people.
Today the bankers create the money and the government serves not the
people but the bankers.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Robert Miller
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:LKudnUVDFLOZGzzb...@centurytel.net...
> Please, you are asking the moron crowd to understand that a limited number
> of dollars moving faster through an economy is the same as having more
> money.
>
> Now watch the morons jump on this because they don't understand it and
> their comic books don't tell them about it.
I must be a moron! because you have said so. And I understand it :-) So
either I'm not a moron, or (and I like this) you are wrong and even morons
can understand this simple concept. :-)
Robert
Robert Miller
"Kirby M. Wilson" <kir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185053698.4...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
racist
responce. Actually the Jews have created or exagerated their own problems
throughout history. For example at the end of the second of the War agianst
Germany how many gassings were proven in the Nurenburg Trials? Near as
I can tell there was the written testimony of one man who could not be cross
examined. Or even medical autopsies that showed poison gas as the cause
of death. With only one Medical examiner in the U.S. military examining the
bodies and having found not one case of poison gas, but hundreds of cases
of Typhoid, Typhus, and Colera. With thousands of other living people
suffering from these diaseses, caused by un-sanitary conditions and poor
food.
It also appears the reason they were in these camps was because the German
government was afraid they would spy for Stalin, and the Soviet Union. That
was the same reason we intered the Japanese and Japanese Americans.
Robert
Paul Maffia
what you are talking about this one either.
Are you a masochist as well as a moron?
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:7331c$46a62a9f$4b590e6a$18...@ALLTEL.NET...
You give the ancient role of village idiot a bad name!
Paul Maffia
knowledge of econ., money and banking taxes and the Holocaust.
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:e2274$46a6270b$4b590e6a$24...@ALLTEL.NET...
Robert Miller
Don't base the money supply on a metal like gold or silver, but on
livestock.
I take out a loan of 100 head of cattle to start my herd. At an interest of
5% paid every fall in head of cattle. If the birthrate being what it should
be
and favorable conditions, I'll have the interest to be paid and a profit of
cattle,
plus milk chesse, and even manure to put on my crops.
This is an economically sound loan and the labor of the cattle herder is
turned
into cattle and a nice profit. Which he can exchange for gold or silver for
easily exchanged cash for use in commerce.
The bible says a man should not charge his brother interest. He is free to
charge
others interest. I'm told Jews do not charge Jews interest. At least that
is what their own writtings teach they should do. But Christians do charge
each other
interest. Afterall some pope said they could.
If a Jewish broker can gain an advantage in 1920's Germany because he
borrows from a Jewish banker who wont give the Christian the same advantage.
The fault does not lie with the Jewish banker, but the Christian banker who
charges his brother's interest on every loan.
This problem however unfair was not immoral, at least not by the Jew.
Robert
Robert Miller
> Amazing, you address another subject and prove to the world you don't know
> what you are talking about this one either.
>
> Are you a masochist as well as a moron?
Wow! I still think you are pretty small commited debunker and propogandist.
3rd person I've ever killfiled because you can't cite a single source for
any claim
you make.
Seth
Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
> I'm told Jews do not charge Jews interest.
Why don't you go visit a bank in Israel and ask them?
Or would you rather just report what you were "told" and ignore
reality?
Seth
Topaz
<robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>Perhaps here is a better sollution to the problem of interest.
>
>Don't base the money supply on a metal like gold or silver, but on
>livestock.
Money does not need to be backed by anything. All we need is a
system to exchange our goods. Paper money does that. Go into any store
and see for yourself. There is big problem with the debt-money system,
but paper money is fine.
>
>I take out a loan of 100 head of cattle to start my herd. At an interest of
>5% paid every fall in head of cattle. If the birthrate being what it should
>be
>and favorable conditions, I'll have the interest to be paid and a profit of
>cattle,
>plus milk chesse, and even manure to put on my crops.
>
>This is an economically sound loan and the labor of the cattle herder is
>turned
>into cattle and a nice profit. Which he can exchange for gold or silver for
>easily exchanged cash for use in commerce.
>
>The bible says a man should not charge his brother interest. He is free to
>charge
>others interest. I'm told Jews do not charge Jews interest. At least that
>is what their own writtings teach they should do. But Christians do charge
>each other
>interest. Afterall some pope said they could.
