The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The Bankers’ Blood Money: Secession and Invasion
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Defense attorney and constitutional scholar John Remington Graham maintains that despite being two separate countries with different cultures and legislative interests, North and South had been held together by statesmen effecting compromises. Before differing interests could break them apart, hatred had to be fomented between North and South. He states his position clearly: “The American Civil War likewise would not have happened if it had not been planned and fomented.”

Graham says that bankers, principally Rothschilds and Morgans, wanted a massive war that would greatly expand US national debt. By acquiring this debt and having legislation passed that would designate the debt as reserves for the issuance of money and credit, the banks would be able to use their power to expand or contract the supply of money and credit to control government and rule the country. As the quote attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild puts it, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws.” Graham concludes that “the most important consequence of the American civil war was loss of the monetary independence of the United States. And that, as a practical matter, was also loss of political independence behind a facade of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy.’”

To create the hatred necessary for war, the bankers financed John Brown’s Harper’s Ferry raid, the marketing of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the 11-year long court case of Dred Scott, and a variety of other machinations that served to brew hatred awaiting a catalyst to set off war. Graham does not identify the catalyst. He argues correctly that it was not slavery and incorrectly that it was not the Morrill Tariff.

ORDER IT NOW

Most of his monograph, Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve ( turningthetidepublishing.com ), is about the bankers and their money trust. Graham traces step by step the formation of their power over the United States right through the creation of the Federal Reserve. Graham maintains, as did William Blackstone, that the creation of money is properly a sovereign power of the state, not the act of a private interest as it is in the case of the Federal Reserve.

The new system of national banks created on the war debt permitted banks to make loans at interest on the basis of the bonds as reserves while simultaneously collecting interest on the bonds. The currency issued by state chartered banks was driven out of circulation.

Graham draws on the writings, speeches, and warnings of US Representative Charles A. Lindbergh, the father of the famous aviator, and J. B. Jones to make his case.

Himself a northerner, Graham sees the South as the superior civilization, as it was based in religion, morality, and chivalry in contrast to the money-grubbing North with its hidden agendas. The abolitionist movement was far stronger in the South than in the North. Graham reports that in 1832 the Virginia House of Delegates passed a resolution which lamented “the great evils of arising from the condition of the colored population of the commonwealth.”

The problem with freeing the slaves was what would become of them. On the plantations they had food, housing, and medical care. If evicted, there were no welfare programs, Social Security or Medicare. To convert them into a free work force would require care and time. No one knew what to do. Lincoln’s solution was to send the blacks out of the country. After the South was destroyed by war, estimates are that one-fourth of the blacks died of starvation and exposure.

The North was more business-like in its approach. The North wanted the slaves as wage labor that did not have to be taken care of in old age, as the plantation owner had do do. Unlike the plantation, once the northern industrialists used up a person, the person could be discharged.

Being a civilized people, the southern people, Graham writes, had no idea of the barbarity of the North and “were wholly unprepared to resist the juggernaut which had been ruthlessly bought to march against them.”

The war gave the bankers what they wanted. Moving on with his story of the development of their power, Graham explains how the Financial Panic of 1907 was orchestrated in order to set up Congress for the Federal Reserve Act prepared by a handful of bankers and their agents at Jekyll Island.

Graham provides reform measures and a legal basis for getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which has done the United States so much damage, and for restoring the coinage of money to the government of the people.

Seldom in 100 pages counting notes has there been so much information on how we have been deceived and used and how we can retrieve our fate from the hands of bankers. Graham’s monograph, in a real free society in which all explanations were not controlled by the establishment, would become the catalyst for a new investigation of the War of Northern Aggression and its consequences.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History • Tags: Banks, Civil War, Confederacy, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 156 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. chuckywiz says:

    Paul has another excellent article “The case of Dred Scott”. Unfortunately, the comments are closed. This article touches tangentially on the topic. I always wonder about Abolitionist John Brown. Why he is missing from all the slave history. While living in Kansas I learned about him, visited Harpers Ferry in WV, got a different version of history from locals. They did not want to talk too much about John Brown (reminded me the attitude of people in Germany who does not want to get involved into WWII conversation).
    I did find some material on him in the Civil War Museum in Richmond VA. I dont think Black history museum has anything to do with John Brown. Fredrick Douglas when asked to join John Brown politely declined while several other blacks fought with him.

    Anyone cares to comment?

