Davos versus Fribourg. Our solution. Concrete figures for the USA !


From: Richard Cook

Date: 2009/2/1
Subject: RE: Concrete figures of dividends for USA ? How to compute now or soon…how much per month this year and every other year for the next years?

Please check my article originally published on Global Research entitled, “An Emergency Program of Monetary Reform for the United States,” which is published in edited form in my book, “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform.” Also check out the article on “Bailout for the People” on my website www.richardccook.com.

My proposal for a national dividend is, for the first year, rather large; it is $1,000 per capita per month in the form of vouchers that would then capitalize a new system of national savings banks. The total would be $3.6 trillion of the GDP, about 25%. Future dividends would be calculated amounts. Part of the immediate problem is the huge amount of debt due to the need for people to borrow simply for consumption. The debt obviously needs to be paid off or forgiven, not just rolled over.

I admit there is a dearth of data on making such calculations, so what I have come up with is my best estimate. The key figure is the difference between GDP vs. national income which lies in the $3-4 trillion range per annum at present.

Richard C. Cook
Check out my new website at http://www.richardccook.com/

The Cook Plan

What I am calling the ‘Cook Plan’ is to pay each resident of the U.S. a dividend, by means of vouchers for the necessities of life, in the amount of $1,000 per month per capita starting immediately as our fair share of the resources of the earth and the productivity of the modern industrial economy. The money would then be deposited in a new network of community savings banks to capitalize lending for consumers, small businesses, and family farming.

An other answer.

Dear Francois ,
This reply is from the Past President of the N.Z. Social Credit Institute, and Editor of electronz@dominc.net because I am acknowledged as one of the few people with a good understanding of orthodox as well as Social Credit Philosophy and Economics. I am also a past Dominion President of the N.Z. Social Credit Party , which peaked with 20% of political party votes here, some years ago, when the Party was more of a force to be reckoned with.
As you suspected, it is impossible to compute accurately the amount of a National Dividend, or Just Price Discounts if that was the sole
target one was aiming for, because of the complexity of commercial processes. But there are pointers which can give a general idea
of the sort of beneficial results. One modern Economic Researcher , Richard C. Cook, of USA, studied the C.H. Douglas (Social Credit) Analysis System, assessed it as a valid modus operandus, and then applied it to recent U.S. Government Statistics, which he had access to, and reported his results in a research paper, duly published, and then as part of one of his books. In essence his conclusion
was this:
Official U.S. Statistics using rounded figures for the year analysed, showed the total output of all “Goods and Services” nationwide, as
Retail Values, to aggregate $13 Trillion ($13 Thousand – Billion ), and in the same year, the total amount paid out in Wages, Salaries, Bonuses and Dividends from every enterprise , nationwide, was approximately $11 Trillion, producing a gross Deficit or Shortfall between distributed Purchasing Power, and the total provision of all known Goods and Services.
Richard Cook then said that if the C.H. Douglas Analysis had validity, there would be some correlation between this Deficiency and the increase in total indebtedness in the same country over the same period, because the CHD Analysis maintained that for the Goods and Services to be Sold or Consumed, that Deficiency would have had to be filled, and the only financial way for it to be filled would be by allowing a Credit Creating Mechanism, such as the privately owned banking system, which has usurped the national role of creating credit on behalf of the community, to produce the necessary new Debt/Credit, to maintain the ongoing consumption of Goods and Services. He then noted that because of the complexity and nationwide extent and types of debt , it is only possible to establish very approximate calculations, but with that qualification about accuracy, it was obvious that there was a definite relationship between the
ongoing size of the “Deficiency” and the Annual Growth in Total Indebtedness, which supported the C.H. Douglas Analysis.
That is one theoretical answer to your question, assuming a string of assumptions, and so although not able to be claimed as factual, it does give some idea of the vast value involved. One way of illustrating the extent of this is to note that if all the benefit of Social Credit was able to be concentrated into a National Dividend, and directly credited from the Central Reserve Bank, as a Dividend to offset the Income Deficiency , into Citizen’s Bank Accounts, it would theoretically give them a 15.3% Wage Increase as a National Dividend, with
no taxes or offsets.
In practical terms, one would never suggest concentrating all the benefits into cashable bonuses like this, partly because there are lots of other community problem areas which much more desperately need financial support than expanding workers incomes, but this does give an idea of the vastness of the shortfall that is converted into Bank owned Debt, by present practices. This , with its interest charges, is passed on to future generations. It is all owed to the privately owned Banking System, for debts which governments are allowing them to create out of nothing. So in addition to the massive shortfall which communities are being robbed of, many of us consider it immoral that interest on that loss, as a debt burden, should then be charged also against future generations.
An increasing number of monetary reformers, including the writer, believe that the dishonesty of the present system is so blatant that religious leaders of most if not all faiths, should come out openly and condemn it…… If and when you have other questions which you would like to discuss, including ways we could effectively co-operate, I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours in Social Credit ,
Don Bethune.
POST SCRIPT: The NZ S.C. Institute has books available free in N.Z. on request , for people interested in gaining an understanding of the theory behind Social Credit, and how it could be implemented.