>
>If a Jewish broker can gain an advantage in 1920's Germany because he
>borrows from a Jewish banker who wont give the Christian the same advantage.
>The fault does not lie with the Jewish banker, but the Christian banker who
>charges his brother's interest on every loan.
>
>This problem however unfair was not immoral, at least not by the Jew.
>
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
Topaz
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down
to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Topaz
by Theodore J. O'Keefe
Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes
US troops discovered when they entered German concentration camps at
the close of World War II.
At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention
camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying
inmates, emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising
stories of torture and slaughter, and backed up their claims by
showing the GIs crematory ovens, alleged execution gas chambers,
supposed implements of torture, and even shrunken heads and
lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin flayed
from dead inmates.
US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the
Allied propaganda directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to
"document" what the GIs had found in the camps. Prominent newsmen
and politicians were flown in to see the harrowing evidence, while
the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the scenes for
posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones of
horror, but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown,
and Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history
of this planet.
For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased, the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of
torture and terror -- became the basis not simply of a transitory
propaganda campaign but of the conviction that, yes, it was true: the
Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most of them in lethal gas
chambers.
What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the
German people by destroying their national pride and their will to a
united, independent national state, imposing in their place
overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and political impotence.
And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of the most proven historical episodes in the
human record.
A Different Reality
But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American authorities were aware that the real story of the
camps was quite different from the one in which they were coaching
military public information officers, government spokesmen,
politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.
When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes.
Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team,
Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German
camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim
work at Dachau, he was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.
Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that
is a hoax." And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his
biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist
on duty in the entire European Theater" of Allied military operations,
confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered."
Typhus, Not Poison Gas
If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or
deliberately starved? The answers to these questions are known as
well.
As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease,
above all typhus, an old and terrible scourge of mankind that until
recently flourished in places where populations were crowded together
in circumstances where public health measures were unknown or had
broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded internment camps in
Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures as systematic
delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the dead, the
virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to catastrophe.
Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D.,
Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the
Harvard University School of Public Health, who was with US forces in
Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon reported in 1948 that "The outbreaks in
concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus
infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon summarized the causes
for the outbreaks as follows:
Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that,
homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in
chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing
armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the
spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade, public utilities were
seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere
lacking. Still more important, a shifting of populations was occurring
such as few countries and few times have experienced.
Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a
psychiatrist of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with
British forces as a young medical student in 1945. Barton, who
volunteered to care for the diseased survivors, testified under sworn
oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985 that "Thousands of prisoners who
died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II
weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of
diseases."
Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue
after inspecting the well equipped kitchens and the meticulously
maintained ledgers, dating back to 1942, of food cooked and dispensed
each day.
Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary, no researcher has been able to document a German policy
of extermination through starvation in the German camps.
No 'Human Skin' Lampshades
What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other
artifacts? What of the innumerable "torture racks," "meathooks,"
whipping posts, gallows, and other tools of torment and death that are
reported to have abounded at every German camp? These allegations, and
even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet prosecutors, found their
way into the record at Nuremberg.
The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch,
dubbed by journalists the "Bitch of Buchenwald," who was reported to
have furnished her house with objects manufactured from the tanned
hides of luckless inmates.
But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied
Germany, who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in
Washington: "There is no convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch]
selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins
or that she possessed any articles made of human skin." In an
interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about the material
for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that it was
goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a fair trial." Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German
jail in 1967.
It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi atrocities. That there were instances of German
cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a
legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose
statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg have never been
challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr. Morgen
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and corruption
on the part of camp personnel. As he explained in sworn testimony at
Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen investigated 800 such cases, resulting in more
than 200 convictions. Punishments included the death penalty for the
worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin
(Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of Buchenwald.
While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and
it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of
the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual
beating. After all, throughout most of the war the camps were
important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale
of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is
evidenced in a January 1943 order issued by SS General Richard Glücks,
chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical
strength of the detainees." Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the
guards but the prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same
stripe as those who populate US prisons today committed many
villainies, particularly when they held positions of authority, and
fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat their many
political enemies among the inmates, eliminated their foes with
Stalinist ruthlessness. Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon
W. Fleck and Edward A. Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances
in the camp before its liberation. In a detailed report submitted to
their superiors, they revealed, in the words of Alfred Toombs, their
commander, who wrote a preface to the report, "how the prisoners
themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi terror."
Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:
The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They
could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death ... The
Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the
brutalities at Buchenwald.
Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an
article published in an American magazine shortly after the war.
Colonel Robinson wrote succinctly of the American investigators'
findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who agreed with the
Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."
Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Ellis E. Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and
Detentions for the US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of
Dachau. Spackman, later a professor of history at San Bernardino
Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau "the
prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities
on their fellow prisoners."
'Gas Chambers'
In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in Alsace. They submitted their findings to their
superiors at the headquarters of the US 6th Army Group, which
subsequently forwarded their report to the US War Crimes Division.
While, significantly, the full text of their report has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that the two investigators were careful to
characterize equipment exhibited to them by French informants as a
"so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it was "allegedly used as
a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)
Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its
effective suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the
confusion, and the blaring publicity that accompanied official reports
of alleged gas chambers at Dachau. At first, a US Army photo depicting
a GI gazing at a steel door marked with a skull and crossbones and the
German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger! Don't open!," was
identified as showing the murder weapon.
Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and
another alleged gas chamber, this one cunningly disguised as a shower
room, was exhibited to American congressmen and journalists as the
site where thousands breathed their last. While there exist numerous
reports in the press as to the operation of this second "gas chamber,"
no official report by trained Army investigators has yet surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the function of the shower heads: Were they
"dummies," or did lethal cyanide gas stream through them? (Each theory
has appreciable support in journalistic and
historiographical literature.)
As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far
not a single detailed description of the murder weapon and its
function, not a single report of the kind that is mandatory for the
successful prosecution of any assault or murder case in America at
that time and today, has come to light.
Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany
after all. (We are now told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps
were located exclusively in what is now Poland, in areas captured by
the Soviet Red Army and made off-limits to western investigators.)
Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History, which is funded by the German government, stated
categorically in a 1960 letter to the German weekly Die Zeit: "Neither
in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other
prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal stated
in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."
Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives, is now described in the brochure issued to tourists at the
modern Dachau "memorial site" in these words: "This gas chamber,
camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."
The Propaganda Intensifies
More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and other German camps, and trained American investigators established
the facts as to what had gone on in them, the government in
Washington, the entertainment media in Hollywood, and the print media
in New York continue to churn out millions of words and images
annually on the horrors of the camps and the infamy of the Holocaust.
Despite the fact that, with the exception of the defeated Confederacy,
no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and devastating
defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the politicians and
bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort, through ignorance or malice, the facts about the
camps.
Time for the Truth
It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time
they let the American public know how the inmates died, and how they
didn't die. It is time that the claims of mass murder by gassing are
clarified and investigated in the same manner as any other claims of
murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans,
eastern Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime leadership of America and
Britain, either for their alleged role in the Holocaust or their
supposed failure to stop it.
Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the camps, facts they have a right to know, a right
that is fundamental to the exercise of their authority and their will
in the governance of their country. As citizens and as taxpayers,
Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by those in positions of power to be significant in
determining America's foreign and educational policy, as well as its
selection of past events to be memorialized in our
civic life.
Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world. The truth will be decided only by recourse to the
facts, in the public forum: not by concealing the facts, denying the
truth, stonewalling reality. The truth will out, and it is time the
government of this country, and governments and international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945,
so that we may put paid to the lies, without fear or favor, and carry
out the work of reconciliation and renewal that is and must be the
granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples and of a peace
based on justice.
Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the wartime German concentration camps have since been
corroborated by all subsequent investigators and can be summarized:
1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of
epidemics of typhus and other disease brought about largely by the
effects of Allied aerial attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into handbags and lampshades for their private profit or
amusement were sick lies or diseased fantasies; indeed, the German
authorities punished corruption and cruelty on the part of camp
commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the
truth; indeed, most of the brutalities inflicted on camp detainees
were the work of their fellow prisoners, in contravention of German
policy and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they
were used to murder Jews or other human beings is a contemptible
fabrication. Orthodox historians and professional "Nazi-hunters" have
quietly dropped claims that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald
and other camps in Germany. They continue, however, to keep silent
regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as to evade an
open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz and
the
other camps captured by the Soviets.