    • Replies: @Patricus
  2. lysias says:

    So, Andrew Jackson, who fought the Bank of the United States, deserves to be on the 20 dollar bill. And Roger Taney, whose staues are now being toppled, was Jackson’s chief lieutenant in that fight.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  3. A group of private bankers “looking after” the money supply of the USA – what could possibly go wrong? Guess we’ve found out, in spades.

    • Agree: Moi
    • Replies: @Bogus Pogus
  4. Patricus says:
    @chuckywiz

    About 15 years ago I visited Harper’s Ferry with my ten year old daughter. We stayed at the grand local hotel overnight and visited all the sites for two days. At that time There was a small gift shop with six different books on Brown. I purchased one of each. There was a good biography, ‘War to the Knife’ about the Kansas and Missouri blood letting, ‘The Secret Six’ about the northern abolitionists who funded his designs for instigating blood shed, one book was written by black authors where they defended their race against the accusations that blacks largely ignored the “great contributions” of Brown. He came from an honorable middle class family but he became a troubled adult. My daughter thought it was the worst vacation ever.

    To sum up, Brown failed in all his many occupations. Each time he left creditors high and dry. He was a psychotic murderer. His clueless abolitionist supporters left the US when violence and war began. He was genuine in his belief of Negro equality. He was a rare abolitionist who would actually dine with blacks at the same table. He was patronizing and liked to admonish Negroes to live responsibly. The seizure of the armory at Harper’s Ferry ended in disaster and death for his allies. Robert E. Lee led the military force which tried and hung Brown and supporters.

    Frederick Douglass was wise to steer clear of psycho Brown. Many others clearly recognized what he was. Only the ignorant and/or perverse admire the life of John Brown.

  5. Thanks, Dr Roberts.

    I’m in Australia where we have a bank, not one of the giants, relatively small, Bank Australia, that’s a co-op, anyone with a savings or cheque account is invited to their AGM, is effectively a shareholder, and lending to any such shareholder is not predatory, it seems. Seems to be working pretty well. Not as old as the “big four” but going well.

    So, probably a wholly government-owed central bank is best, maybe government-owed retail banks are best, private banks made criminal; but maybe co-ops are an alternative.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  6. Certainly the most important suppressed fact about the slave plantation agriculture economy of the American South is that its business and its finances were entirely under the control of New York City financiers, investors, merchants and bankers by 1800. NYC banks wrote mortgages on slave plantations and foreclosed on them, took ownership and operated them on behalf of NYC investors; they wrote mortgages and made loans with the bodies of slaves as collateral; they entirely controlled the import-export wholesale domestic economy of the South and the export trade in cotton, which by 1840 was America’s largest export , grown in the South, shipped by the north — with its profits concentrated, controlled and dispersed from Manhattan. Here are some excerpts from a long discussion of this matter, with references

    By then [1811] New York City’s import-export entrepôt economy had considerably diversified — notably into the interconnected “triangle trade” in sugar, rum distilling, and slaves. “In 1655, the [Dutch West Indies] Company slave ship Witte Paert arrived in New Amsterdam from West Africa with 300 slaves who were sold at public auction, increasing the city’s population by 10 percent.”[52] The city quickly evolved into a major North American center of the trade; a new “slave market opened at the eastern end of Wall Street in 1700.”[53] By 1810 the South’s export and domestic trade and credit were in the hands of Manhattan’s mercantile and investor elite.[54] Over their strenuous opposition New York State — heeding the dictates of its New England conscience — outlawed slavery and Manhattan’s slave markets were closed on July 4, 1827. But until 1861 Wall Street banks continued writing mortgages with slaves as collateral and dealing in them as financial instruments, a service as vital to the South’s slave economy as Manhattan’s coastal and export trade in Southern cotton, wholesale wares, domestic staples and mercantile credit. “In the sale of a Southern planter’s property, a New York creditor took over the slaves … by no means an infrequent practice … many merchants at one time or another owned ‘slave-work plantations.’ One partner in ‘a Broadway firm’ was said to possess twelve hundred slaves, and another three hundred.’ … The cotton factors in the South were either themselves New Yorkers or agents of New York firms. The shipping vessels which carried the cotton either directly to Europe or coastwise to New York or New England were frequently owned by New Yorkers. New York companies took charge of the insurance of the cotton cargoes. The advances necessary for the planting of the new cotton crop came from New York firms and banks. Finally, the domestic and imported merchandise used in the cotton kingdom came mainly from New York.” Colin Woodard summarizes: “The city’s merchants and bankers had extensive ties with Deep Southern and Tidewater slave lords … As the local Evening Post reported in 1860, ‘The City of New York belongs almost as much to the South as to the North.”[55]