PS: The 2009 new deal.

A salary directly to the parents, able to hire helpers in every house, seen as a small enterprise.

First step to give a fast idea, but much more could be produced in a short time. Much depends of the robots and computers producing goods and services.

USA, Real gross domestic product, GDP was estimated as $ 13.8 usa trillion in 2007.

14 545 US billions in 2008 http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

If you pay the parent staying at home to take care of the children,
the future of the country and this is the best place to invest,
you can double this figure, according to studies made in Switzerland.


This is work, the most important one, and has to be rewarded
just on plain justice.

Then you send as dividends income in the country
to increase the demand and curb the crisis.

This will give a direct dividend of nearly
$ 500 per month for each persons in the USA
( 302 074 000 persons in 2007 ).


This dividend has to be created by the US government
without any debt nor interests to anybody,
just as the Abraham Lincoln's Greenbacks
or the J-F Kennedy's dollars have done
just before they were murdered...


This will create no inflation because many goods
are ready to be sold and can be produced in a short while
thanks to robotics.

For population's and pollution's problems, see my interview.


http://ferraye.blogspot.com/2009/01/socialcredit-stop-or-set-aside-by-eric.html


and

http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty39.htm
and

http://www.michaeljournal.org/monetaryreform.asp

PS: Real gross domestic product (GDP) --
the output of goods and services produced by labor and property

located in the United States --
decreased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent
in the fourth quarter of 2008,
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter),
according to advance estimates released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.
In the third quarter, real GDP decreased 0.5 percent.


fds


Why US presidents are murdered ?
Will Obama follow the same fate ?


