Are We a Nation of Serfs?
by Alvaro Alvillar“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.” — Mayer Amschel Rothschild
I thought I’d take the opportunity I have through Big Hollywood to ask about a documentary I’ve recently seen. I consider myself fortunate to have been introduced to this site and all the intelligent, well informed, talented and humorous individuals it has attracted, so what better place than here for some answers, maybe more questions, or just some plain old feedback/dialogue.
Has anyone seen or heard about the 2005 documentary, “America: Freedom to Fascism” by award winning film maker Aaron Russo?
Outside of this documentary, I know very little about Russo or the other conspiracies that stem from his research into the personal income tax and control of government by private banks (like the World Trade Center bombings), so I’m not going there. I’ve never been much on conspiracies, but this is a very well done, professional and seemingly factual account of the birth of the Federal Reserve and the subsequent and permanent taxing of the income of the American people as a result. It at least (maybe) answered a two-part question I’ve had for years, that being, what is this national debt we owe and who are we indebted to? It never made sense that we, the citizens of the United States, were in debt to our own government. In other words, how is it that we are in debt to ourselves? The vast majority of us have always paid the countless taxes we’re asked to, so how do we owe more than that?
If Mr. Russo is correct, our national debt is the result of borrowing money from a private bank, not a government institution, known as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve came into being in 1913 while much of Congress was out during the Christmas holidays and therefore did not get the opportunity to vote on it. In one night, this skeletal crew of Congressmen, “bribed” by powerful bankers, passed the Federal Reserve Act and gave this newly formed institution the authority to print all of our money, lend money to our government, charge us (taxpayers) for the privilege and then, on top of that, charge us interest.
President Woodrow Wilson signed The Federal Reserve Act into law in 1919 and said:
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
Mr. Russo’s film raises many other questions, among them:
There’s the question about why our government needs a private institution printing our own money to begin with, when Congress was given the authority to do just that in the first place and at no cost to the American people.
There’s the question of whether the Federal Reserve is actually legal to begin with.
There’s the question about whether this private banking institution, controlled by who knows who, has taken control of all our country’s gold reserves as collateral for the debt on the money they have “lent” us.
Mr. Russo raises many more questions, but the biggest question of all is why are all of us hard-working Americans allowing our wages to be taxed, when apparently, no such law exists? Where are our representatives while every penny from the personal income tax collected goes to a private bank and not one cent to infrastructure, education, defense or anything else that would benefit We The People? Apparently, it all goes to the interest we owe these unknown debtors and we’re not even making a dent on the debt!
According to the film, no one knows who these people or these banks are. There’s no auditing and therefore no accountability. They have the power to enforce the law as they see fit through the strong-arm tactics of their own police force — the I.R.S. — who are also not accountable to anyone, hence, the fear. These people can literally come to your home and/or business at anytime, take your possessions, arrest and take you away with the help of the local police, on the smallest pretense (no proof needed) and ruin your life. If you can afford it, you’re left having to make sense of it all through the costly legal resources needed to prove your innocence. When people do prove themselves innocent, not only do they not get reimbursed and made whole, they don’t get so much as an, “Oops…sorry ‘bout that.”
The politicians and media seem to be in lock step with these people, which means they give them a free pass and any victory against them by private citizens are suppressed. And when I say “politicians,” according to the documentary, both parties are equally at fault for turning a blind eye. No party holds any moral high ground.
If this documentary has any validity, if even one of the major questions it raises cannot be honestly answered, then both the Democrat and Republican parties are responsible for allowing this to continue.
However, listen to the difference between these two quotes (separated by eight years, one president and two ideologies) on this subject:
“I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un-American. Death and taxes may be inevitable, but unjust taxes are not.” — President Ronald Reagan March 28, 1985
“We cannot be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” — President Bill Clinton March 11, 1993
Mr. Russo also raises questions about our open borders — how Americans may soon need a National I.D. card to travel from state to state, I.D. chips on everything to track our every move, globalization, a one world currency — and more.
Some of this would have sounded like science fiction just a short while ago, but as our current president meets with the other leaders in Europe for the G20 Summit, one of the biggest topics is a new world currency — which China and Russia are pressing for. A global currency is needed if there’s going to be a New World Order … Now I’m starting to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I am concerned!
Let’s remember that right now, our government is “lending” America’s biggest companies and financial institutions almost a trillion dollars and they are now, for all practical purposes, running these businesses. They have certainly started to call the shots! Do I need to say what it is when a government runs their countries businesses?
I know what it isn’t! It’s not what the forefathers of this great country had in mind and paid for with their lives, nor is it what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the supreme law of the land: “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
So, go rent this film if you haven’t seen it and for those of you who have, help me out here…got any thoughts on this? Have we already lost our freedom? Is it too late?
