Federal Reserve is Zionist Fascism
Muhammad Javed Iqbal
By Nelson Hultberg
No one in the freedom movement today disputes that the Federal Reserve
is the source of many of our economic woes. Where disagreement arises
is in defining the precise nature of the Fed and the source of its
capacity to create the harm it does. Many who support gold money and
free enterprise claim that the Federal Reserve is a "private
corporation" run by capitalist mega-financiers. This I believe to be
mistaken.
The Federal Reserve, in my opinion, should not be classified as a
private corporation. It should be termed a government-run fascist
cartel. There are several important reasons for this. For example, all
nationally chartered banks in the Federal Reserve system are forced by
the government to join the cartel. Bernanke and his board of governors
are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. The Federal
Reserve came into being because of an act of Congress, and it can be
altered or legislated out of being at anytime by Congress. These
factors are not how private corporations are created or operated. The
Fed entails government involvement in a massive way. Without the
special monopoly privileges legislated by Congress that sustain the
Fed, it disappears.
Moreover, the great bulk of the profits of the Reserve Banks are
turned over to the federal treasury. As John McCormack explains in a
Liberty magazine article: "[H]olding shares in the Fed is not a very
profitable activity. Dividends to member shareholders are limited to
6% of nominal capital (hardly a great rate of return) and all Fed
revenues above this amount (invariably vastly greater sums) are
returned to the U.S. Treasury. In 1994, for example, total dividends
to member banks amounted to $212 million while the Treasury received
$20.5 billion, 97 times as much." [Liberty, March 1996.]
Government is thus a full partner in the Federal Reserve System. And a
business entity with the government as a full partner is not a private
corporation.
Courts Create a Fallacy
Much of the reasoning behind the mistaken notion that the Federal
Reserve is a private corporation lies in court cases such as LEWIS vs.
United States on June 24, 1982. In that case, the 9th Circuit Court
ruled: "We conclude that the [Federal] Reserve Banks are not
federal...but are independent, privately owned...corporation
s...without day to day direction from the federal government."
There are numerous cases like this where the courts have ruled that
the Reserve Banks of the System are privately owned and controlled
corporations. The mistake made here by those who support the notion of
a "private Fed" is that because the courts declare something to be so,
it somehow makes it so. This, of course, is a fallacy. Judges only
interpret the law; they do not make the truth. Truth is something we
discover through identification of the facts of reality and coherence
with the laws of logic. Men find the truth through a process of
synthesizing reason, experience and intuition.
What then are the facts of reality and the laws of logic in this case?
They are as follows: A private entity in the marketplace is the
opposite of a public entity. It is a free entity without monetary
support and monopolistic legislation to protect it from government
bureaucracy. It is an entity that is operating in a laissez-faire
environment. To the extent that government intervenes into and
controls, regulates, manipulates, or monopolizes an entity's market
policies, then that entity is no longer private or free. It becomes
statist / collectivist (i.e., socialist / fascist) to some degree or
another. How much government involvement there is will determine how
collectivist the entity becomes.
For example, Exxon Corporation is considered a private corporation. So
let's compare it to the so called "private" Federal Reserve
corporation. Does Exxon have its CEO and board of directors appointed
and confirmed by the government? No, but the Fed does. Are 97% of
Exxon's profits turned over to the federal Treasury? No, but the Fed's
profits are. Can Exxon be voted out of existence tomorrow by Congress?
No, but the Fed can. Therefore despite what our courts maintain, the
Fed is not a private corporation; it is a government run cartel.
The fact that the courts define the Fed as "private" is the way that
tyrannical ideologues pull the wool over the people's eyes. This is
done to make the people think we are still a free, "private"
enterprise country. This is how they smuggle us into corporate
statism, i.e., economic fascism -- by getting the intelligentsia of
the country to buy into their redefinition of words. The courts are
run by statist judges, and the schools are run by statist professors
-- all pretending that we are still a "free" enterprise system. In
fact, many of them actually believe their own warped logic. It's the
way they were taught, and they lack the intellectual rigor to
investigate the fallacies of their assumptions. They ritualistically
use the term "private" because it conveys the image of "free." But
private in this instance is in name only. If a private entity does not
have control over its operations, its profits, and its policies, then
it is no longer private; it is public, and socialist or fascist to
some degree or another.
Who Controls Who?
So do the bankers control the government, or does the Federal
Government control the bankers? One way to answer this question is to
ask who can abolish who? Can the Federal Government abolish the Fed?
Certainly. Anytime it wants to, Congress could eliminate the Fed by a
majority vote of its members. But can the mega-bankers, with all their
power to influence politicians, abolish the Federal Government?
Hardly. In this respect of creation and abolition, the Federal
Government is the power behind the evil of our Federal Reserve system.
But in actual practice, I think it is more accurate to say that the
evil comes from the combine of the two forces. Separately, neither the
mega-bankers, nor the Federal Government would be able to wield the
dangerous control over our lives that they gain in concert. It is only
when they join forces to become "partners" that they gain the power to
do the evil they do.