    On Wall Street during (and before and after) the Civil War “Gold trading was done at the Gold Room, a trading room located around the corner from the New York Stock Exchange. Trading in the metal took precedence there above anything else. When the Union was victorious on the battlefield, the traders sang ‘John Brown’s Body’ in unison; when the South scored a victory, they switched to ‘Dixie.’ The lack of conscience displayed by the speculators infuriated many, including Abraham Lincoln, who asked a colleague, ‘What do you think of those fellows on Wall Street who are gambling in gold at such a time as this? For my part I wish every one of them had his devilish head shot off.’”[64]

    Colonial New England discountenanced slavery on grounds of religion and political philosophy. “Free Negroes” participated in its communities before the Revolution and after. Crispus Attucks was one of the demonstrators killed in the Boston Massacre. When John and Abigail Adams went to reside in Philadelphia while he represented Massachusetts in the Continental Congress they left their Braintree farm in the care of a local black family. Free blacks fought in George Washington’s Continental army and sailed in New England merchant marine and whaling fleets from before the Revolution until the Civil War and after.[85] In the South also, as early as 1778 Thomas Jefferson “endeavored unsuccessfully to bring about the gradual extinction of slavery by bringing in a bill in the Assembly of Virginia decreeing that all slaves born after its passage should be free…. In 1784 he proposed the prohibition of slavery in the [“Old”] Northwest, and, though defeated that year, his proposal was successful in 1787, when, by a unanimous vote, the Continental Congress prohibited slavery throughout the territory north and west of the Ohio.”[86]

    In the South, as in Manhattan, slavery was predominantly a feature of upper class livelihoods, its profits concentrated “at the very top of the southern economic pyramid.”[87] At the Constitutional Convention later in 1787 these economic interests blocked prohibition of slavery in the Constitution — Jefferson was on a diplomatic mission in France.[88] Two years earlier, in his Notes On The State of Virginia (1785) he described Southern slave plantations as “a species of property annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.”[89] Twentieth-century historian Fernand Braudel concurs about the preponderant influence of absentee middlemen: “The commercial interests of large banks and investment corporations of England exercised a close control over the early plantations of both the Caribbean and the North American mainland.”[90] Already “by the beginning of the eighteenth century the engrossing of the lands of lowland Virginia had progressed so far, that the practice of holding large tracts of wasteland for reserves in the great plantations had become so common, that the authorities of Virginia reported to the home government that the best lands were all taken up.”[91] United Fruit’s Guatemalan operation comes to mind.

    The huge expansion of slavery in the South that commenced in the 1790s was driven by the extension of cotton plantation acreage to profit from the enhanced potential production enabled to Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin, patented in 1793, but the fundamental economic incitement was the sky-rocketing demand for cotton from the textile mills of newly industrialized Lancashire, England, whose mechanical looms induced a rise in imports from the South “from 130,000 lb. to 18,000,000 lbs yearly between 1792 and 1800” and dozens of times that in succeeding decades — a burst of industrial progress whose finances beggared and doomed to proletarian degradation tens of thousands of traditional English home hand-loom weavers: capital in international action. By 1820 cotton represented 32% of America’s exports, reaching 51% in 1840 and 57% in 1860. Far and away America’s largest export business, its finances and trade were managed predominantly by Manhattan middlemen.[93]

    notes

    52. Colin Woodard, American Nations: A History of th Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America (Viking, New York, 2011) p. 71-72.

    53. Nathan Miller, The Roosevelt Chronicles (Garden City, Doubleday, 1979) p. 41.

    54. B.B. Kendrick, “The Colonial Status of the South,” Journal of Southern History vol. 8 no. 1 (February 1942) p. 3-22. Kendrick, then president of the Southern Historical Association, shows that the South’s status vis-a-vis New England and New York City was, from before the Revolution up until the present day, colonial, subject, exploited: “At present finance capitalism and imperialism hold the region in so firm a grip that no escape from the colonial status appears possible short of some catastrophic collapse of the whole imperialistic system.” (p. 4).