Let’s come together, stand strong, fight for our rights and get back to being a free nation.
All artwork by Alvaro Alvillar. http://studioartservices.com
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
91 Comments
anybody who didn't know this just hasn't been paying attention.
To clarify one point, President Woodrow Wilson made the comment above later (in 1919) after having already signed the bill into law once congress had passed The Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
This is pretty far into conspiracy land. A couple points:
1) Our debt exists because we spend more each year than we take in.
2) The Fed sells bonds to cover that difference. Those bondholders ARE known.
3) The Fed is not some mystery bank that no one understands. Despite the air of independence, the Fed is an arm of the federal government and its leaders are appointed by the President.
4) The Fed has no control over the IRS, that resides in the Treasury.
I did not fear our Federal Government before January 20, 2009. I fear them now. Never before has so much power been given to so few – Obama-Reid-Pelosi. Almost everything I thought could never happen, is happening. I never thought the people of this country would ever let one party have so much power. But, no, it's not too late, yet. We've had one revolution against tyranny. We can have another.
Andrew, did you see the film?
Yeah man, the fix is in! We are screwed with Washington politicians, in my mind there’s not a dimes worth of difference between the 2 parties. Look over recent years when bipartisanship takes hold in congress be damned what the American people think to name a few, CRA(Carter), NAFTA(Clinton), Immigration Reform 1&2(Regan, Bush2, we stopped W immigration, yeah team!), TARP(Bush2). These were all dire emergencies that had to be dealt with for the greater good, whose? We as freedom loving Americans must lead the way breaking the continuing stranglehold of the oppressive federal government. We are definitely being challenged as the Founders envisioned and it is our challenge, and duty to preserve the greatest country the world has ever known, the USA!
I watched about thirty minutes. I've seen all these claims before and they're just not well founded. I don't think Russo understand the nature or structure of the Fed or the Treasury. Man of the facts he cites are simply wrong. He also cherrypicks quotes that fit his interpretation and simply ignores all the evidence to the contrary.
I don't disagree that the Fed is a powerful creature or that the IRS is abusive, or that bureaucrats are unhelpful. But this does not a mysterious cabal make.
What I find hard to believe is that the majority of our fools are embracing a rancid system that has never worked anywhere. This utopian feel good mantra is usually subborned by the stone-cold, stark reality – bureaucrats forcing slave labor, guglags, reeducation camps. etc. The Cuban model is a recent nightmare, and yet mention free health care, education, homes, cars and the people champ at the bit. IMO, 50 years of our subversive educational system has made way to this new thinking. A good start would be to load every academic on a boat and send them to Tazmania (not that I loathe tazmania – contrarily, I like the name and besides, think of Ward Churchill being ripped apart by a tasmanian devil.
Are we a nation of serfs? Not yet, but it's coming. First of all feudalism is the most successful form of "government" as it existed in some form or the other from earliest times until the Great Plague "done in" so many serfs, the feudal lords had to start paying those who were left. (Read Ken Follet's "World Without End", a marvelous read about the 14th century. I doubt Mr. Follet meant for it to be a reflection of what's going on in the world today, but the whole time I read it, I kept seeing parallels with the feudal government of the time and our government today — esp. now under the Obummer!). F. A. Hayek wrote "The Road to Serfdom" in the Forties, equating socialism with serfdom. Communism was just another name for feudalism in that the politburo functioned like nobility (including having their own stores in which to shop) and the "citizens" functioned as serfs.
Here's how neofeudalism works:
1. Using the tax code, tax the upper income EARNER to a median ("earner" being the key word. Those who are fortunate enough not to "work" (such as Teresa Heinz Kerry, 5.5 million income in 2003 on which she paid 12.7% to the IRS) are exempt.
2. Using the confiscated money, elevate the lower income earner and non worker to that same median, creating a single class over which the State (king) and Politicians (nobles) govern (rule).
In feudal times, there was a small, powerless, but wealthy Middle Class (the guilds) and they will be replaced by the bureaucrats.
There you have it.
Interestingly, in Follet's "World Without End", one of the most interesting events was when a land-owning serf (land owning meant that he did not "rent" the property from the noble but rather "owned" the right to work it and keep any profits he made after paying his feudal due) – was killed in a bridge collapse. Since there were no banks, all his wealth was on him in his money bag. Because the only surviving member of the family (a son) could not pay the DEATH TAX — remember the money was on his father at the bottom of the river — he LOST THE LAND and became the lowest of serfs, one who had to "hire out" to the earl and/or to other (land-owning) serfs.
