21 December, 2009

Worst of All Worlds

Posted by alex in Alex Linder, Big Government, government is the problem, health care at 8:09 pm | Permanent Link

Democracy is bribery. The coming ‘health care’ bill, to be passed on Christmas Eve as a big present for the AmeriKwan moron, to be redundant, is pretty much the summum anti-bonum for all involved who don’t work for the government, the connected companies, or number among the mud-alien floods who want something for nothing. America used to be a free country for solid white men. Now it’s a marxist conformist state for incompetent muds and the jews who sic them on white earners. The sooner the Kwa falls apart, the better for us, and this bill will hasten it. The government has proved its omni-incompetence, so what does it do? It leaps to swallow another giant chunk of the economy – exactly the opposite of what would be happening if it were guided by wise men. The government ought to be disgorging things nationalized. We need less military, less welfare for niggers, less involvement in the economy, less involvement in banking and money. All government does is create problems, exacerbate problems, and, perhaps most significantly, prevent problems from being dealt with. Even worse than that, it spreads a ‘public school’ system across the land that prevents problems from being identified because it instructs young slaves that the bad things are the good things.


  • 39 Responses to “Worst of All Worlds”

    1. Honkey Tonk Man Says:

      “When the enemy is about to make a mistake , do not interrupt him”
      ……Napoleon Bonaparte

      ….The enemy is making alot of mistakes. At this point it is a waiting game for white freedom fighters.. Waiting for things to get much worse is a drag but no revolution can be forced.
      …Until that time arrives we can awaken as many of our fellow whites as possible. The other thing we can do is to prepare for WAR……a real WAR!
      … War means killing and dying and in the end that is the only way whites will win.

      “War is not a crime! He who saves a nation violates no law”
      ……Napoleon Bonaparte

    2. Waldo Starr Says:

      “All government does is create problems, exacerbate problems, and, perhaps most significantly, prevent problems from being dealt with. ”
      That may all be true but it does it in a way that all the connected people get filthy rich in the process. What we have in America is a legalized Mafia.

    3. Stan Sikorski Says:

      Gregg: Welcome to a New America [Robert Costa]

      American government changed last night. “We are now functioning under a parliamentary form of government,” says Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) in a conversation with NRO. “An ideological supermajority in Congress, along with a government run by community organizers, has taken over.”

      “They’ve taken over the student-loan program, they’ve taken over the automobile system, and now they’re taking over the health-care system. There is no limit to their belief that people should be controlled by smart bureaucrats in Washington,” says Gregg. “They’re putting our country on a path that will reduce the quality of life for the next generation, undermine our nation’s wonderful exceptionalism, and Europeanize our economy to curb its growth.”

      Harry Reid’s health-care bill “was purchased,” says Gregg. “Our system of checks and balances is gone. We now have a government that lurches with great speed even though our system is founded upon incremental change.” And don’t hope that the House stops the runaway train, he says. “I think the House is ideologically even further to the Left than the Senate. There are many people there who are committed to taking us down the road toward nationalization.”

      “In the future, discretionary dollars won’t be able to be spent on college or a new house, but on this massive new burden for Americans,” says Gregg. “Eventually, at some point, the pressures on the private sector will tip the scales so that employers offering private insurance send people over to the health-care exchange. It’s all part of their ultimate goal to get a vast amount of people subsidized by the government.”

      This is an “unsustainable course for our nation,” says Gregg. “We can’t sustain the debt we’re adding. Soon we’ll reach banana-republic status.”


    4. Tim McGreen Says:

      Death to the Republicans, the Democrats and their rotten pay-to-play Jew-controlled system. They are both hell-bent on turning this country into a 3rd world slave plantation, the only difference being that the Democrats may get us there a few years sooner.

    5. Z.O.G. Says:

      You’re wrong about money and banking, alex. Money is supposed to be created by sovereign nationals governments, not private corporations called “banks”.

    6. Tim McGreen Says:

      But let’s not get too Ron Paul and Ayn Rand about the role of Government. They did, after all, get the Interstate Highway System built, as well as the space program and even this here Internet thing. Some of the nation’s best high schools and colleges are publicly-owned. And public libraries are indispensible resources for millions of people. The USPS, as badly run as it is, is still preferable to a fully privatized postal system. You can mail a letter to your neighbor down the street or to someone on the other side of the USA and it still costs, what, 42 cents? And it almost always gets there on time.

      If it weren’t for the Government, cars would still have glass windshields and no safety belts. Things like that save thousands of lives every year. And if it weren’t for the National Park Service/Dept. of the Interior, places like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon would be private property, to be used or developed as the owners saw fit.

      So, to coin a phrase, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    7. alex Says:

      You’re wrong about money and banking, alex. Money is supposed to be created by sovereign nationals governments, not private corporations called “banks”.

      Wrong. Let people circulate what they want, and let customers beware. That’s a better solution than allowing government to debase currency.

      Good to see that age-old religious faith in government is still alive.

    8. alex Says:

      If it weren’t for the Government, cars would still have glass windshields and no safety belts.

      The funny thing is, you probably really believe this.

      And if it weren’t for the National Park Service/Dept. of the Interior, places like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon would be private property, to be used or developed as the owners saw fit.

      So what? Private lands are better cared for than public lands. No private landowner would have let Yellowstone burn down as the feds did a few years ago.