When the mega-banks of America were still largely free-market
institutions operating under the gold standard during the 19th
century, their capacity for dangerous power over our economy and
individual lives was limited. Likewise with the Federal Government;
when it was still a defined Constitutional body without the ability to
print paper money, its capacity for dangerous power over our economy
and individual lives was limited. But in 1913, these limitations were
destroyed because the mega-banks and the Federal Government went into
partnership. They formed the massive cartel of the Federal Reserve
System. And in doing so, the Federal Government granted monopolistic
powers to the mega-banks, which gave them the ability to egregiously
expand the money supply via credit creation. After elimination of the
dollar's gold convertibility in 1933 and 1971, this became the power
to create money indiscriminately.
What needs to be understood, however, is that the mega-banks could
never have achieved such a dangerous power grab without the complicity
of the Federal Government. Once again, it was the Federal Reserve Act
of 1913 that brought the Creature into being. It was Congress that
voted to grant monopoly status to the mega-bankers, which gave them
their dangerous credit creation power. Without their monopoly backed
by the force of government legal tender laws, the mega-bankers do not
have the capacity to expand the money supply inordinately and rob us
of our wealth. Thus for all their reputed control over world events,
the mega-bankers do not become dangerous until they join forces with
the government, which gives them the dangerous powers they now wield.
Reinforcing the Collectivist Mantra
It is important to clarify this misconception of a "private Fed"
because the Fed is an evil institution. When we mistakenly define it
as a private corporation, we then reinforce the collectivist mantra
about free enterprise being evil. If the Fed is both a private
corporation and evil, then the collectivist claim that private
corporations need to be pervasively controlled by centralized
government gains merit in the people's eyes.
If, however, we portray the Fed as it actually is (a government run
cartel) then the solution to its evil becomes clear -- end its
protective connection to the government, which would eliminate its
monopoly status and its power to dangerously expand the money supply.
Simply abolish the Reserve Banks and make the member banks independent
institutions again. They would then have to live with the rules that
the market would demand. And the market would demand open disclosure
of the extent of their fractional reserve loans. Most important of
all, the market would demand redemption of all bank issued paper notes
with gold coins or bullion upon customer request. Both of these market
demands would temper excess paper issuance on the part of banks and
keep them responsible.
In other words, repeal the government's legal tender laws, establish a
free-market for banking, and let the marketplace decide what should be
used for money. The banks would then have to offer quality gold money
that the people desired, rather than corruptible paper money that a
government cartel mandates. This would decentralize the financial
power of our economy out among the thousands of individual banks
throughout the country and strip the Federal Government of its
dangerous control over our wealth and productivity.
Statists and world government advocates on the left do not want a free
banking system for obvious reasons. It would shrink their power and
wealth greatly, and short-circuit their dreams for more and more
centralized government. But populist conservatives on the right don't
want a free banking system either; they want Congress to run banking
instead of the Fed. The reason why populist conservatives in America
want Congress to run the banking system of America is because they
fear a private, free-market banking system. They fear it because they
believe 19th century banking was a free-market mess of wildcat
corruption, exploitation, and fraud.
But the mess and corruption of 19th century banking was not caused by
any connection to laissez-faire capitalism. It was caused by incessant
government intervention into the market to convey privileges to the
banks and also heap mandates upon them that brought about financial
distortions, fraud, and ill-collateralized institutions.
For example, government was famous for intervening to allow the more
unscrupulous banks to suspend their contractual obligation of gold
redemption to their depositors whenever such banks had expanded credit
too excessively. This consequently allowed many banks to repeatedly
issue excessive paper notes at larger and larger levels, which created
bevies of insolvent institutions throughout the country. Government
interventions also relaxed accounting standards for banks, allowed
them to overstate their assets and understate their liabilities with
impunity. Also government interventions often mandated that banks back
shabby state bond issues, which brought many of them to financial
ruin. But if the market had been left free, such practices and
mandates would never have arisen, and the great majority of insolvent
banks would never have come about. The mess and corruption of 19th
century banking can be laid at government's interventionist door.
[On this issue of why free-market banking is not dangerous and is
vitally necessary to maintain freedom in general, see the following:
Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman, The Case for Gold, (Washington, DC: Cato
Institute, 1982), pp. 17-118. Antal E. Fekete, "Money and Credit,"
http://professorfek ete.com/math. asp. George A. Selgin, The Theory of
Free Banking: Money Supply under Competitive Note Issue (Totoway, NJ:
Roman & Littlefield, 1988), pp. 5-15. Kurt Schuler, "The World History
of Free Banking," Chapter 2, in Kevin Dowd (ed.) The Experience of
Free Banking, (London: Routledge, 1992), pp 7-47.]
Separate the State and the Banks
The proper approach to this problem is first to portray the Fed in its
true light, as a "fascist cartel" rather than as a "private
corporation. " If we do this, we can then arrive at the right solution
to the financial corruption taking place in our society. That solution
is to separate the state power from the financial power of society.
Separate the state and the banks just as we long ago separated the
state and the churches. Independently, these three institutions will
function properly; but let the coercive power of the state fuse with
either the moral power of religion or the financial power of banking
-- and you are begging for a dictatorship.