The Death Tax was supposed to expire for one year in 2010. Obummer just rescinded that.
[...] Read the original here: Are We a Nation of Serfs? [...]
My radio newsleady told me this morning that a jury told Churchill that he was fired unjustly for political reasons. Things are upside down in this country.
We will have to fight. That's all there is to it. I don't know if enough people will stand up and fight this, but I will not be numbered among the sheep when all is said and done.
I too am sharpening the pitchfork
"And when I say “politicians,” according to the documentary, both parties are equally at fault for turning a blind eye. No party holds any moral high ground."
Now, you're getting it. I don't think we're serfs yet, we're distracted. Democrat and Republican are just smokescreens, it's the globalists in both parties we need to be voting against, working against. Most of the time, globalism is anti-Constitution, in that it requires us to give up more and more of our individual rights and national sovereignty. There are members of all parties that are all over it. Both President Bushes were as much globalists as Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, they just passed laws that appealed to or made sense to the right , yet eroded our freedoms, while Obama will pass laws that make sense or appeal to the left that erode our freedoms. In this way, half the population is kept complacent and immobilized, until one day we wake up in 1984.
Torches at the ready!
There was a troll a while back who managed to bring "The Creature from Jekyll Island" into every topic. That book was a consipiracy theory about the federal reserve too. I don't know that anything is the Fed's fault, but the current regime's usage of its money is extremely disconcerting.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've never heard of that movie until now, and I haven't read the Jekyll Island book either. But I do know that printing more money doesnt' solve anything (and makes matters much, much worse-See Zimbabwe's economy), and Obama has the presses rolling full speed.
That quote be Clinton is patently scary. That is what I don't understand about liberals. They will defend these people even when they make statements like that.
That quote by Clinton is patently scary. That is what I don't understand about liberals. They will defend these people even when they make statements like that.
But he did not get his job back, and his award was court costs + $1. My take: the jury thought he was fired unjustly, but he's still a jerk and deserved it.
Oy, guess what Im going tosay. Fair Tax. people! Mr. Alvara I realize you have written about this before, but I believe that the Fair Tax is the first step back to freedom from the tyranny that threatens us today. And the issue is just not brought up enough.
Go get yourself a good reloading rig, and then plenty of components to make your own ammo………….
I completely agree with you…thank you for bringing it up…there's are revolution!!!
Excuse my ignorance, but what constitutes a "fair tax?" Who decides what's fair? Is that a percentage, the same percentage, for everyone? Because, that too, can be unfair. 10% of a person's salary (for example) can cause huge problems for a person making $16,000 a year. $1,600 is a hefty pay cut. But for someone making $160,000 a year, the loss of sixteen thousand bucks, isn't likely to leave the person living hand to mouth, one paycheck, hospital visit, or broken car away from disaster.
We need a new Consitutional Convention. Apparently, several hundred people went into the Iowa statehouse and stood in the gallery protesting. I don't think they were disruptive, but they might have been. I got this news second hand. At any rate, the legislators called in local police to remove them. I thought our government worked for us and we had the right to peacably assemble and protest. We need to stand up for ourselves and take back our power or else we show ourselves to be serfs in truth.
It will be very interesting to see if Ron Paul's new legislation to get disclosure from the Fed goes anywhere. Every other private bank in the country has to open their books, identify their board members and officers. Why isn't the Fed held to the same standard?
At the risk of sounding, uncompassionate, how's that my problem, or why should the Government take my money/property with the threat of force and give it to someone else? Let me decide who and how to help.
No problem Nathan, read "The Fair Tax Book" by Linder and Boortz and all your questions will be answered and yes, I did notice my mistake in answer to Holly Berry so let me improve on it: There's "our" peaceful revolution!!!
Except, of course, if your inheritance is less than 3.5 million. Then it's exempt from taxation.
They're doing that anyway, and they're doing that now. And Obama thinks it's fair. My question was, who gets to decide what's fair?
I completely agree with you in that I don't want my hard earned money to go to causes that I don't support.
I researched the following back in October. It's long, hope it doesn't get lost in moderation land:
The last time either party had this much control was in the 95th Congress of 1977-1979, when Democrats held 61 Senate seats and 292 in the House (to 143 Republicans) during President Jimmy Carter's administration.
President Ford (a moderate) was not re-elected largely because of: his pardon of Richard Nixon, inflation and unemployment rates.
Year……Inflation Rate(percent)……Unemployment Rate (percent)
1973……6.2……………………………………4.8
1974……11.0………………………………….5.5
1975……9.1……………………………………8.3
1976……5.8……………………………………7.6
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States
Notice while inflation nearly doubled from 1973 to 1974, by 1976 it was less than 1973.