    9. alex Says:

      You’re wrong about money and banking, alex. Money is supposed to be created by sovereign nationals governments, not private corporations called “banks”.

      There is no supposed to anything. Government couldn’t debase the currency if it had competition. People would simply quit using greenbacks. Yeah, I know, if the right people were doing it that wouldn’t happen. Research history – governments always inflate, sooner or later and usually sooner.

    10. Igor Alexander Says:

      “Money is supposed to be created by sovereign nationals governments, not private corporations called ‘banks’.”

      I vehemently disagree. The problem is that banks have been given a monopoly on our money by the government. Unlike the Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada has been nationalized since 1938 and Canada has exactly the same problems as any country with a centralized banking system.

      Things were much, much better when banks truly were private institutions and citizens/consumers were free to use whatever currency they wanted for their transactions, rather than being forced to use “legal tender.”

    11. Igor Alexander Says:

      I thought the following paragraphs from the Wikipedia article about the Bank of Canada were interesting:

      “For many years, Canada did not have a central bank.[2] Each of the nation’s large banks issued its own currency and there was little government regulation of the nation’s money supply. The federal finance department only issued small and very large denomination bank notes ($5 and under, and $500 and higher.) The Bank of Montreal, then the nation’s largest bank, acted as the government’s banker. Canada, with its extensive branch banking, had a very stable banking system. There was deemed to be little need for a lender of last resort and the banking system was not hit by the same seasonal liquidity problems as banks in the US. The banking system was regulated by the Canadian Bankers Association that worked in close concert with the government.

      “While there were some advocates for a central bank in the early part of the twentieth century, most notably farmers, the status quo remained unaltered. This changed with the onset of Great Depression. Many in Canada blamed the policies of the Canadian banks for aggravating the Depression. The money supply was contracting and deflation was common. The farmers were joined by manufacturing interests and other groups in demanding a central bank. Another major proponent was the Royal Bank of Canada, which wanted to see the government business taken away from the rival Bank of Montreal. The government also claimed it was constrained by its inability to deal directly with its foreign debts.”

    12. Z.O.G. Says:

      Alex, you seem to be under the impression that the U.S. Government has anything to do with the supply of money and credit. It doesn’t. All money and credit is created by commercial banks.

    13. Z.O.G. Says:

      Money has its origin in law and government, not in commerce. The Jewish Austrian School propaganda about the origin of money is FALSE. Unfortunately, most WN’s are brainwashed by Jewish Austrian School B.S.

    14. Irma Grese Says:

      Z.O.G. Says: Money has its origin in law and government, not in commerce. The Jewish Austrian School propaganda about the origin of money is FALSE. Unfortunately, most WN’s are brainwashed by Jewish Austrian School B.S.

      Linder is a TRUE BUHLIEVER in that good ol’ Randian “Free Market” garbage – you know, the kind that created the Gilded Age of untold riches for a FEW and mass poverty for MANY? Most of them WHITE? Now Linder is a very intelligent man, especially when it comes to issues such as race and the jews. But it is clear that he hasn’t read ANY history, otherwise he’d know that we TRIED running the economy his way once, and it didn’t end up all that well.

    15. Kuda Bux Says:

      Austrian economics was founded by the gentile Carl Menger. This is long, but you asked for it:

      Money as an emerged social institution

      “Menger’s theory on money forcefully illustrates the essential role he assigns to the principle of methodological individualism. His theory begins with the idea that valuation arises from subjective perceptions of individuals and ends with money as an emerged social institution. Menger’s theory of the origin of money is an evolutionary explanation of a spontaneous process in which direct exchange via barter transforms into indirect trade with an institutionally established medium of exchange. He illustrates how the money universal is an institutional form that is a product of a spontaneous social process relying on the entrepreneurial and economizing actions of individuals. Human action begins a discovery process that results in the creation of the institution of money that none of the actors intended. The composite outcome of individuals’ economizing activities is shown by Menger to be the establishment of a generally accepted medium of exchange despite the fact that no one intended to create money by engaging in indirect exchange.

      Menger’s causal history of money starts with the state of barter economy which permits exchange but with great difficulty. A barter economy is a natural system of exchange in contrast to a monetary system. People who want to trade first try barter but the difficulty or impossibility of finding the requisite double coincidence of wants between individuals poses a huge problem. In the course of time, some individuals realize that they will be more able to make trades if they accumulate goods that other people want. These agents who acquire goods that have greater subjective value to many other people will make a greater number of exchanges and make them more easily and thereby make themselves wealthier. In the beginning only a small number of actors recognize the advantage of indirect exchange, the process of exchanging their goods for more marketable commodities. Other people will adopt the same behavior as they observe and imitate the successful behavior of these first individuals. They too will begin to attempt to use those same goods as a medium of exchange. Less saleable goods are surrendered for those of greater saleability. The most saleable of all goods eventually becomes money. It follows that money will appear progressively via a spontaneous learning process that is a product of individual interactions of people following their self-interest and their personal plans of action.
      “Human action begins a discovery process that results in the creation of the institution of money that none of the actors intended.”