If the reader will stop and think about why it was so necessary for
men to separate the moral power of the church from the state centuries
ago, then he will understand also why it is so vital to separate the
financial power of banking from the state today.
When the church and the state formed alliances during the Middle Ages,
the clergy gained the power to impose their dictates upon the populace
by the physical force of the law. With separation of the state and the
church, however, it then became necessary for the clergy to win their
converts over voluntarily. If a church member didn't like a certain
policy of his religion, he was free to walk away without any fear of
reprisals from the coercive machinery of the clergy-state combine.
This same principle applies to the banking world. When banks form
alliances with the government, they then become capable of imposing
their will (or paper money) upon the populace by the physical force of
the law. With the separation of the state and the banks in a laissez-
faire economy, however, all bankers must then win their customers over
voluntarily with quality money and service, just as the clergy have
had to win their converts over voluntarily with better ideas and
service. Thus, it is not mega-banks that are dangerous and evil. It is
mega-banks forming alliances with the state that is dangerous and
evil.
Those on the political right, who preach that the Fed is a private
corporation, play directly into the hands of those who hate capitalism
and freedom. What else can one conclude about capitalism if the evil
of the Fed is due to the fact that it is a "private corporation, " and
therefore needs to be "taken over by Congress?" If capitalism has
created such an evil power, then we need (as the collectivists are
always eager to tell us) more government power in Washington to
counteract it. We need more centralization, more regulation, more
bureaucracy, more taxes. This is the tyrannical con that collectivist
intellectuals have been utilizing for decades. Demand more power for
the central government to counteract evils that the power of the
central government has brought into being in the first place. The Fed
is a perfect example of this. We don't need a government solution to
this problem; we need a government withdrawal from causing it.
Populist Reform of the System
There are several banking reform measures being proposed by populist
conservatives today that fall victim to this idea that government is
the solution to the evils of our Federal Reserve System. One such
example is the National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act
(NESARA) -- a radical overhaul of America's monetary system. Because
the NESARA people mistakenly conceive of the Fed as being private,
they assume that the answer to its abuse of money is to give the money
creation power to Congress. But this is jumping from the frying pan
into the fire. Does anyone really believe that Congress will
responsibly use such a power? They will do the same thing that the Fed
has done for 90 years -- corrupt the currency in order to create the
illusion of prosperity, so as to get congressionally elected and
bureaucratically appointed to office again and again.
NESARA's reform plan actually states that by giving Congress the power
to create money, "the people" will be able to "create as much or as
little currency as they need." You can bet grandma's farm that once
Congress has the power to create money, the people and their
representatives will definitely "create as much as they need" all
right. And since humans have a tendency toward endless need of money,
they will ultimately succumb to the same pitfalls as our present
Federal Reserve.
Thus many well-meaning advocates of freedom and Constitutional
government on the political right are adding fuel to the statist /
collectivist propaganda machine controlling our media and schools with
their mistaken characterizations of the Federal Reserve as an evil,
private corporation.
The mega-banks that make up the Federal Reserve System are dangerously
evil, there is no doubt about that. But their evil does not spring
from their "privateness, " nor from their "corporateness. " Their evil
springs from the mixture of their corporate goals with government
coercion, from the fact that they are in bed with the biggest evil of
all -- the federal Leviathan in Washington, which grants them
protection from market demand. Kick them out of that bed into the free-
market, deny them any and all legislated privileges, and we solve the
problem of mega-bank exploitation.
The collectivist one-worlders are hard at work today muddying up the
ideological waters by smearing the system of capitalism. We do not
need to give them added ammunition, which is what we do when we claim
that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. We reinforce the
Marxist smear that private free enterprise is a system of favoritism
for business class interests, that it is exploitation of the people by
private financiers. Class interest favoritism and exploitation are
certainly rife throughout our system. But such corruptions are not the
result of private corporations and capitalism; they are the result of
government cartels and fascism.
No private bank in a truly free-market would possess the power that
the government's present mega-bank cartel (the Fed) possesses. The Fed
only has it's power because government, having taken over much of the
market today, has given the Fed a monopoly. Remove government monopoly
privileges (i.e., legal tender laws), and the Fed's power evanesces.
Satish Kumar
wrote:
> Federal Reserve is Zionist Fascism
By now everybody in this newsgroup is well aware of 63 year old
Muhammad Javed Ekball's sadistic and selfish attitude toward Pyare
Ekball, the 21 year old donkey belonging to Asmaa.
Muhahmmad Javed Ekball got caught more than once while sexually
abusing the 21 year old Pyare who is now suffering from painful
hemorrhoids and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). Muhammed Javed
Ekball has no time to take Pyare to the veterinarian - that gets done
by his daughter Asmaa.
Can there be a more sadistic and a more selfish person than the 63
year old Muhammad Javed Ekball?
> Institute, 1982), pp. 17-118. Antal E. Fekete, "Money and Credit,"http://professorfekete.com/math. asp. George A. Selgin, The Theory of