Also, while unemployment also nearly doubled, it was on it's way back down.
Most of this can be traced to he Oil Embargo of 1973, which caused gas prices to sky rocket, in turn making the cost of every transported good to rise tremendously in cost.
The following years during the time of total Democrat domination we had:
Year……Inflation Rate(percent)……Unemployment Rate (percent)
1977……6.5……………………………………6.9
1978……7.7……………………………………6.0
1979……11.3………………………………….5.8
1980……13.5………………………………….7.0
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States
While unemployment came down, it never got back to 1974 levels and, as you can see, inflation was beginning to runaway and unemployment was creeping back up.
Some more economic highlights of the Carter years:
The Federal Reserve Board's drastic remedies for curtailing inflation led to interest rates of more than 20% by 1980.
The tax burden rose to 20.8 percent of GDP.
The bottom tax bracket was 14 per cent and the top bracket was 70 percent on $200,000 or more.
Sources:
info Please Almanac
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0810628.htm...
US Department Of The Treasurey
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxe...
National Taxpayers Union
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=19
Obama is promising to raise taxes on anyone making $200,000 or more (a.k.a "Joe The Plumber/spread the wealth") and a TRILLION dollars more spending as in "The Great Society 2".
If the Democrats succeed in getting "super-majorities in the House, Senate plus the White House, you can see from the above what we will return to.
Obama IS Jimmy Carter 2
Thanks, Alvaro. Just looked it up on Wikipedia. I could get behind the fair tax, with one caveat. Tax is not added at the register, but included on the price tag. I'd rather pay $10.25 for a paperback that I know I'm going to pay, and I'll know that 30% is going to the Man, than pick up a $7.95 dollar book and get sticker shock at the register.
sadly enough, i am inclined to agree with you. the bad thing is, when the wolves start coming to the doors those who fight back will be labeled conspiracy believers and tin hatters. and as such will be discounted until there are so many they can be no longer ignored, or dismissed.
You're thinking of the flat tax. Completely different. The Fair Tax voids ALL taxes, income, ss, medicare, medicaid, death, gift, property, capital gains all and replaces these with one all consuming consumption tax of 23% . Therefore you get your whole paycheck (except maybe State withholdings) plus you get a prebate to pay for taxes on necessities. This means any one buying NEW goods will be taxed. It will allow money sitting in tax shelters to come back into the US and there will be no need for businesses to send corporate to another country. Oh, yeah, and no more IRS. Check out http://www.fairtax.org. It's well worth the visit.
thats why a consumption tax makes more sense, along with a constitutional amendment limiting the federal governments spending to the taxes gathered, along with a cap on the tax that can only be amended by changing the constitution.
What's wrong with serfs? I spent the best part of my youth serfing some tasty waves off Malibu.
I worked out the numbers one time, and though I don't claim to have an answer yet that would satisfy an economist (who does?), it seemed that some combination of a flat income tax along with a small percentage national sales tax produced the most revenue with the least damage and unfairness.
Thanks, all. Je me coucherai moins bete ce soir.
Too many sharks.
That makes a whole lot more who haven't been paying attention thatn those who have. The worse part is the information isn't even hidden in text books for some to find. I didn't know about most of these stuff until a college political science class. I was fortunate enough to have a fair minded professor teaching it; he could have been a closet conservative for all I know since it was a CA institution.
Keep in mind, we are not as disadvantaged in stopping this socialist insanity as it might seem. When the balloon goes up and it comes time to defend the constitution and bill of rights from Obama and his henchmen, at least two thirds of active duty miitary, 3/4's of retired military, and most of the police will be with us. Bring it on Barack.
Nathan, you're right. This is all part of the same fringe. Poke the surface and you start hearing about the Bitburger Group and the Trilateral Commission, and how this select group is looking to stip us all of citizenship and turn us into slaves — right after they implant monitoring devices in our bodies.
The problem is that these people latch onto a few facts to build their conspiracies and ignore 99% of everything else. Unfortunately, because they do scream so loudly about these facts, they tend to discredit many people who raise serious concerns about those same facts, e.g. the overreach of the federal government; abusive practices by banks and large corporations; and the disturbing nature of the revolving door between government and industry, and of interlocking corporate boards.
The sharks knew I was going to be a lawyer, so they left me alone out of professional courtesy (you did see that one coming, didn't you?)
The power to tax was written into the Constitution, in Article 1 that sets up Congress. Section 8 contains the Taxing and Spending Clause, with Section 9 limiting that power. It was with the 16th Amendment that we got screwed.