      Menger explains that people will trade to obtain the goods they want to consume and that they prefer to make the requisite trades as easily as possible. It follows that people will progressively learn to choose more and more marketable commodities to advance to indirect exchange. As the number of desired media commodities dwindles, the demand for each of the remaining ones increases, making each of them more desirable as a medium of exchange. This narrowing process continues until the number of commodities used as a medium of exchange is reduced to one (or perhaps two) goods that are subjectively highly desired and that can fulfill the minimal physical requirements of money. Menger explains that gold was selected as a generally accepted medium of exchange because of its physical real essence and not by mere chance. The real essence of gold, based on its various properties, is at least partly responsible for its choice as a medium of exchange.

      The economic interests of individuals combined with their increasing knowledge leads them to exchange their goods for more marketable ones without any prior agreement, legislation, or consideration of the common good. Money emerges from an invisible hand process. It is the result of human action but not of human design. The institution of money is an unintended consequence of human action. Money results from an on-going learning process.

      Money as a measure of price rather than value

      Menger was an essentialist who discussed the real essence of money. He explains that money is a measure of price rather than a measure of value and that it is the only commodity in which all the other commodities can be evaluated without using roundabout procedures. He illustrates how money, as an economic universal, is embodied in the many money particulars. Specific exemplifications of money have the capabilities, tendencies, and powers they do by virtue of money’s real essence. The specifics of a particular manifestation of money is the result of human design, whereas the universal of that and all other appearances of money is due to a spontaneous social process in which economizing individuals notice that some goods are marketable than others. Menger emphasizes the subjectivity and knowledge of the individual regarding his needs and wants and the ability of objects to satisfy them.

      Menger studies the essence (or nature) of economic phenomena such as money. He explains that any particular instantiation of money is contaminated because it is not merely a manifestation of characteristics and tendencies that inhere in the money universal, but includes other specific factors of time and place as well. These other factors are omitted in the process of abstraction and isolation in which the idea of money as an economic universal was constructed.

      Menger’s account of the origin and evolution of money is a prime example of his conception of the spontaneous emergence of organic institutions or complex economic phenomena. Institutions thus result from a decentralized trial and error process in which the behaviors that best systemize and harmonize actions of individuals within society have a tendency to predominate. Institutions emerge from a social process resulting from numerous human actions and initiated by creative and successful individuals who, in their peculiar historical circumstances of time and place, are able to discover before others that they can achieve their goals more easily if they follow certain behaviors. Through an unconscious social learning process, other members of society imitate the actions of these innovators. As a result, institutions, or guided behaviors, which enhance life in a social setting, emerge.”


    16. Z.O.G. Says:

      The most well known economists of the Austrian are Jewish, such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, etc. The Austrian School is most definitely Jewish and is used to advance Jewish interests. Don’t try to pretend otherwise.

    17. Z.O.G. Says:

      Thank you for posting that Austrian school horseshit, Kuda Bux. Now I’m going to make you look quite stupid.

    18. Z.O.G. Says:


      20 page paper text –


    19. Z.O.G. Says:

      PowerPoint presentation:


    20. Z.O.G. Says:



      Here below is a two page summary plus communication with the Austrian School

      A challenge to the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Of much more general importance than it sounds, obeisance is universally paid to Menger’s 19th century re-incarnation of John Law’s theory of money, by present day Austrian economists. Menger’s origin theory is also at the base (often explicitly) of much so-called libertarian thinking and writing today. For example Robert Nozick uses it to launch his book Anarchy, State , And Utopia, (p.18) one of the Libertarian’s “bibles”.

      This paper most likely deals a “death blow” to this core thesis of the Austrian School, as formulated by Carl Menger, the school’s founder. In effect the Austrian’s are left without a viable theory of money. It would be difficult to imagine that one could be provided by Von Mises confused and self contradictory book THE THEORY OF MONEY AND CREDIT.The understandable reluctance of “Austrian gatekeepers” to address this issue are documented below.

      The paper challenges Menger on three grounds:

      Though it is generally assumed that Menger’s theory is at least in part derived from historical evidence, the paper demonstrates that its derivation is entirely theoretical, by showing that all the historically based evidence cited by Menger, is 180 degrees counter to his theory. The paper points out the inappropriateness of attempting to divine an historical event or process with only deductive logic.

      The paper points out that even within the framework of Menger’s scheme, there are two fatal flaws. First the circularity of his reasoning in determining his causes of liquidity, which arises from his use of the “development of the market and of speculation in a commodity” as a cause of liquidity, when in fact it is a definition of liquidity and even Menger uses it as such. The paper explains the crucial difference. This is not quite an example of what has been called “Weiser’s Circle”. Second, the paper points out that within Menger’s scheme, it is not liquidity, but volatility (or lack of it) which is much more important.

      The paper shows that some of Menger’s closely held general views of the stability of gold and silver and their universal use as money, are simply false. In addition the existence of the millennia long dichotomy in the gold-silver ratio between east and west, which Menger seems to be unaware of, appears sufficient to doom his theory.The paper presents some of the factual evidence gathered by William Ridgeway, in the ORIGIN OF METALLIC WEIGHTS AND STANDARDS; by A.H. Quiggin in A SURVEY OF PRIMITIVE MONEY; by Paul Einzig in PRIMITIVE MONEY; and by Bernard Laum in HEILEGES GELD; all as an indication that an institutional origin of money, whether religious or social, is much more likely to have occurred than Menger’s assumed market origin.