Part 1: Abraham Lincoln The British have killed U.S. Presidents in the past. To aid in a competent understanding of the present threat, we offer in this series a summary of how and why they have done it. The “British” authors of these murders are not the English people, but the oligarchy ruling Great Britain–the “Venetian party” feudalist aristocrats and bankers, headed by the Royal Family, and the European princes intermarried with the British Royals. American Presidents who have been assassinated, were advancing U.S. interests in fierce conflict with British geopolitical aims. In each case, the killing, and the accession to office of the Vice President, hindered or reversed the policy direction of the murdered President. This is true of those shot to death–Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. It is also true of the two 19th-century Presidents who died abrupt and surprising deaths in office, purportedly of natural causes, William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. The interrelated Lincoln and McKinley murders, with their sharply defined strategic issues, will figure in the first two articles of this series. Then we will review, in light of those cases, the other presidential murders and suspicious deaths, the attempts against Ford and Reagan, and …. threats to President Clinton and Obama. – The 19th-Century View – John Wilkes Booth shot and mortally wounded President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865, five days after Robert E. Lee’s Confederate Army surrendered in the Civil War. In their biography of him, Lincoln’s two private secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, brought up the question of Booth, the Confederate Secret Service headquartered in British Canada, and how the murder plot was financed: “[O]ne of the conspiracies, not seemingly more important than the many abortive ones, ripened…. A little band of malignant secessionists, consist[ed] of John Wilkes Booth, … Lewis Powell … a disbanded rebel soldier … George Atzerodt, …a spy and blockade runner of the Potomac, David E. Herold, … Samuel Arnold and Michael O’Laughlin, Maryland secessionists and Confederate soldiers, and John H. Surratt [a Confederate spy and dispatch lander]…. “Booth … visited Canada, consorted with the rebel emissaries there, and at last–whether or not at their instigation cannot certainly be said–conceived a scheme to capture the President…. He seemed always well supplied with money, and talked largely of his speculations in oil as a source of income; but his agent afterwards testified that he never realized a dollar from that source; that his investments, which were inconsiderable, were a total loss.” The Confederate Secret Service was headed by the Virginia-based Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin, who had been born a British subject in the West Indies, and the London-based James Bulloch, uncle of the later U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt. They coordinated the supply of British rifles and British naval vessels to the Rebellion, and the transfer of gold through the then-British colony of Canada. Some months before he shot Lincoln, Booth deposited funds in the Montreal bank used by Benjamin’s operatives. John Surratt, who confessed in 1870 to plotting with Booth to abduct Lincoln, admitted to using that Montreal bank for the secret service funds. Surratt told of the days preceding the murder, and of his trip to Montreal carrying money and messages from Judah Benjamin. At Ford’s Theater, where John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln, the U.S. National Park Service now displays a decoding sheet found by police in Booth’s trunk, and a matching coding device found in Judah Benjamin’s Richmond office. Benjamin fled to England immediately following the assassination and became a wealthy Queen’s Attorney. Booth was shot by pursuing U.S. troops, and four co-conspirators were hanged. James G. Blaine, a Lincoln-allied Congressman and later U.S. Secretary of State, wrote that Judah Benjamin sought to create “a confederacy whose … one achievement should be the revival and extension of English commercial power on this continent…. Benjamin took quick refuge under the flag to whose allegiance he was born…. [T]he manner in which he was lauded into notoriety in London, the effort constantly made to lionize and to aggrandize him, were conspicuous demonstrations of hatred to our Government, and were significant expressions of regret that Mr. Benjamin’s treason had not been successful. Those whom he served either in the Confederacy or in England in his efforts to destroy the American Union … eulogize him according to his work.” – Why Lincoln Was Killed – Henry C. Carey, creator of the nationalist economic platform of Lincoln’s Republican Party, wrote just before the 1860 election that the British Empire waged continual political and economic “warfare … for discouraging the growth of manufactures in other countries … for compelling the people of other lands to confine themselves to agriculture … for producing pauperism.” During his presidency, Lincoln defied British Free Trade doctrines and revolutionized the United States economy. Lincoln’s 50% tariff started the American steel industry, while his transcontinental railroads, subsidies for mining, science-educating Agriculture Department, free land for family farmers, free state colleges, and full-scale immigration policy forced the transformation of a bankrupt, cotton-exporting country into the world’s greatest industrial power within 25 years. In a brutal conflict versus the Wall Street firms representing Britain’s Rothschild and Baring banks and the British Crown, Lincoln fought to reassert the national government’s control over credit. He put through anti-usury and other strict federal banking laws, sold bonds directly to the people, and issued hundreds of millions of national currency. He was seeking to crack down on the Anglo-American manipulation of gold when he was killed. – * * * – PART 2 – William McKinley Vice President Andrew Johnson succeeded Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and promised rewards for the arrest of the “rebels and traitors … harbored in Canada” who had “incited, concerted and procured” Lincoln’s murder. Johnson was himself a free trader. But Lincoln’s nationalist political legacy was revived by Presidents Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) and James A. Garfield (assassinated in 1881). Despite the tightening grip of British-run banking over U.S. finances, America persisted in Lincoln’s nationalist measures and became the world’s economic superpower. The “McKinley Act” of 1890 was the great protective tariff law of the last generation of American nationalist leaders. Its author, Ohio Congressman and former Union military officer William McKinley, said that “the law of 1890 … gave work and wages to all such as they had never had before. It did it by establishing great industries in this