There are Direct and Indirect taxes. Direct are on physical things, like say they could tax $10 per person, acre of land, or TV. Otherwise taxes are Indirect, so-called event taxes as something happens, like buying things (sales tax) or earning money (income tax). Direct ones are apportioned by population, how that works is if a tax is levied to raise $1 million and a state has 15% of the US population, it must pay 15% of the total tax, $150,000. As states with poorer populations would tend to complain, such taxes would be regressive, you don't find too many of them. Indirect taxes must be imposed with geographic uniformity, everyone gets hit no matter where in the US you live.
In 1895, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust messed up the government. Since a tax on property was Direct, tax on income from that property (like rent) was also Direct. Taxes on personal property also being Direct, you could argue the same for income you make driving a taxi you own, or business income running machines you own. These taxes would them have to be apportioned. Thus a national income tax became a hopelessly confused affair.
The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, authorized taxing income, from any source, without apportionment and without regard to population. Bring on the national income tax. Hooray.
Before Pollock there were income taxes. In 1861 there was a flat 3% tax on income above $800 to help pay for the Civil War, replaced next year with 3-5% above $600 (progressive and expanded) with a set termination in 1866. Then the Socialist Labor Party "advocated" a graduated income tax in 1887, the Populist Party "demanded" one in 1892. The Democratic Party got one in 1894, and proposed one after Pollock in 1908, had to get the 16th Amendment first.
Such quaint little percentages. And such familiar names and terms connected to income taxes. Wonderful, isn't it?
"Professional courtsey"? No, never heard that one.
The problem with that, is that you never see the tax. That makes it ridiculously easy to raise the tax without anyone noticing — that's how they do it in Germany.
And once they got that power, we further allowed ourselves to get in a mess when WWII came around and they instituted FICA. Up until then, it was our responsibility to withhold and pay our taxes ourselves, but during WWII, they needed the money right away, so as an emergency measure they instituted FICA that directly withheld our estimated tax from our wages and then paid any overwithholdings back to us as tax returns.
Funny how a temporary measure never got revoked after WWII isn't it? If we had gotten rid of FICA, a direct citizens tax revolt today would be much, much easier. Call it a Tea Party with teeth.
Which reminds me. Did Michelle do a professional curtsy for the Queen?
And to add to that, the mere act of taxes being taken before you get the money you work for, means you work for the governement and they perpetuate class warfare and the like. I prefer the Fair TAx so that the government and can work for me and I get the choice of being patriotic, I mean, paying taxes.
You're right there, one of the worst things that can happen to an issue that there should be real concern raised on, is having a group suddenly come up with a conspiracy theory about it. They magnify their talking points on why it's a conspiracy (over one or 2 minor issues that are 'juicy') and then the next thing you know they're talking about alien lizard people and making everyone write off doing any real investigating of the larger issue.
So no I'm not much of a fan of conspiracy theories at all, not only do I find the people that tend to subscribe to them a little bit "off" to begin with, but they can actually harm serious, studied investigation of important matters because any concern on an issue that has a "plot" attached to it is waved off because they assume anyone interested in it is one of the conspiracy nutters.
You're right there, one of the worst things that can happen to an issue that there should be real concern raised on, is having a group suddenly come up with a conspiracy theory about it. They magnify their talking points on why it's a conspiracy (over one or 2 minor issues that are 'juicy') and then the next thing you know they're talking about alien lizard people and making everyone write off doing any real investigating of the larger issue.
So no I'm not much of a fan of conspiracy theories at all, not only do I find the people that tend to subscribe to them a little bit "off" to begin with, but they can actually harm serious, studied investigation of important matters because any concern on an issue that has a "plot" attached to it is waved off because the public assume anyone interested in it is one of the conspiracy nutters.
I thought they call it a "pickpocket"?
Very well put.
Ward Churchill is a tool, the only reason he got -hired- and then tenured was for political reasons. Politically correct reasons no less, that turned out to be untrue for the most part as well. He was fired for plagiarism, something I'm sure no one would have a problem with him giving an F to a student for, so to my mind is an equally valid cause for his termination from the college.
Nope. The Queen wasn't carrying a purse to cut. Otherwise . . . well, who knows?
Liberals believe that when the government (if Republican) puts surveillance on foreigners with known ties to terrorists that they're trampling the Bill of Rights. Yet when the government (if Democrat) actually does tear up parts of the Constitution it's fine because it's for "the greater good." See how it works?
So basically, because most liberals believe the Constitution is a "living document" they can do whatever they want to it, and still be fine with it. So in other words, they're tools with a deep misunderstanding of what the Constitution is, and what the government's role is in regard to the rights of citizens versus the power of the government.