    21. Tim McGreen Says:

      {Linder is a TRUE BUHLIEVER in that good ol’ Randian “Free Market” garbage – you know, the kind that created the Gilded Age of untold riches for a FEW and mass poverty for MANY? Most of them WHITE? Now Linder is a very intelligent man, especially when it comes to issues such as race and the jews. But it is clear that he hasn’t read ANY history, otherwise he’d know that we TRIED running the economy his way once, and it didn’t end up all that well}

      I daresay we all agree that the Jewish Central Bank of the United States must be abolished. But we can’t go back to the pre-1913 way of running the economy, either. There were a number of depressions and financial panics between 1780 and 1913, not to mention all those ruthless robber barons and Trusts.

    22. Igor Alexander Says:

      “Money has its origin in law and government, not in commerce. The Jewish Austrian School propaganda about the origin of money is FALSE.”

      I don’t understand what you’re saying here. The Federal Reserve is a private bank which has been given a monopoly over money by the government. Pick up a numismatics magazine and you’ll see that before the Bank of Canada, Canadians were using paper money that was printed by various private banks.

    23. Igor Alexander Says:

      And on top of that, I might add, this paper money was directly redeemable for gold at any time.

    24. Igor Alexander Says:

      “Now Linder is a very intelligent man, especially when it comes to issues such as race and the jews. But it is clear that he hasn’t read ANY history, otherwise he’d know that we TRIED running the economy his way once, and it didn’t end up all that well”

      As if trillion dollar banker bailouts is a better way of running the economy (running it into the ground, maybe).

    25. Lutjens Says:

      All this arguing about money and economies blah blah blah… was Adolf Hitler successful in building up the German economy after he took power? I think so. Let history explain what he did and why he did it. That barter system was working quite well also, so much so it pissed off the hebes and their Anglo-Saxon shills to the point boycotts and total war were waged against him. It wasn’t about kikes, concentration camps, lebensraum – it was all about economics and those filthy, nation-wrecking, Asiatic hordes to the East.

    26. Tim McGreen Says:

      If and when the White Revolution ever happens in the USA, there will be more than enough work for every able-bodied White person to do. The Interstate Highway System will need to be completely rebuilt, as will the old, formerly Black and Mestizo urban ghettoes (They will also have to be fumigated). Farms, factories, the railroads, the educational and financial systems….Not to mention all those Konzentrationlagers that ill have to be constructed to hold dangerous non-White undesirables and White race-criminals.

      And then guarding the borders with Mexico, building all those 40 foot high walls and laying all those minefields…….Think of the economic boom to the economy! We’ll have more jobs available for White people than you can shake a Spick at. Myself, I can’t wait to get started.

    27. Z.O.G. Says:

      Yes, Hitler’s Third Reich was engaging in international commodity barter with foreign nations, e.g. Argentina. This did not make the Jewish banker class very happy, because when nations engage in barter exchange, the need for money is eliminated, which means that Jewish controlled commercial banks(the source of money) are cut out of the equation entirely and thus denied their parasitic profit derived from international trade.

    28. Kuda Bux Says:

      An answer ro Zarlenga


      Zarlenga seems to advocate the Social Credit idea


      Relationship to anti-Semitism

      Social Crediters, and Douglas himself, have been criticized for spreading anti-semitism. Douglas was critical of “international Jewry”, especially in his later writings. He asserted that some Jews controlled many of major banks and were involved in an international conspiracy to centralize the power of finance. While some have claimed that Douglas was anti-Semitic, it is clear that his criticism of Jews had nothing to do with Jews as a race. “There is probably no single piece of evidence existing which would justify the growing dislike of Jews as a race”.[55] Douglas was critical of Jewish philosophy, arguing that “It is not too much to say that one of the root ideas through which Christianity comes into conflict with the conceptions of the Old Testament and the ideals of the pre-Christians era, is in respect of this dethronement of abstractionism.”[56]

      Social Credit is opposed to abstractionist philosophies, as Douglas believed these philosophies inevitably led to the elevation of abstractions, such as state, over individuals. He also believed that what he called Jewish abstractionist thought tended to lead them to communist ideals and the emphasis of the group over the individual. “Anti-Semitism of the Douglas kind, if it can be called anti-Semitism at all, may be fantastic, may be dangerous even, in that it may be twisted into a dreadful form, but it is not itself vicious nor evil.”[57]

      In her book, Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit and the Jewish Response, Janine Stingel claims, “Douglas’s economic and political doctrines were wholly dependent on an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory”.[58] John L. Finlay disagrees with Stingel’s assertion in his book, Social Credit: The English Origins arguing that “It must also be noted that while Douglas was critical of some aspects of Jewish thought, Douglas did not seek to discriminate against Jews as people. It was never suggested that the National Dividend be withheld from them.”[57]


      Critique of Social Credit. See esp. where some have absurdly tried to link John Law (first Keynesian) to Menger.


      More to say on the Keynes thread on the forum

    29. Nordlander Says:

      Irma Grese: Linder is a TRUE BUHLIEVER in that good ol’ Randian “Free Market” garbage – you know, the kind that created the Gilded Age of untold riches for a FEW and mass poverty for MANY?

      You mean the 19th century and early 20th century, when the economy expanded more than ever and the living standards were vastly increased for all?

      Have you heard of the Depression after WWI? No. Because there was none. The president at the time decided to let the slump in the economy sort itself out, and it did, with resources reallocated by natural process. By contrast, Roosevelt used a recession in the 1930s as an excuse to centralize decision-making, creating the worst Depression in U.S. history, which did not subside until 1946 when Roosevelt was dead and the economy was decentralized again. Contrary to the lies about WWII fixing the problem – the Depression went right on throughout WWII.