country…. It had no friends in Europe.” McKinley was elected to the presidency in 1896 on a platform of high wages and defiance of British free trade doctrines. McKinley’s first act as President was to push through a law heavily taxing British and other imports, so as “to preserve the home market … to our own producers; to revive and increase manufactures; to relieve and encourage agriculture … to aid and develop mining and building; and to render to labor in every field of useful occupation the liberal wages and adequate rewards to which skill and industry are justly entitled.” – McKinley Versus T.R. – In the 1900 election campaign, the only serious issue was who should replace Vice President Garret Hobart, who had died in 1899. President McKinley and his leading adviser, Sen. Marcus Alonzo Hanna, bitterly opposed the nomination of Great Britain’s fanatical political ally Theodore Roosevelt, or “T.R.” (When Roosevelt sent Nicholas Murray Butler to sound out McKinley about T.R., McKinley laughed, and Hanna cursed and banged on the table). Teddy Roosevelt’s identity had become clear to American patriots in 1883 when James D. Bulloch, Teddy’s uncle, hero, and later military-history ghostwriter, published his famous anti-U.S. historical work, “The Secret Service of the Confederate States in Europe.” Bulloch, in permanent exile in Britain, had been one of the two coordinators of the secret service whose operatives killed Abraham Lincoln. But, under immense pressure, the McKinley faction capitulated to the naming of T.R. as vice presidential candidate. The McKinley-Roosevelt ticket was elected. The President was shot to death by anarchist assassin Leon Czolgosz less than six months after the inauguration, and Teddy Roosevelt became President. The attack had been fully expected. McKinley’s chief of staff, Sen. Hanna, had requested in a security report the previous year “that proper safeguards be thrown around the person of the President,” because the government had been informed that “anarchists or Socialists through their various organizations resolved to rid the earth of a number of its rulers [starting with] the Empress Eugenie of Austria … the King of Italy … [and] then the President of the United States … and … the first two calls … have come to pass as predicted.” After the election of the McKinley-Roosevelt ticket, the New York City Police Commissioner, through his detective Lt. Joseph Petrosino, had issued a warning: that the Henry Street Settlement House in New York City, then the U.S. political headquarters for anarchist leader Emma Goldman, was a center of assassination threats to the life of President McKinley. The assassin Czolgosz told police after his capture that he was a disciple of Emma Goldman’s, and had heard her lecture on the destruction of government two weeks before he killed the President. Emma Goldman, who had helped plan the murder attack against industrialist Henry Frick nine years earlier, was now arrested on suspicion of complicity in the McKinley shooting. She left police custody when charges were not pressed, and immediately launched a public sympathy campaign for the assassin. London: `Breeding Ground for Plots Emma Goldman and the anarchists were sponsored in high style in America and in England. New York’s Henry Street Settlement House was built in 1893 by Wall Street’s Jacob Schiff, in cooperation with his partner Sir Ernst Cassell, personal banker to the British Royal Family and to the Fabian Society. Emma Goldman wrote about a Russian anarchist revolutionary who came to New York and met with the Anglophile elite backing the overthrow of the U.S.-allied Russian government. “I acted as interpreter … at most of the private gatherings arranged for her … among [those participating was Anson] Phelps Stokes” of the Phelps-Dodge Corp. and the Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Co. “Lillian Wald [head of the Henry Street Settlement House] … arranged receptions … and succeeded in interesting scores of people in the Russian cause.” In 1901, the Russian journal Svet wrote: “Let us hope that the death of [President McKinley] will rouse those lands which … harbor bad elements and become the breeding grounds for plots, to action against the enemies of civilization.” “In England,” Belgium’s King Leopold had explained years earlier, “a sort of menagerie of [revolutionaries] is kept to let loose occasionally on the continent to render its quiet and prosperity impossible.” Emma Goldman wrote in her autobiography about flourishing “Anarchist activities in London…. England was the haven for refugees from all lands, who carried on their work without hindrance.” She described her London headquarters, the home of William Michael Rosetti. There the anarchist journal Torch was published. The brother of Dante Gabriel Rosetti, William Michael had been a senior British government official and the manager of the “Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood,” which openly advocated the return to the feudal Dark Ages of the 14th century. Goldman helped organize Britain’s worldwide Neo-Malthusian League. Following her deportation from the U.S., neo-Malthusian leader Bertrand Russell sponsored her return to England. – Reversing American Revolution – Teddy Roosevelt had been the leading representative of the British Imperial-model war party, whose intrigues had dragged the reluctant President McKinley into the 1898 war against Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. But McKinley had pursued peace, reciprocity, and mutual industrial development with the nations of the Western Hemisphere. As President, Teddy Roosevelt blatantly attacked and intimidated Latin America, blackening the name of the American republic. He broke up the U.S. alliances with Japan, and with Russia, and with Germany. He closed the American West to settlement, canceled all of Lincoln’s economic development measures, and turned over national financial power to the British banking cartel of Rothschild and Morgan.