And yeah the quote is definitely scary.
The quote from Wilson is very widely reproduced, but I'm not all all convinced that it is actually genuine. The first two sentences, in particular, are almost certainly invented out of whole cloth. The balance is a sentiment that Wilson certainly did express in his book, "The New Freedom," published in 1913. But he wasn't referring to the Federal Reserve System–the law creating it had not yet been passed. The "group of dominant men" he was talking about would have been the New York bankers like J.P. Morgan who constituted the so-called "Money Trust"–the trust that Wilson and other Progressives sought to supplant by creating the Federal Reserve System.
The quote from Wilson is very widely reproduced, but I'm not at all convinced that it is actually genuine. The first two sentences, in particular, are almost certainly invented out of whole cloth. The balance is a sentiment that Wilson certainly did express in his book, "The New Freedom," published in 1913. But he wasn't referring to the Federal Reserve System–the law creating it had not yet been passed. The "group of dominant men" he was talking about would have been the New York bankers like J.P. Morgan who constituted the so-called "Money Trust"–the trust that Wilson and other Progressives sought to supplant by creating the Federal Reserve System.
Which still tends to hit lots of family farmers since farming takes large chunks of land worth lots of money to developers, and income can be rather marginal. I've known many farmers with full-time jobs to support their farming. When the land gets left to the kids, they can't afford the tax bill and have to sell the farm. It's an underhanded eminent domain that takes from those who love what they do despite the money, and benefits those who love money by causing "community economic opportunities" like housing developments and malls.
Maybe we could get AlGore and the liberals to support a farm exemption, without limits and strings, as better for the environment. If they could ever bring themselves to remove taxes on any form of "the wealthy."
Good point. I didn't think it out to its logical conclusion.
Of course it was, I was basically agreeing with ya down the line. Although you forgot the alien lizard people, I had to get them in there, since you can't have a serious conspiracy theory without alien lizard people.
LOL! Alien lizard people — how true. "Did ancient lizard people build the pyramids?"
[...] The Bluestocking Society placed an observative post today on Are We a Nation of Serfs?Here’s a quick excerptThe Federal Reserve came into being in 1913 while much of Congress was out during the Christmas holidays and therefore did not get the… [...]
Either they did or time traveling Templars…the debate is still ongoing.
I can't even watch the History Channel anymore, it's turned into the conspiracy theory, DaVinci Code, and Nostradamus/Mayan apocalypse channel. Darn shame.
The taxes imposed during the war were declared unconstitutional if I remember correctly. The 16th amendment had the intent of taxing only the wealthy a few percentage points. If we were to go by the intent of the framers of that amendment most of us should not be paying taxes. The intent is how the government is supposed to run not change it to how they feel or what they think is best.
The income tax is oppressive for some. I cannot afford to pay it but being self employed get hit harder than when I was employed by someone else. I can barely afford to feed my family and pay my bills yet I have to pay out money to provide for those who make less, or now to multi billion dollar corporations.
Of course what happens if I don't pay, they will certainly haul me off or take my house or do whatever they damn well please to get what they think I owe them.
This country is so far gone it is not even funny. The public is afraid of what our government has become. We no longer have a government for the people, by the people, of the people. It is a government totally foreign to what our founders set up and envisioned.
The facts are bunk and the logic is entirely ridiculous, but it's still entertaining.
When a left-of-center European politician like Gordon Brown uses that turn-of-phrase "New World Order," he doesn't necessarily mean the same thing by it as did a fringe kook like Aaron Russo. It's an expression that different people have used to signify different things over the years, so don't read too much into Brown's rhetoric.
The Bilderburger Group, the Orange Grove, and Tri-Lat stuff is for conspiracy nuts. Observable history can verify the actions of the Fed, however. Its operations are known. Cause and effect can be identified. Documents corroborated. The economy measured. Trends ascertained. It has nothing to do with "conspiracy." It's well out into the open enough to make a sound judgment – that it is an undemocratic element that punishes saving, and causes distortion in the market (malinvestment). I think the people who do not get this are of questionable curiosity or intellectual honesty.
Churchill was a plagiarist and a phony. That's reason to fire him regardless of his political views.
Thank you! reasonsjester. I was starting to despair that this whole conversation was going to devolve into a bunch of dismissive yuk, yuks.
AndrewPrice, how can you watch 30 minutes of Mr. Russo's film and not watch the entirety? And how can you say the facts were cherry picked? When he presented multiple voices all saying the same thing? If you know the facts to be "cherry picked" then please share with us the rest of the facts. I would love to hear the rest of the story. Is it because it is so fantastic that our politicians would conspire to enslave us? It has been happening all around you for decades now. When are you going to be outraged by it?