      Letting the economy reallocate resources on its own: 1
      Centralization and politicization: 0

      Of course, since the Jews control the media and love Jew-loyal Roosevelt, you will absorb propaganda and let that guide your thought processes.

    30. Z.O.G. Says:

      The 19th century had multiple economic depressions. They were called “panics” then, not “depressions”.

    31. Nordlander Says:

      Sweden’s health care is the most costly in the whole world while not being any better than any other Western country, because the processes are extremely inefficient. People are even dying waiting in line for months for life-saving surgery. In socialized health care, only the rich are safe – by flying to Germany to get surgery quickly.

      In the last two decades, private hospitals and private care for the elderly have been allowed to compete with the centrally controlled care. Despite media scare stories and government inspectors spending 98 percent of their time watching private care, it has been a success with better grades from patients and employees alike.

      Swedish pharmacies were forced to sell their business to the government in 1970. Pharmacy products became far more expensive than in other West European countries. This year private pharmacies are allowed once again.

      In Sweden, alcohol can only be bought in government-controlled stores – the only alcohol allowed in private stores is the weakest kind of beer. Not surprisingly, wine, whisky and other forms of alcohol beverages are FAR more expensive in Sweden than anywhere else. The government is making big money off this.

      I don’t know who could be dumb enough to believe removing competition would increase efficiency and reduce prices, when all experience points in the other direction.

    32. Nordlander Says:

      The argument goes: “Health care is too important to be left in private hands!” What about food production? Would you feel safer with a government monopoly on farms?


      The roughly 20 million family farms that could be found in Russia in 1929 would, five years later, be concentrated in 240,000 collective farms. Throughout much of Soviet history, it was not unheard of for people to be permitted to own, here and there, a few acres of land for private use. By the time Mikhail Gorbachev took power in 1985, the two percent of privately owned Soviet farmland was producing fully 30 percent of the country’s grain – a humiliating rebuke to those who had so boorishly claimed that socialized agriculture would be more efficient than capitalist agriculture, or that they could change human nature or rewrite the laws of economics.

    33. Z.O.G. Says:

      I’m not sure what any of that has to do with the subject of money and banking.

    34. Sage Says:

      Hitler was “Times man of the year” in 1938. He led Germany out of hyperinflation and degradation mostly by creating monetary policies that opposed private capitalist bankers. Yes, many international bankers were and are Jews. (To be fair to Jews, the Christian West imported Jews to avoid going to hell. Jews are allowed to loan to non jews. Christians are not allowed to engage in usury.)

      With regards to money, it is both a unit of exchange, and also a representation of wealth. Real wealth is the creativity of the land’s inhabitants, the land, buildings, infrastructure, and so on. The unit of exchange needs to be stable as a signaling mechanism for a capitalist economy. In other words, pricing signals to business and consumers, and thus their behavior is modified. For example, if the price of titanium gets too high, then carbon fiber is invented to replace titanium.

      Central banks have worked in the past and the present. It is the sovereign right of Governments to issue money for the welfare of the people. Private banks issue money for the benefit of themselves and in the end manipulate the money supply for themselves and their crony governments.

      The U.S. government issues a bond to the Fed, and the Fed gives the Government money. You American sucker are now in debt bondage to the Fed for the interest money they just created. Every new dollar is a debt instrument. Think of each dollar has having 90 cents of worth with 10 cents of debt, providing interest was 10 percent. This is a simplified case as interest compounds.

      But, the interest debt needs to be repaid. How does that happen? We need to create even more debt money to pay off old debt money. So, more debt is piled on top of old debt. Our monetary system is a ponzi scheme that needs new players and new money to pay off old money.

      Lincoln issued sovereign money straight out of the treasury. The new currency was called greenbacks. It was backed by the good faith and credit of the people of the United States. Greenbacks funded the Civil War. If Lincoln had borrowed money from European (Jewish) bankers instead, the country would now be in debt peonage to Europeans, and likely would have fallen. In all cases private bankers create money with double entry book keeping. This is tremendous power and control given over to unelected people who do not have the nations interests at heart, nor is there adequate restraint on their power.

      The ever increasing debt is owed to who? It is owed to the loan sharks who created the money, and who created our private banking ponzi scheme. Paying back the debt would be transfering wealth from the productive to the unproductive. Worse the unproductive “bankers” who created money to begin with, did it with slight of hand and the greatest of ease: simply typing figures into their computers or entries into their paper ledgers.

    35. Z.O.G. Says:

      You’re exactly right, Sage. Unfortunately, many WN’s are under the false impression(received from the Jewish Austrian School) that “real” money is gold or silver or some other tangible object or commodity. They don’t understand that money is a concept, an idea.

    36. Kuda Bux Says:

      False Flag Infiltrators: Gold-Hating Fiat Money Inflationists Inside the Libertarian-Conservative Movement
      Gary North

      May 25, 2009

      “A web page by Ellen Brown is making the rounds. It is here:


      Ellen Brown is a lawyer. She is anti-Federal Reserve. So, she gets a hearing in conservative circles. This is unfortunate. There is nothing conservative about her. She is an apologist for statism and the United States Treasury (a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs).