– The Case of John F. Kennedy – Two newly discovered pieces of evidence point towards a direct role of the British Crown in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy 31 years ago today. The first piece of evidence, recently publicized in Executive Intelligence Review, is a membership list in the super-secret 1001 Club, listing the late Canadian-born British Special Operations Executive (SOE) official Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield as a charter member of the group founded by Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. Bloomfield, this newspaper has learned, was also an early leader of the Canadian branch of Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund (WWF), even prior to his involvement in the JFK assassination plot. The second piece of evidence, a pair of obscure photographs from a New Orleans Parish weekly newspaper from 1963, showed David Ferrie and Clay Shaw together at a party. Ferrie and Shaw were two critical figures in the Kennedy assassination plot, according to the late New Orleans District Attorney, Jim Garrison. Taken together, the new pieces of evidence for the first time establish an unbroken chain of proof tying the known associates of “patsy” Lee Harvey Oswald to the highest echelons of the British Crown and its Secret Intelligence Services. The relevance of this new discovery to the security of President William Jefferson Clinton should not be missed by anyone. High-level U.S. government sources have told New Federalist that President Clinton is considered to be the most threatened President since JFK. The same sources have also characterized Clinton as the “most anti-British President since Kennedy.” Through agencies like the WWF and the 1001 Club, the assassination apparatus that murdered John Kennedy remains intact today. And this apparatus has already been implicated in at least one threat to the life of President Clinton, a May 11, 1994 public statement by a gun-toting ex-Arkansas state official Larry Nichols. While the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. was announcing this past week that Francisco Martin Duran, the man who opened fire on the White House on Oct. 29, would be tried for attempted murder of the President, Larry Nichols was still walking the streets, the apparent beneficiary of protection by “friends in high places” who are opponents of President Clinton’s decidedly anti-British policies. – Critical Missing Evidence – In 1967, New Orleans DA Garrison indicted Clay Shaw, the director of the New Orleans International Trade Mart, on charges that Shaw had conspired in the assassination of JFK. Shaw, a prominent New Orleans socialite, was linked by Garrison’s investigators to a local secret intelligence unit housed at 544 Camp Street, in the offices of former FBI official Guy Bannister. Throughout 1963, the office had been frequented by Shaw, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and other figures linked to the events in Dallas on Nov. 22. During the trial two years later, Judge Garrity ruled inadmissible Shaw’s own statement to the police, in which he linked himself to Ferrie, the man who first recruited Lee Harvey Oswald to U.S. intelligence a decade before the Kennedy assassination. The trial of Shaw came down to conflicting testimony over whether or not Shaw and Ferrie knew one another. Shaw lied on the witness stand under oath that he had never met Ferrie, a notorious homosexual and mercenary who had provably worked under FBI Division Five official Bannister in the New Orleans-based training and weapons supply operation for Cuban exiles that had also employed Oswald. Yet photos that appeared in a local weekly gossip sheet had clearly shown Ferrie and Shaw together at a rather bizarre party. For reasons still unknown, those photographs were never presented by Garrison at the trial. A local reporter for the gossip sheet who covered the Shaw trial, had copies of the pictures in his briefcase throughout the proceedings, but the crucial pieces of evidence never found their way into the jurors’ hands. The jury, under instruction from Judge Garrity, ruled that there was insufficient evidence to convict Shaw, solely on the basis that there was “reasonable doubt” about the Shaw-Ferrie association. Afterwards, Garrity and the majority of jurors said they believed there was a conspiracy to kill the President. On his deathbed, Garrity told a friend that he was convinced Shaw was guilty as charged, and that he was personally shocked when the jury ruled not guilty. – The Crown’s Permindex Front – Clay Shaw was a member of the board of Major Bloomfield’s Permindex (“Permanent Industrial Expositions”) front company. Had the crucial photo evidence been presented at trial, there is little doubt that Shaw would have been found guilty, and his Permindex links would have formed the basis of a serious follow-on probe. Such a probe would have established the direct hand of the British Crown in the Kennedy murder. Already, by 1967, Bloomfield’s Permindex organization had been thrown out of Italy, France, and Switzerland, after French authorities found it had paid for assassination attempts against French President Charles de Gaulle. A New Orleans-based Permindex spin-off, the Caribbean Anti-Communist League, had funneled several hundred thousand dollars to members of the Secret Army Organization (OAS) in France to kill de Gaulle. What’s more, since World War II, SOE officer Bloomfield had served as the liaison between British Crown Intelligence and the FBI. Under agreements struck between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, Bloomfield had served as J. Edgar Hoover’s personnel adviser for the Bureau’s foreign counterintelligence section, known as Division Five. Bloomfield’s early involvement in Prince Philip’s WWF and 1001 Club placed the Canadian spook-attorney even more in the center of the Crown apparatus. Membership in the 1001 Club was drawn from the inner circles of the Duke of Edinburgh and his Dutch counterpart, the former Nazi intelligence operator, Prince Bernhard. A second Permindex figure, Swiss-based Israeli banker Dr. Tibor Rosenbaum, the conduit for Permindex funds into the OAS, was also a charter member of 1001. The WWF, widely misrepresented as a group concerned with the environment and endangered species, was launched by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard in 1961 to draw together powerful European oligarchical networks into a covert recolonization and One World government scheme. At the center of the WWF effort was the revival of radical Malthusian population reduction programs. John F. Kennedy’s policies represented the antithesis of this Malthusian revival. – Oswald and Hoover – The 20-year intimate collaboration between Bloomfield and Hoover sheds further light on another of the anomalies of the JFK assassination and its cover-up. Why, if Lee Harvey Oswald was the actual assassin of John Kennedy, would he have sent a personal telegram to Hoover 48 hours before the killing in Dallas, warning of a plot against the President’s life? And why, if Oswald was anything other than a patsy, would Hoover have suppressed that telegram and ordered FBI offices all across the country to bury any documentation linking FBI informant Oswald to the Bureau? Up until the moment that Oswald was gunned down by Jack Ruby inside the Dallas Police Department headquarters, (Ruby had been a Bannister informant back in Chicago prior to the Division Five agent’s “retirement” from the Bureau), he was insisting that he had been a “patsy” and had not shot the President. A trial of Oswald would have been fatal to the Permindex assassins and their vast cover-up apparatus. Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw failed to produce a conviction. Shaw, Ferrie, Oswald, Bloomfield, and Garrison are all dead. Yet, the newly uncovered evidence–31 years after the fact–still provides a basis for getting at the truth, and making sure that no British Crown plot ever claims the life of an American President again. – The Enemy Explains His Crimes – Like Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, John Kennedy was killed by the British oligarchy while advancing U.S. interests in conflict with British geopolitical aims. In his foreign and domestic policies, Kennedy had astonished the world by reverting to the idealistic nationalism last seen in those earlier murdered American Presidents. But let us allow the enemy to speak for himself on this. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, “published with the editorial advice and consultation of … a committee of members of the faculties of Oxford, Cambridge, and London Universities,” found the U.S. President’s murder a cause for celebration. The Introduction to the Britannica Book of the Year 1964 began: “That 1963 would be remembered as a year of great beginnings–and of some tragic endings–could not be doubted…. The assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy … was surely the most stunning of the year’s events. Its suddenness and senselessness left virtually all of the civilized world in a state of shock…. “And yet even this monstrous killing somehow pointed to a kind of beginning or at the least, a renewal, of sensibility among Kennedy’s countrymen and among the United States and other nations. The event certainly gave evidence that–like it or not–the world community was in fact a reality. The nations had become too tightly inter-meshed and interdependent through both military and mercantile treaties; too many of the educated people of the world crossed international frontiers too often and accommodated themselves too easily in foreign lands to have any lingering intellectual response to 19th-century nationalism, though an emotional residue persisted and was still exploited in some areas of the world.” Kennedy’s investment tax credit for industrial development; his face-down of J.P. Morgan’s steel price increase; his order for the Treasury to print non-Federal Reserve U.S. currency; his Apollo Moon landing program; his commitment to overwhelming U.S. technological and military superiority, combined with cooperation with the Soviets for Third World development, not “balance of power” wars; his decision to take retired General Douglas MacArthur’s advice and get out of the Vietnam trap: all of these lit the British fuse for his murder. – The Owners of the Circus – District Attorney Garrison’s prosecution on the Kennedy case began with his discovery that the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been based in a New Orleans political operations office at 544 Camp Street. The manager of this office, Guy Bannister, was formerly chief of the FBI in Chicago. Garrison described 544 Camp Street as a virtual “circus”: FBI agents; CIA agents; Oswald, himself a long-time FBI informant, passing out pro-Castro leaflets; flaming homosexual David Ferrie and his anti-Castro Cubans–all of these parading in and out of Bannister’s office. Jack Ruby, who later shot Oswald, was also an informer and intimate of Bannister, from the Chicago FBI days. Garrison was led to the actual proprietors of this New Orleans “circus” by being informed that the internationally powerful Clay Shaw had arranged for legal services for Lee Oswald; he had even personally taken Oswald to get registered to vote. The exotic sadomasochist Clay Shaw was the director of the International Trade Mart in New Orleans. Shaw had made the Trade Mart a subsidiary of a corporation, Permindex, known to the world’s police as an assassination bureau. Bloomfield, Shaw’s superior in the Permindex command structure, co-authored an assassination strategy manual, “Crimes Against Protected Persons: Prevention and Punishment” (Praeger, 1975, New York). Bloomfield’s law firm managed the Bronfman family liquor empire, utilizing global organized-crime capabilities. Bloomfield’s Permindex directors included Clay Shaw, who had fallen in with the British as an Office of Strategic Services liaison man stationed with the office of Prime Minister Winston Churchill; various European noblemen who had been associated with the Hitler and Mussolini governments; and Jean de Menil, owner of Schlumberger Co. of Houston, which had provided weapons for the hit attempts on de Gaulle and for the Carribbean adventures of the Shaw-Ferrie-Bannister group. Perry R. Russo, a Baton Rouge insurance agent and long-time acquaintance of David Ferrie, testified that he had sat in on a Kennedy assassination planning discussion between Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, on the need for triangulation of crossfire, and their intended alibi locations while contracted hit-men were to be killing the President. It was to this corrupted and betrayed U.S. security apparatus, from the homosexuals Bloomfield and J. Edgar Hoover on down, that Oswald turned for help. As a Naval Intelligence agent assigned to the FBI, Oswald sent a telegram from Dallas, warning Director Hoover {personally} of a local FBI cover-up of an assassination threat {live} against the President in the Fort Worth-Dallas area. Hoover’s trashing of the warning was misprision of a felony, or treason. And with the President’s murder, and the public’s acquiescence in what was widely believed to be a cover-up, the nation shamefully betrayed itself.www.michaeljournal.org/octobernovemberdecember2003.pdf – – The Case of James Garfield – Charles Guiteau’s 1881 murder of U.S. President James A. Garfield is treated historically as a senseless act, the perpetrator a “disappointed office-seeker.” Contrary to this “lone-assassin” portrayal of events, we shall show here a murder motive: the Garfield administration’s prosecution of a virtual war against the British Empire; and a murder machine: Britain’s transatlantic financial and political apparatus, and its criminal underground inside America, which included Garfield’s assassin. James Blaine, chosen as Secretary of State by the President-elect, candidly warned Garfield of “the machine in New York” and its allies, within their own Republican Party: “This section contains all the desperate bad men of the Party, bent on loot and booty, and ready for any Mexican invasion or Caribbean annexation, and looking to excitements and filibustering and possibly to a Spanish war as legitimate means of continuing political power for a clique. These men are … harmless when out of power, and desperate when in possession of it” [Blaine to Garfield, Dec. 10, 1880]. Britain’s influence in America had grown ominously in 1879. British bankers, whose Wall Street agents ruled the “desperate” New York political machine, had compelled the resumption of gold (specie) payments to foreign holders of U.S. bonds. This gave the Rothschild-Morgan syndicate a blackmail dictatorship over U.S. finances. Secretary of State Blaine was the de facto “prime minister” in the incoming administration. His political identity was built around his family tradition of America’s resistance against British imperial power. He had lived for some years as a teenager with his close relative, Thomas Ewing, while Ewing was U.S. Treasury Secretary, lieutenant to anti-British nationalist spokesman Henry Clay, and the stepfather of William T. Sherman, the great Civil War general. Garfield was susceptible to the hard-money dogma, but he and his old political comrade Blaine came to power with the high tariff program of Clay and Lincoln. Blaine exhorted Irish-Americans and other workingmen to defend their wages by defeating the economic policy of “Ireland’s oppressors”–“British free trade.” – The Union War Gov’t Revived – Garfield and Blaine took office in March 1881, with Abraham Lincoln’s son Robert as War Secretary. In May, Blaine sent Lincoln’s counterintelligence expert, retired General Stephen Hurlbut, as a special envoy to face down the British in South America. The British-sponsored proxy Army of Chile had invaded Peru and Bolivia, grabbing control of nitrate deposits, and seeking to crush U.S.