Every one of the statements and facts presented can be independently verified. And yet you all sit back so smuggly and dismiss is as 'conspiracy theory'. Believe me I am no fan of Alex Jones or any conspiracy monger. But when someone asks a question, deligently investigates it, and presents their findings how do you just shrug it off so easily?
Thank you Alvaro, for bringing this into the discussion. It is important. And maybe with some more discussion and facts brought into evidence, these yahoos won't be so ready to dismiss you or Aaron Russo.
I had to divide my comment – it was too long – which is interesting considering the length of some of these.
I’m totally opposed to statism, Keynesianism, Marxism, and Fabian Socialism. And the drawbacks of a fiat currency are certainly obvious. The gold standard has always had its attractions for me. But I think your views are far too extreme, to the extent that I can discern them. The Federal Reserve is not legitimate? It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable for the government to maintain a central banking system for the purposes of managing the supply of money & credit in the economy. Even the Second Bank of the United States survived constitutional challenge, even though it was, by design, dominated far more by private banking interests than the Federal Reserve could ever have been.
In the meantime, what is the Federal Reserve supposed to be exactly? Marxian? Fabian? Keynesian? Contrary to what you’ve written here, these are three very different creeds. And for that reason, I’m having trouble making sense of what you’ve written. Perhaps you can help me out by explaining a little further.
Alvaro Avillar, you are most certainly not on the right track.
I can say this for two reasons. First, Russo presents nothing new — every one of his points has been made a thousand times before by other moonbats. Second, nothing Russo presented was accurate.
Sorry to hear you've been enslaved. Send us your address, we'll send you some cookies.
I can dismiss Russo because (1) he said nothing I haven't already heard a million times from a thousand other fruitcakes, (2) nothing he said was accurate or demonstrated that he understands his subject matter.
Also, no one is dismissing Alvaro. I have great respect for Alvaro and I understand his concerns. I dismiss only Russo and his brigade of lunatics.
true
Nude beach? Did that include nude surfing?
By the way, Alvaro, I wasn't referring to you in my initial comment where I said this was "conspiracy land", I was referring only to Russo. If that wasn't clear, I apologize.
G. Edward Griffin is an officer of the John Birch Society.
The Birchers claimed that Eisenhower was a communist stooge, something William F. Buckley called "paranoid and idiotic."
Griffin has written that the Soviet Union/communists control our Supreme Court.
Griffin also argues that cancer is caused by lack of Vitamin B, a claim the American Cancer Society calls "quackery." Griffin's response was to accuse the ACS of lying to protect their financial stake in cancer.
He is a nut.
[...] THE QUANTUM BLOG created an interesting post today on Are We a Nation of Serfs?Here’s a short outlineSome of this would have sounded like science fiction just a short while ago, but as our current president meets with the other leaders in… [...]
Andrew, I got that and never took offense. I can't think of a good one, so I'll just say no to the nude surfing-that I recall…too cold! Yeah, even in sunny southern California.
Conspiracy theories make my head hurt. They also stretch my credibility by asking me to believe that a cabal of highly intelligent, unscrupulous, shadowy figures can successfully run the show from behind the scenes without ever revealing themselves except to a select few, who write books unreadable to all except the tinfoil hat crowd.
I find it easier to believe in human arrogance, greed, and stupidity. These are sufficient to explain how unscrupulous politicians can create huge entitlements which somebody else is expected to pay for. The simplest explanations are usually the best.
Thanks for the heads up Alvaro. I will put it on my list. The bottom line is fiat money is worthless. With nothing of substance to back it up, we are at the mercy of arbitrary 'values' determined by the FED.
Conspiracy or not, it bears looking into. I know Ron Paul has proposed a bill to abolish the FED. I wish him luck.
I'm all about the Fair Tax, it eliminates alot of these issues. Putting the government on a budget they can't change sounds great to me.
Hear Hear, the Fair Tax!
To me it is ridiculous that anyone who has studied the history of banking in the United States and the world could think the Federal Reserve Bank is a legitimate body in a Constitutional Republic. It is, as a matter of fact and not conspiracy, a Keynesian (that is Fabian Socialist) organ of the government, intentionally inflating the currency beyond that of production, and thus causing booms and busts (compare for example, the DJIA versus money supply since 1987, and then look at production numbers).
The "open conspiracy" of the matter is that a central bank and fiat currency are two separate planks of ten planks in the Communist Manifesto. Is it so kooky if it's right there in black and white?