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
Paul Maffia
clearly imposes an income tax on all US Citizens and residents doesn't
exist, even though anyone who can read can find in USC 26. One in which, to
paraphrase his own words, a bank that does not use a fractional reserve
currency system has never gone broke despite a long history of those banks
doing just that. One in which he believes that he understands the concept of
the velocity of money without understanding that if he understood the
concept it would be rationally impossible to state that a bank not using
practicing fractional reserve currency operations can't go broke. One in
which the holocaust never happened and the oppression of the Jews in Nazi
Germany was nothing more than Hitler locking them up like we did the
Japanese to protect them. (Yea right!)
"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f8621r$1he$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Seth
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:25:51 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)
>wrote:
>
>>> If there was only $10 in existence, then you and he now have $5 each.
>>>And he still owes you $6.
>>>>
>>>>Then he sells you stuff for $3.
>>>
>>> You are a banker and you will accept nothing from him but money. Why
>>>should you accept anything else,
>>
>>Maybe I like to eat and he grows food.
>
>Maybe. But bankers are nothing but parasites. Why should they get rich
>while they don't do any real work. We could easily have a system that
>eliminates these parasites. All we need is a system to exchange our
>goods.
So set one up and go live there. What's stopping you? Maybe isn't
not done so "easily".
>>> when he has agreed to the impossible
>>>and he will shortly be bankrupt and you can take all his stuff.
>>
>>It doesn't work that way on the blue-sky planet.
>>
>>Somebody else will buy stuff from him if I won't. I don't have a
>>monopoly on money.
>>
> To get a clearer picture
In other words, you're just wrong.
> suppose there is an island with ten workers
>on it. The workers grow food and build cars and make a lot of
>things. But there is a problem because they can't exchange their goods
>that well without money. So to have a money supply in circulation a
>banker rows his boat to the island and loans each of the workers $100
>at 5% per year. The money circulates back and forth as the workers
>buy things. But at the end of the year there is a total of $1000 on
>the island and $1050 is owed to the banker, that is, more than the
>money that exists on the island.
You really do live on a strange planet.
> That is how the system is now. What the workers should do is get
>their own printing press and
>make their own money. To make the initial supply of money they would
>simply print $100 for each
>of them.
Except for one greedy guy, who prints $300 for himself. Or $3,000.
Oops.
> This money is not borrowed or owed and there is no interest.
>But there is a money supply
>on the island and they can exchange their goods. As more cars and
>houses are built, from time to time more money would need to be
>created, to represent the more wealth that is now on the island.
>No one of the ten workers can do this on his own. It is decided and
>done at a town meeting.
Where has that system ever worked? On your planet?
Seth
knews4...@yahoo.com
You are aware that JFK tried this.
He authorized the printing of "U.S.Notes" which paid no interest to
the Not-Federal No-Reserve. If you try hard enough you can still see
one of the circulated notes. This was another of the myriad of reasons
why he was killed.
Banksters hate competition.
Paul Maffia
news:1185342066....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> You are aware that JFK tried this.
> He authorized the printing of "U.S.Notes" which paid no interest to
> the Not-Federal No-Reserve. If you try hard enough you can still see
> one of the circulated notes. This was another of the myriad of reasons
> why he was killed.
> Banksters hate competition.
Knews4u, plumbs the depth of his stupidity and insanity to spew forth
another of his beloved conspiracies.
Topaz
wrote:
>
>So set one up and go live there. What's stopping you? Maybe isn't
>not done so "easily".
The bankers have a lot of money and they would lose it if we had a
system that didn't need these parasites. Anyone can see what the
problem is. Other than that it would be easy.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> All we need is a system to exchange our goods.
The common denominator is money. It's been around in some form or another
since about 100,000BC. Actual coins, similar to what we know them to be,
didn't appear till 700 BC.
Without a monetary system you would have to provide the goods and services
you have, to those people who not only want and need your goods and
services, but are able to exchange the goods and services they have - that
you want - at the proper place and time. An activity that would cripple the
economy as there would be tens of millions of hours spent just delivering
the goods and services to people all over the world. Very inefficient you
see, as well as being reliant on a set of improbable events falling together
perfectly.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Seth
Topaz <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:36:44 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)
>wrote:
>
>>So set one up and go live there. What's stopping you? Maybe isn't
>>not done so "easily".