-allied nationalism in the region. Britain’s diplomats demanded Peru surrender and cede its richest provinces. Peru’s Army had collapsed, relying as it did for military supplies on Britain’s Lima-based merchant king, the W.R. Grace company. Grace controlled virtually all shipping on South America’s Pacific Coast on behalf of British banking and political power. On May 23, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau wrote to President Garfield: “Mr. Blaine is a wicked man, and you ought to demand his immediate resignation; otherwise you and the Republican Party will come to grief.” Guiteau shot President Garfield on July 2, 1881, four months into his term. As Garfield clung to life, Gen. Hurlbut arrived in Peru, clashed sharply with British diplomats, and recognized the regime of Garcia Calderon, who had been chosen by the underground Peruvian nationalist leadership. The U.S.S. Alaska landed a brother of President Calderon in Mollendo, with money and instructions for Peruvian resistance fighters. Britain’s Chilean proxies arrested President Calderon and took him away to Santiago. On Nov. 29, 1881, Secretary Blaine, still in office, called for a peace conference of all republics in the Western Hemisphere, to convene in Washington one year later. The incoming President Chester Arthur replaced Blaine two weeks later with Frederick Frelinghuysen, who canceled the proposed hemispheric peace conference, so as not to invite “European jealousy and ill will.” Congressman Perry Belmont, law partner of Frelinghuysen’s son, chaired a Congressional investigation of the supposed corruption of James Blaine and Gen. Hurlbut. Representative Belmont’s father, August Belmont, the House of Rothschild’s U.S. representative, wrote that “the country might have been plunged into a war with Peru if poor Garfield had not been assassinated. Blaine is about the most unscrupulous politician we ever had.” Blaine told Congress, “The Chilian government … pledge[d] … to pay … into the Bank of England for the benefit of the English bondholders who put up the job of this war on Peru. It … was loot and booty…. The iron-clads that destroyed the Peruvian Navy were furnished by England…. It is an English war on Peru, with Chile as the instrument, and I take the responsibility of that assertion.” – The New York Machine and the Assassin – There was at that time a triumvirate ruling that New York “loot and booty” machine about which Blaine had warned Garfield: 1) Banker August Belmont, Rothschild representative and longtime head of the U.S. Democratic Party; 2) Britain’s W.R. Grace, the Peru-based enforcer, who had moved to the U.S. and was elected Mayor of New York City in 1880! Grace managed Wall Street’s opposition to Blaine’s 1884 presidential bid, and arranged the official 1890 British contract seizing Peru’s land and minerals; 3) Speculator Leonard Jerome, owner of the New York Times. His daughter Jennie had married Britain’s Randolph Churchill, who in 1880, with his partner Arthur Balfour, launched a new ultra-feudalist leadership group in British politics. Leonard Jerome’s grandson Winston Churchill was then six years old. This Balfour circle, Disraeli’s “Venetian Party,” had taken over managing various British Intelligence projects of the occult and the criminal underground, centered in New York State and New England. Assassin Charles J. Guiteau dictated an autobiography to a jail officer while awaiting his execution. His story was printed in the July 2, 1882 (Washington) National Republican. Guiteau’s father, a disciple of New England cult leader John H. Noyes, took Charles as a teenager to live on the commune that Noyes had established on the Oneida Indian Reservation in upstate New York. Noyes was a Vermont “blueblood,” son of a Congressman who had sided with the enemy during the War of 1812 between America and Britain. – Guiteau’s Story – Guiteau said “I went [to Oneida] and got under that influence, and I was unable to get away from that influence…. A man was just as isolated from the world as if he were confined in state’s prison or a lunatic asylum. I suffered greatly in mind and body and spirits during incarceration in that community.” He said he had been “perfectly beside himself” under Noyes’s control from 1858 to 1870. All women in the commune were common property, and all sexual acts were the subject of official community “criticism” sessions. John Noyes himself sexually initiated the girl children of the commune’s inmates, proclaiming this to be the scientific breeding program of Britain’s Sir Francis Galton. The group practiced seances, while preparing for the imminent Apocalypse and Second Coming. Guiteau described how he had gradually left this brainwashing pit, and had come under the care and sponsorship of a new British-run international organization–the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA)–which had spread from England to Canada and on into New York in the 1850s. Guiteau was transfixed by the Armageddon sermons of Dwight Moody and other YMCA leaders. Guiteau gave his own Armageddon lectures at YMCAs all over the country, often to tiny groups. John H. Noyes, meanwhile, was about to be arrested for mass rape of young girls–but he fled to British Canada in June 1879. In 1880, while Noyes was sheltered by the British authorities, the Oneida commune converted itself into a joint-stock corporation, eventually achieving fame as a silverware company. In 1880, Charles Guiteau, who had never had anything to do with politics, suddenly began hanging around the Republican National Committee’s New York City headquarters. After the Garfield election victory, Guiteau began loitering in the White House and State Department lobbies in Washington, on the pretext of asking for appointment as a diplomat. He bought a pistol with money from “a gentleman,” and shot the President after stalking him for several days.LLR
PS:Bankers compared to counterfeiters by Nobel Prize in economy Maurice Allais