It is almost impossible to explain the significance of any of this to people who have not, for example, read Murray Rothbard's A History of Money and Banking in the United States (free online), or know the basic history from The Bank of North America, founded with the help of Alexander Hamilton, to the First and Second National Banks, finally brought down by Jefferson and Jackson, respectively. Lincoln issued greenbacks in 1863 to finance the Civil War, which ruined the currency for a time, with at least the excuse of a costly war to deflect detractors.
By the time you get to the (contrived) market panic of 1907, the Aldrich Commission that investigated it and recommended a central bank (Senator Nelson Aldrich was a known co-conspirator in the market panic, recalling Barney Frank investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), you can see the writing on the wall.
And fiat currency (what we've been on since about 1970) is always disastrous – ask the Zimbabweans what they think about it.
There's a reason they don't teach economic history in this country. It is for our own good that we believe the statist Keynesian nonsense that passes for prevailing wisdom.
Alvaro Avillar, you're on the right track. The people who smear The Creature of Jekyll Island have probably not listened to G. Edward Griffin's free lecture at Google Video. He is NOT a nut, he is a calm and rational man.
I’m totally opposed to statism, Keynesianism, Marxism, and Fabian Socialism. And the drawbacks of a fiat currency are certainly obvious. The gold standard has always had its attractions for me. But I think your views are far too extreme, to the extent that I can discern them. The Federal Reserve is not legitimate? It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable for the government to maintain a central banking system for the purposes of managing the supply of money & credit in the economy. Even the Second Bank of the United States survived constitutional challenge, although it was, by design, dominated far more by private banking interests than the Federal Reserve could ever have been.
In the meantime, what is the Federal Reserve supposed to be exactly? Marxian? Fabian? Keynesian? Contrary to what you’ve written here, these are three very different creeds. And for that reason, I’m having trouble making sense of what you’ve written. Perhaps you can help me out by explaining a little further.
Alvaro Avillar, you are most certainly not on the right track.
We need to get him to Tazmania quickly, the devils await.
You can watch the movie on my site http://americaholds.blogspot.com It's also available on Google videos. It is a conspiracy against the American people. If we go back on the gold or silver standard, the federal reserve will lose it's grip.
I'm in the fight to get back the America it was planned to be.
I ran for congress in 2008 and now the globalist prosecutor is trying to put me in jail for speaking at a debate. It's not covered by the press because the press got involved in getting me arrested. Posts here confirm my suspicion that people with low intelligence capabilities cannot grasp the conspiracy we face. Yes it is a conspiracy, and yes it's too complicated for most feeble minds to understand. We'll have to all do the fighting for idiots like Kendall. p.s. If you posted here you are now on the lists because anyone interested in Russo's work or anyone who follows any third party candidate is now considered a terrorist by the government. All intelligence gathererd by the US is forwarded to EU and Mossad security services (per the law).
My local paper was bought by globalist this week. The firm that bought The San Diego Union Tribune was Platinum Equity. Platinum equity just bough Delphi in a sweetheart deal out of bankruptcy court for a song. Then the bailout went through and GM bought Delphi from Platinum for 477 million. Then platinum turns around and buys a big loser (SD Tribune), but a company that controls public discourse in San Diego. Too complicated for you people who don't believe in conspiracies? Some day if you wake up, I'll tell you all about how certain mutual funds are made into designated losers, so other funds run by globalist could clean up. We are being systematically looted by a bunch of inbred New Yorkers and their globalist, scum allies from around the country. Why platinum equity. Why did they get to buy Delphi out of bankruptcy? Do I have to explain to you who owned most of hrysler and half of GMAC before the bailout went down. Now the gobalist obama says he's putting Chrysler under if they don't agree to merge with Fiat within one month. After the bailout for the equity funds form New York, now we will put GM in bankruptcy so Tata of India can scoop it up. It's called delivering high-paying jobs to a slave state. Chalk one up for the globalist. Duh!
"It is, in fact, perfectly reasonable for the government to maintain a central banking system for the purposes of managing the supply of money & credit in the economy." — And they've done such a good job at it, from the time of the conception of the Fed, through the 1920s & 30s, through the 1970s all the way to the present, haven't they? The problem, good sir, is that the government doesn't maintain the banking system, bankers do. We fools in the world who aren't on the right track simply call this: "The fox guarding the hen-house." The Fed is supposed to be exactly what it is; bankers controlling and thus gambling with the economy – playing genius when it goes right, and playing dumb when it goes wrong. Only this time; the American taxpayer has to cover their losses at the roulette wheel.
[...] Original post: Are We a Nation of Serfs? [...]
Clearly we are serfs. Compare with this video that is about feudal europe: http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/everywhere-i-l...
You must be logged in to post a comment.