>
> The bankers have a lot of money and they would lose it if we had a
>system that didn't need these parasites. Anyone can see what the
>problem is. Other than that it would be easy.
But you don't need the bankers, so go set up your system without them.
Seth
Robert Miller
last honest bank when he invaded Holland. They did not use a fractional
reserve,
every dollar in every savings account was in the vault. That charged a
small fee
to keeps ones on demand cash, on demand. If you wanted an interest paying
account. They were also available. But you might have to wait for your
money
the full term of the savings bond. A run on that bank did not cause it to
fail.
Because everyone could settle their accounts, it wasn't long before they put
their
money right back in.
It's the Keynesian economics theory vs. laissez-faire economics theory.
Many people ares as passionate of their model, as others are their
religion.
"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:f887rb$5vp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Paul Maffia
vault is unable to make loans and earn money. If all they are doing is
providing storage and charging a fee for that storage, they are not a bank,
merely a vault.
Insights into your moronic fantasy world are amusing.
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:8a7b8$46a833bc$4b590f93$19...@ALLTEL.NET...
Seth
Is that what you blame your top-posting on?
> I recall that Napoleon robbed the
>last honest bank when he invaded Holland. They did not use a fractional
>reserve,
>every dollar in every savings account was in the vault.
So they weren't really a bank, were they? How could they make loans?
> That charged a small fee to keeps ones on demand cash, on demand.
See? They were a safe-deposit box company, not a bank.
> If you wanted an interest paying account. They were also
>available. But you might have to wait for your money the full term of
>the savings bond.
That means they _didn't_ keep full reserves on those deposits.
> A run on that bank did not cause it to fail. Because everyone
>could settle their accounts, it wasn't long before they put their
>money right back in.
A run on a safe-deposit box company can't make it fail.
Seth
Topaz
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is corrupt and needs to be replaced. The only way money
comes into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
Topaz
Paul Thomas
"Topaz" <mars...@hotmail.com> wrote
> To get a clearer picture suppose there is an island
> with ten workers on it. The workers grow food
> and build cars and make a lot of things.
Ten workers on an island can make it happen.
There are over 6 trillion people in the world.
Isn't it time you grew up.
Robert Miller
> In article <8a7b8$46a833bc$4b590f93$19...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>The very nature of banking is corrupting.
>
> Is that what you blame your top-posting on?
>
>> I recall that Napoleon robbed the
>>last honest bank when he invaded Holland. They did not use a fractional
>>reserve,
>>every dollar in every savings account was in the vault.
>
> So they weren't really a bank, were they? How could they make loans?
>
>> That charged a small fee to keeps ones on demand cash, on demand.
>
> See? They were a safe-deposit box company, not a bank.
>
>> If you wanted an interest paying account. They were also
>>available. But you might have to wait for your money the full term of
>>the savings bond.
>
> That means they _didn't_ keep full reserves on those deposits.
>
>> A run on that bank did not cause it to fail. Because everyone
>>could settle their accounts, it wasn't long before they put their
>>money right back in.
>
> A run on a safe-deposit box company can't make it fail.
This true. But I don't think they offered safe-deposit boxes. I believe
they only had the main vault. Perhaps some other smaller vaults, but no
public access vaults.
Except in modern banking law, the Bank in a financial emergency has
first claim to the safe-deposit boxes. Posession is 9/10th of the law.
Better not keep gold or stocks and Bonds if there is a banking failure.
Better be things the bank will not want to keep.
>
> Seth
Robert
Paul Maffia
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:9b52e$46a99e64$4b590f50$28...@ALLTEL.NET...
>
> "Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:f8bbkt$dbf$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <8a7b8$46a833bc$4b590f93$19...@ALLTEL.NET>,
>> Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>>The very nature of banking is corrupting.
>>
>> Is that what you blame your top-posting on?
>>
>>> I recall that Napoleon robbed the
>>>last honest bank when he invaded Holland. They did not use a fractional
>>>reserve,
>>>every dollar in every savings account was in the vault.
>>
>> So they weren't really a bank, were they? How could they make loans?