by Jean-Pierre Richard
_______________
_______

In his November 1993 report, Canada’s Auditor general calculated that of the $­­423 billion in net accumulated debt from Confederation to 1992, only $­­37 billion (8.75%) went on actual goods and services, all the rest (91%) consisted of interest charges. this should tell us how we all have become slaves.

A real solution is now having a phenomenal promotion throughout the world. The main facts on which it is based are now being supported and taught by top economists like, for example, Harold Chorney, Assoc. Professor of Political Economy at Concordia University, in Montreal, the late John Hotson, who was Professor of Economics at the University of Waterloo, and Mario Seccareccia, Assoc. Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, published a booklet in May of 96: “The Deficit Made Me Do It”. In it they say: “When World War II ended, the national debt relative to the national income was more than twice as large as it is now. but was the country ruined? Did we have to declare national bankruptcy? Far from it! Instead, Canada’s economy boomed, and the country prospered for most of the post war period.

“Why isn’t the same thing happening today? Why was a much larger national debt shrugged off in 1945, while today’s much smaller debt (as a percentage of GDP) is being used as an excuse to let the economy stagnate?

“The answer can be found at the Bank of Canada. During the war, and for 30 years afterward, the government could borrow what it needed at low rates of interest, because the government’s own bank produced up to half of all the new money. That forced the private banks to deep their interest rates low, too.

“Since the mid-1970s, however, the Bank of Canada, with government consent, has been creating less and less of the new money, while letting the private banks create more and more. Today, “our” bank creates a mere 2% of each year’s new money supply, … (p. 4, 5).

“… The conventional wisdom, however, is that inflation is the greatest threat to the economy and must be restrained by raising interest rates. This flies in the face of the commonsense observation that rising prices (inflation) are caused by raising costs, and that interest rates are costs. So raising them will raise prices, not lower them. p. 8).

“… One of the most pervasive myths about the government deficit is that government which spend more than they receive in revenue must borrow the difference, thus increasing the debt.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.” (p.9).

And to those who say that there are only two ways to control the deficit: one being to raise taxes, and the other to cut government spending, they say: “But, in fact, there is a third way: reduce the interest rate. The Bank of Canada can set the rate of interest at which it lends to the chartered banks at any number it chooses, and it can peg the rate on government bonds, too. This was evident during WW II When it set the rate on Treasury Bills at as little as 0.36%, and on longer term bonds at less than 2.5%.” (p. 10).

Maurice Allais, Professor of Economics at the National School of Mining Engineering in Paris, France and the 1988 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, had this to say, in his book “Les conditions monétaires d’une économie de marché” (The Monetary Conditions of a Market Economy p. 2): “In essence, the present creation of money, out of nothing, by the banking system is, I do not hesitate to say it in order to make people clearly realize what is at stake here, similar to the creation of money by counterfeiters, so rightly condemned by law. In concrete terms, it leads to the same results.”

And finally, let us quote Mackenzie King, while he was campaigning, in 1935, to become Prime Minister of Canada: “Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So let us work to get the government of Canada to create all new money, cash and credit , by getting our municipal and town councils and all associations to pass a resolution to this effect. And let us circulate petitions on this issue among the general public. A model resolution and petition is available from us upon request, at no cost.

Jean-Pierre Richard



Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Traduction »