      Her article is about the hyperinflation of Germany, 1921-23. She has no understanding of what happened or why, but she talks as if she does.

      If you want the real story on the German hyperinflation, you can get it on the Mises.org site. All of these are available for free.

      First, there is Hans Sennholz’s article, “Hyperinflation in Germany.” http://mises.org/story/2347

      Second, there is Adam Fergusson’s book, When Money Dies. http://mises.org/resources/4016

      For even more detail, read this: The Economics of Inflation (1931), by Constantino Bresciani-Turroni. http://www.mises.org/books/economicsofinflation.pdf

      These books show that price inflation in Germany was exclusively the result of the central bank of Germany, which expanded the monetary base.

      Ms. Brown offers a different explanation for the German inflation.

      Schacht Lets the Cat Out of the Bag

      Light is thrown on this mystery by the later writings of Hjalmar Schacht, the The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga, who writes that in Schacht’s 1967 book The Magic of Money, he “let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that shatter the ‘accepted wisdom’ the financial community has promulgated on the German hyperinflation.” What actually drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation, said Schacht, was speculation by foreign investors, who would bet on the mark’s decreasing value by selling it short.

      Short selling is a technique used by investors to try to profit from an asset’s falling price. It involves borrowing the asset and selling it, with the understanding that the asset must later be bought back and returned to the original owner. The speculator is gambling that the price will have dropped in the meantime and he can pocket the difference. Short selling of the German mark was made possible because private banks made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created on demand and lent to investors, returning a profitable interest to the banks.

      To say that this is economically erroneous does not do justice to how wrong it is.

      First, short selling is as legitimate as going long (buying). Speculators forecast future prices; they do not cause those prices. For every long position, there is a short. Those speculators, long or short, who guess wrong lose money. For every gain made by shorting the German mark, there was a loss imposed on a speculator who was long.

      Second, she describes short selling on the stock market. She does not mention commodity futures. The rules on the commodity futures market are different. These contracts do not involve borrowing the asset. This woman hasn’t a clue about financial markets.

      Third, the argument was refuted as long ago as 1931, in the still-definitive book, The Economics of Inflation. The author reports:

      The accusation that the collapse of the German exchange was provoked by bold groups of professional speculators seems better founded. The objection to that is that speculation cannot be the original cause of the depreciation of the currency of a country. On the contrary, speculation appears when for certain reasons, such as the Budget deficit, the continual issues of paper money, the disequilibrium of the balance of trade, and the political situation, the exchanges are unstable. Speculation weakens and eventually disappears when the causes which provoked the original depreciation of the currency become less. Speculation in Austrian crowns flourished so long as that currency was unstable; but it disappeared as soon as the stabilization plan was adopted. Directly the monetary reform of November 1923 made the German exchange stable, speculation ceased, after some fruitless attempts to prevent the success of the operation (pp. 100-101).

      Fourth, the banks were destroyed with the currency. Bankers suffered along with everyone.

      Fifth, Schacht was a fascist economist. He was the Minister of Economics from 1934 to 1937. In short, he ran Hitler’s economy.

      Sixth, it was central bank policy that caused the inflation. Commercial banks merely lent the money created by the central bank. The head of the central bank, Helfferich, refused to stop printing money. Professor Bresciani-Turroni’s analysis has stood since 1931. He began with a quotation from the head of the central banks, Helfferich:

      “To follow the good counsel of stopping the printing of notes would mean–as long as the causes which are upsetting the German exchange continue to operate–refusing to economic life the circulating medium necessary for transactions, payments of salaries and wages, etc., it would mean that in a very short time the entire public, and above all the Reich, could no longer pay merchants, employees, or workers. In a few weeks, besides the printing of notes, factories, mines, railways and post office, national and local government, in short, all national and economic life would be stopped.”

      The authorities therefore had not the courage to resist the pressure of those who demanded ever greater quantities of paper money, and to face boldly the crisis which (although painted in unduly dark colours by Helfferich) would be, undeniably, the result of a stoppage of the issue of notes. They preferred to continue the convenient method of continually increasing the issues of notes, thus making the continuation of business possible, but at the same time prolonging the pathological state of the German economy.

      Seventh, Schacht served as the currency commissioner of the country, beginning in late 1923. He had tried to get the job as the head of the central bank. He later did take over as the head of the Reichsbank. He was a central banker. So, he wanted to blame foreigners, not the central bank. Those evil speculators! As Hans Sennholz pointed out in 1970, this was the argument of the central bank: the speculators did it. As he wrote:

      When all other explanations are exhausted, modern governments usually fall back on the speculator, who is held responsible for all economic and social evils. What the witch was to medieval man, what the capitalist is to socialists and communists, the speculator is to most politicians and statesmen: the embodiment of evil. He is said to be imbued with ruthless and fickle selfishness that is capable of wrecking the national economy, government plans, and, in the case of German inflation, the national currency. No matter how blatantly contradictory this explanation may be, it is most popular with government authorities in search of a convenient explanation for the failure of their own policies.

      The same German officials who denied the very existence of inflation lamented the depreciation caused by speculators, or they blamed the Allied reparation burdens and simultaneously denounced speculators for the depreciation. Dr. Havenstein, the President of the Reichsbank, embracing every conceivable theory that exculpated his policies, also pointed at the speculators. Before a parliamentary committee he testified: “On the 28th of March began the attack on the foreign exchange market. In very numerous classes of the German economy, from that day onwards, thought was all for personal interests and not for the needs of the country.”