>>
>>> That charged a small fee to keeps ones on demand cash, on demand.
>>
>> See? They were a safe-deposit box company, not a bank.
>>
>>> If you wanted an interest paying account. They were also
>>>available. But you might have to wait for your money the full term of
>>>the savings bond.
>>
>> That means they _didn't_ keep full reserves on those deposits.
>>
> Did somebody say they did?
You implied it!
>>> A run on that bank did not cause it to fail. Because everyone
>>>could settle their accounts, it wasn't long before they put their
>>>money right back in.
>>
>> A run on a safe-deposit box company can't make it fail.
>
> This true. But I don't think they offered safe-deposit boxes. I believe
> they only had the main vault. Perhaps some other smaller vaults, but no
> public access vaults.
> Except in modern banking law, the Bank in a financial emergency has
> first claim to the safe-deposit boxes. Posession is 9/10th of the law.
> Better not keep gold or stocks and Bonds if there is a banking failure.
> Better be things the bank will not want to keep.
As long as the renter pays the rent for the box, a bank has NO CLAIM
WHATSOEVER ON THE CONTENTS OF A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX. But the contents of a box
are not covered by FDIC insurance.
Seth
Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:f8bbkt$dbf$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <8a7b8$46a833bc$4b590f93$19...@ALLTEL.NET>,
>> Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> I recall that Napoleon robbed the
>>>last honest bank when he invaded Holland. They did not use a fractional
>>>reserve,
>>>every dollar in every savings account was in the vault.
>>
>> So they weren't really a bank, were they? How could they make loans?
. . .
>>> If you wanted an interest paying account. They were also
>>>available. But you might have to wait for your money the full term of
>>>the savings bond.
>>
>> That means they _didn't_ keep full reserves on those deposits.
>>
>Did somebody say they did?
You did: "They did not use a fractional reserve"
>>> A run on that bank did not cause it to fail. Because everyone
>>>could settle their accounts, it wasn't long before they put their
>>>money right back in.
>>
>> A run on a safe-deposit box company can't make it fail.
>
>This true. But I don't think they offered safe-deposit boxes. I believe
>they only had the main vault. Perhaps some other smaller vaults, but no
>public access vaults.
They're still a safe-depost box company rather than a bank.
>Except in modern banking law, the Bank in a financial emergency has
>first claim to the safe-deposit boxes.
No, it doesn't.
> Posession is 9/10th of the law.
>Better not keep gold or stocks and Bonds if there is a banking failure.
The bank can't go into my box and take stuff, that's a crime.
Seth
Topaz
"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The
process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that
was every invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin
. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the
power to create money, and with a flick of a pen, they will create
enough money to buy it back again . Take this great power away from
them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this
would be a better and happier world to live in . But if you want to
continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own
slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control
credit."
Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second
richest man in Britain in the 1920's, speaking at the University of
Texas in 1927
This web site explains it more:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
Robert Miller
> In article <9b52e$46a99e64$4b590f50$28...@ALLTEL.NET>,
> Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>"Seth" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:f8bbkt$dbf$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In article <8a7b8$46a833bc$4b590f93$19...@ALLTEL.NET>,
>>> Robert Miller <robe...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I recall that Napoleon robbed the
>>>>last honest bank when he invaded Holland. They did not use a fractional
>>>>reserve,
>>>>every dollar in every savings account was in the vault.
>>>
>>> So they weren't really a bank, were they? How could they make loans?
> . . .
>>>> If you wanted an interest paying account. They were also
>>>>available. But you might have to wait for your money the full term of
>>>>the savings bond.
>>>
>>> That means they _didn't_ keep full reserves on those deposits.
>>>
>>Did somebody say they did?
>
> You did: "They did not use a fractional reserve"
If I investing in a certificate of deposit, I know that money will be loaned
to some individual or business at interest. If I withdraw that money before
the terms of the loan to the bank. I will not receive the interest
promised.
I may even need to wait some a few hours or a few days depending on the
size of the loan I made to the bank.
Today if I have $100,000 in my savings account. I could not go to the
bank and withdraw all my money, or even half without waitting a
few hours at minimum. That is an ondemand account. It is dishonest to
say it is available on demand if they don't have the money, because they've
loaned it to somebody else.
>
>>>> A run on that bank did not cause it to fail. Because everyone
>>>>could settle their accounts, it wasn't long before they put their
>>>>money right back in.
>>>
>>> A run on a safe-deposit box company can't make it fail.
>>
>>This true. But I don't think they offered safe-deposit boxes. I believe
>>they only had the main vault. Perhaps some other smaller vaults, but no
>>public access vaults.
>
> They're still a safe-depost box company rather than a bank.
>
If they make loans and operate as a safe-deposit company it still sounds
like a bank to me.
>>Except in modern banking law, the Bank in a financial emergency has
>>first claim to the safe-deposit boxes.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
>> Posession is 9/10th of the law.
>>Better not keep gold or stocks and Bonds if there is a banking failure.
>
> The bank can't go into my box and take stuff, that's a crime.
It's not a crime if there is a law passed giving the bank first rights to
assets
in the safe deposit boxes. Bankers wrote legislation that was
passed by the Congress in the past, I recall one act voted on and passed
with only one copy of the legislation for the entire Congress to read before
voting.
Robert
>
> Seth
Robert Miller
ban gold ownership. He confiscated all the gold in private hands. Banks
opened their "safety deposit" boxes for Secret Service agents to ransack.
> Seth
I thought you'd like a real life example. A government that does not
protect
property rights, can not protect your other Constitutionally protected
rights
either.
The Emergency Banking Relief Act was written by the Banking industry for the
benifit of the Banking industry.
Robert Miller
Paul Maffia
> The government was out of gold to meet its obligations.
The US Government has never been out of gold.
> FDR did not merely ban gold ownership. He confiscated all the gold in
> private hands. Banks opened their "safety deposit" boxes for Secret
> Service agents to ransack.
Moronic gibberish. The ownership of non-numismstic gold coins was banned and
persons were obliged, under the law, to turn any non-numsmatic gold coins
in. Gold coins were declared to be not legal tender. Banls NEVER WERE FORCED
TO OPEN THEIR RENTERS SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES.
And Robert never noticed that gold, in the form of jewelry has never been
prohibited.
So, as usual, we see that Robert has no idea what he is taling about.
> I thought you'd like a real life example. A government that does not
> protect
> property rights, can not protect your other Constitutionally protected
> rights
> either.
>
> The Emergency Banking Relief Act was written by the Banking industry for
> the
> benifit of the Banking industry.
Yawn!!!!!!! In the minds of morons its always some conspiracy.
Seth
>> You did: "They did not use a fractional reserve"
>
>If I investing in a certificate of deposit,
You mean in a real bank?
> I know that money will be loaned
>to some individual or business at interest. If I withdraw that money before
>the terms of the loan to the bank. I will not receive the interest
>promised.
You'll get the interest earned less a penalty of 3 months interest.
>I may even need to wait some a few hours or a few days depending on the
>size of the loan I made to the bank.
Or you might not.
>Today if I have $100,000 in my savings account. I could not go to the
>bank and withdraw all my money, or even half without waitting a
>few hours at minimum.
Sure you could. If you wanted it in cash, it would take a while to
fill out all the forms anyway. (It took me about 5 minutes, but I'm
sensible.)
> That is an ondemand account. It is dishonest to
>say it is available on demand if they don't have the money, because they've
>loaned it to somebody else.
You can call it dishonest if you want, nobody cares. They'll pay it
on demand, because the Law of Large Numbers works.
>> They're still a safe-depost box company rather than a bank.
>>
>If they make loans and operate as a safe-deposit company it still sounds
>like a bank to me.
But when they put the depositors' cash in a vault and held on to it at
all times, they weren't making loans.
>>>Except in modern banking law, the Bank in a financial emergency has
>>>first claim to the safe-deposit boxes.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> Posession is 9/10th of the law.
>>>Better not keep gold or stocks and Bonds if there is a banking failure.
>>
>> The bank can't go into my box and take stuff, that's a crime.
>
>It's not a crime if there is a law passed giving the bank first rights to
>assets
>in the safe deposit boxes.
There's no such law.
> Bankers wrote legislation that was
>passed by the Congress in the past,
That doesn't imply that any crazy law you suggest has been, or will
be, passed.
Seth