      Ms. Brown believes the self-serving explanation by the central bankers who destroyed the German currency.

      At first, the speculation was fed by the Reichsbank (the German central bank), which had recently been privatized. But when the Reichsbank could no longer keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.

      Ms. Brown has no understanding of central banking. She repeats the very argument of the head of the German central bank: the bank could not keep up with demand for money. The destroyers of Germany’s currency thought they were doing the nation a favor. She believes them.

      If Schacht is to be believed, not only did the government not cause the hyperinflation but it was the government that got the situation under control. The Reichsbank was put under strict regulation, and prompt corrective measures were taken to eliminate foreign speculation by eliminating easy access to loans of bank-created money.

      Schacht is not to be believed.

      The German central bank stopped inflating in 1923 because it had destroyed the currency. The entire nation had gone to barter or foreign currencies. To re-establish central bank control over the economy, the bank reformed the currency. Schacht was one of those in charge of that revaluation. He was an also an apologist for the bank. Yet Zarlenga and Brown praise his understanding!

      I really do get weary of what passes for historical and economic analysis in conservative political circles.

      Who is Zarlenga? A statist fiat money promoter. Here is a recent interview with him. How free market does this sound?

      Stephen Zarlenga: It was understood at the time, and Harvard finally did something valuable in this area and did a study which showed that to coin money meant also the paper. Our colonial period has many examples of fiat paper money.

      Thom Hartmann: Right.

      Stephen Zarlenga: And in fact that’s what built the infrastructure of our country. Until we started using it, the country was in trouble because the Brits and the Dutch did not allow coinage to come over to America. It was against their laws.

      Thom Hartmann: Right. And we didn’t have that much gold and silver here that we could make our own.

      Stephen Zarlenga: No. No, we’re not going to make our own, and in fact, the very nature of money, as Aristotle told us in the fourth century BC, money exists not by nature but by law. It’s not something that comes out of a mine, it’s not something that comes out of a farm, it’s an abstract legal power.

      Thom Hartmann: Right.

      Stephen Zarlenga: So all money is ultimately, all true money is fiat money. And that’s what built the colonies.

      You want more? I’ll give you more.

      Thom Hartmann: Right, now I, in reading your work, one of the things that I noted, unless I’m misremembering, but I don’t think so, was that you are suggesting that (a) that the Treasury Department should be issuing our money and, if I have this right, and (b) that the value of the money should be defined by the government but it should not be defined by, it should not be an intrinsic value. In other words, we should not go back to gold coins and a gold standard.

      Stephen Zarlenga: Yeah.

      Thom Hartmann: Why is that? I agree with that, but I know that there are a lot of, particularly the libertarians, this is really big with a lot of conservatives, ‘let’s go back to the gold standard’.

      Stephen Zarlenga: Well, OK, we know how to handle that question with them, and first of all you never did have a gold standard. It was always a fraudulent thing. There were promises to pay gold, it was never really there. But what they’ve done, and the Ron Paul people especially are tuned into this that we need gold for money, they are confusing an investment with a money. Now, they like gold as an investment, and at certain times gold’s a fine investment, other times it’s terrible. But you want an investment to go up and up and up. You don’t want money to go up and up and up. You want money to be relatively stable. So what you need out of an investment, which might be gold, at a time, and what you need out of money, totally separate. And the Ron Paul people, they understand this when tell them.

      And as to the fiat part, any Ron Paul person listening in now will understand the following completely. The problem is not fiat money. The problem is the private issue of fiat money. Then it operates like a tax.

      Zarlenga is a greenbacker. The greenbackers were left-wing populists in the late 19th century who attacked the gold standard. They got their name because of their advocacy of Lincoln’s fiat paper money, demand notes, which were printed on green paper. When the North went off the gold standard in 1861, the government needed money. The government printed it. The public called the printed notes greenbacks. The greenbackers favored a totally unbacked currency. The Greenback Party began in 1874. It was an inflationist farmer-labor alliance. It promoted the interests of debt-burdened farmers who wanted to steal from their creditors by paying off their debts with paper money. They opposed the re-establishment of the gold standard. They were inflationists. Zarlenga is their ideological heir.

      Back in 1965, I wrote an essay for my not-yet father-in-law, R. J. Rushdoony, who had been taken in by these people, briefly, because they opposed the Federal Reserve. I wrote it to convince him these people were believers in centralized government power. Rushdoony grasped this, and never again promoted them. He was teachable. Zarlenga isn’t. If you want to read my essay, read chapter 11 of my 1973 book, An Introduction to Christian Economics. Download it here:


      Then Ms. Brown continues:

      More interesting is a little-known sequel to this tale. What allowed Germany to get back on its feet in the 1930s was the very thing today’s commentators are blaming for bringing it down in the 1920s — money issued by seigniorage by the government. Economist Henry C. K. Liu calls this form of financing “sovereign credit.” He writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:

      “The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”

      Liu is a Keynesian. Schacht was a Keynesian. Germany was a fascist economy. They had government controls on labor unions and businesses. They had operational price controls and shortages. It was during Schacht’s tenure as Minister of Economics that John Maynard Keynes write his Foreword to the German Language edition of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936). He admitted that his system could be better imposed in Germany’s state-run economy. He wrote:

      The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory.

      Yet this is what Ms. Brown thinks is a really great system.

      I have been dealing with people like her and Zarlenga for over 45 years. They are utterly self-deceived. They think they are conservatives because they don’t like the Federal Reserve System. But what is their recommended alternative? Congress and the U.S. Treasury. They trust the state.

      The reason why these people get a hearing from free market conservatives is that most conservatives have no real understanding of monetary economics, especially Austrian School monetary economics. They have never read a book on monetary theory by an Austrian School economist. They have not spent an hour reading a short booklet, such as my free Mises on Money. They have not spent a couple of hours reading Murray Rothbard’s classic mini-book, also free, What Has Government Done to Our Money?. They are the targeted and intellectually defenseless victims of these fiat money promoters. Conservatives who ought to know better cannot spot these people for what they are: statists, inflationists, and economic ignoramuses. Ludwig von Mises accurately described them as monetary cranks. They are the blind leading the blind into the ditch — the ditch of National Socialism. Ms. Brown gushes:

      While Hitler clearly deserves the opprobrium heaped on him for his later atrocities, he was enormously popular with his own people, at least for a time. This was evidently because he rescued Germany from the throes of a worldwide depression — and he did it through a plan of public works paid for with currency generated by the government itself. Projects were first earmarked for funding, including flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new buildings, roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. The projected cost of the various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. One billion non-inflationary bills of exchange called Labor Treasury Certificates were then issued against this cost. Millions of people were put to work on these projects, and the workers were paid with the Treasury Certificates. The workers then spent the certificates on goods and services, creating more jobs for more people. These certificates were not actually debt-free but were issued as bonds, and the government paid interest on them to the bearers. But the certificates circulated as money and were renewable indefinitely, making them a de facto currency; and they avoided the need to borrow from international lenders or to pay off international debts.6 The Treasury Certificates did not trade on foreign currency markets, so they were beyond the reach of the currency speculators. They could not be sold short because there was no one to sell them to, so they retained their value.

      Within two years, Germany’s unemployment problem had been solved and the country was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries were still out of work and living on welfare. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, although it was denied foreign credit and was faced with an economic boycott abroad. It did this by using a barter system: equipment and commodities were exchanged directly with other countries, circumventing the international banks. This system of direct exchange occurred without debt and without trade deficits. Although Germany’s economic experiment was short-lived, it left some lasting monuments to its success, including the famous Autobahn, the world’s first extensive superhighway.

      Ah, yes, Hitler the creative economic genius who rescued Germany’s economy from the Great Depression. And who was his senior economist? Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht.

      The fact that this woman gets a hearing among conservatives indicates that thousands of well-meaning conservatives care nothing about economic theory. They are willing to accept the entire fascist economy, just so long as the promoter says a few negative words about central banking, even when she then justifies her fiat money theory by quoting the ideas of the only man who ever served simultaneously as the head of both a national central bank and as Minister of Economics: Schacht. This woman praises Hitler’s economics, and conservatives nod their heads and say, “Yes, this is what we need. We’ll call it the ownership society.” It’s pathetic. I have watched this for a generation.

      To understand the economy that Schacht built, read The Vampire Economy. It’s free.


      As soon as Hitler came into power, the head of Sun Oil, J. Howard Pew, began pulling out. He was a Christian and a free marketer. He and his father had competed successfully with the Rockefellers for 50 years. He sold his German holdings to the government. Hitler sent him a letter begging him not to pull out. Pew know it was socialism. He swapped for German steel and pipes. He understood. Ms. Brown does not.

      I have shown you her view of the productive wonders of National Socialism. Here are her views on America.

      In the nineteenth century, Senator Henry Clay called this the “American system,” distinguishing it from the “British system” of privately-issued paper banknotes. After the American Revolution, the American system was replaced in the U.S. with banker-created money; but government-issued money was revived during the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln funded his government with U.S. Notes or “Greenbacks” issued by the Treasury.

      Henry Clay was the intellectual and political heir of Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the First Bank of the United States. Clay was a supporter of the Second Bank of the United States. These were our first experiments in central banking. If you want to know about those corrupt engines of inflation, read Part 1 of Murray Rothbard’s great book, A History of Money and Banking in the United States. Download it here: http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf. For background on Clay’s brand of government boondoggle economics, click here.

      I raise all this because several of my subscribers have asked me if Ms. Brown’s position has any merit. It doesn’t.

      She is a greenbacker. She is in the tradition of Gertrude Coogan and the other 1950’s greenback inflationists whose footnote-free books are kept in print by Omni Books. They all have this in common: they want the American money system to be run by Congress.

      If that’s conservatism, include me out.”


    37. Tim McGreen Says:

      Money is an abstraction, it’s not real. Basically, it’s all Jew hocus-pocus.

    38. Z.O.G. Says:

      Kuda Bux, you should be ashamed posting that Gary North Jew Austrian School disinformation garbage here on the VNN blog. I see that some idiot has posted it in the VNN Forum as well.

    39. Z.O.G. Says:

      They all have this in common: they want the American money system to be run by Congress.

      If that’s conservatism, include me out.”

      Hey, Gary North, the U.S. Constitution specifically delegates the power to coin and regulate money to Congress, you fucking idiot.

      These Jew Austrian School libertardian propagandists take the cake.