    55. Philip S. Foner, Business & Slavery: The New York Merchants & the Irrepressible Conflict (Univesity of North Carolina Press, 1941) p. 3-6. Woodard op. cit. n. 52 supra p. 230 ff. adds: “In 1790 the region’s farming counties — Kings, Queens, and Richmond — had a higher proportion of white slaveholding families than South Carolina…. While the state as a whole was abolitionist, its biggest metropolis was not. [Up until the Civil War] runaway slaves and free blacks were constantly being kidnapped by New York City’s many ‘Blackbirders,’ slave-catching bounty hunters who deported their captures to the plantations.” See also Brother Basil Leo Lee, F.S.C., Discontent in New York City 1861-1865 (Washington, D.C., Catholic University Press of America, 1943); and William C. Wright, The Succession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States (Rutherford, Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1973) p. 164-205.

    64. George Wheeler, Pierpont Morgan and Friends: The Anatomy of a Myth (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1973) p. 78; Wheeler cites Robert Sobel, The Curbstone Brokers (New York, Macmillan, 1970) p. 33 and Panic On Wall Street (New York, Macmillan, 1968).

    85. Page Smith, John Adams (New York, Doubleday, 1962, 2 vols passim; see p. 322 on Washington’s army.

    86. Bertrand Russell, Freedom versus Organization 1814-1914 (New York, Norton, 1934) p. 230, 269.

    87. Robert William Fogel & Stanley L. Engerman, Time On The Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery (Boston, Little, Brown, 1974) p. 171-172.

    88. Charles Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (New York, Macmillan, 1913).

    89. In David Tucker, Enlightened Republicanism: A Study of Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia (Lanham, MD, Lexington 2008) p. 118.

    90. Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century, trans. Siân Reynolds, (New York, Harper & Row, 1982-1985, 3 volumes), The Perspective of the World (vol. 3) p. 401.

    91. Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York, Henry Holt, 1920; 1947; 1958): “The Old West” [1908, Proc. of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin] p. 67-125; p. 87 quoted.

    93. William Clarke, “Industrial,” p. 94-134 in Fabian Essays, George Bernard Shaw et al. (London, Fabian Society, 1889; rpr. Allen& Unwin, 1962) p. 104 quoted.

  7. that the creation of money is properly a sovereign power of the state

    God, not the state, created gold.

    On the plantations they had food, housing, and medical care.

    Welfare. And what did you get in return?

    Unlike the plantation, once the northern industrialists used up a person, the person could be discharged.

    Yet free white men lined up and even crossed the ocean for those jobs. How bad could they have been? If you didn’t like it, you didn’t show up the next day. And the boss wrote you off.

    The abolitionist movement was far stronger in the South than in the North. Graham reports that in 1832 the Virginia House of Delegates passed a resolution which lamented “the great evils of arising from the condition of the colored population of the commonwealth.”

    This was the same year it passed the law which read “No free negro or mulatto shall be suffered to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…”

    Since the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear firelocks, by definition the “free negro or mulatto” was not an American.

    Thus, Lincoln was right. The only place for them was overseas.

    Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin

    Whitney didn’t invent it. He merely perfected those already in the market. Perhaps that was why he was constantly being stiffed for royalties, and always in court. His is the rare pre-1840 patent we have the paperwork for.

    Whitney returned north and switched to the arms industry. The grandsons of the planters who cheated him paid the price.

    the War of Northern Aggression

    We could just as easily refer to the kidnappings of Thomas Sims and Anthony Burns in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the abduction of murderess Peggy Garner from her jailers in Cincinnati, “the War of Southern Aggression”.

    “We went to bed one night old-fashioned, conservative, Compromise Union Whigs and waked up stark mad Abolitionists.” –Amos Adams Lawrence

  8. Paul Craig Roberts, quoting Graham: “The American Civil War likewise would not have happened if it had not been planned and fomented.”

    It’s easy and cheap to make allegations, but some proof (and it obviously hasn’t been presented here) would be nice. In point of fact, both North and South were Christian, and Christianity has a long history of internecine murders and war. They’ve never needed bankers to “foment” their hatred of each other. They’ve been doing it on their own for two thousand years.

    The assumption that everything was sweetness and light between North and South until the bankers stepped in is implausible on its face. You have to wonder what kind of credulous idiot would believe it. Today’s Christians, desperate to blame the cause of the War on anything but their own ridiculous religious convictions, fit this description to a tee. To observers on the scene, it appeared quite differently. To Henry Lewis Benning, who later became a general in the Confederate army, it was clear that slavery was the cause of the War. The South fought to preserve it, and the North, being driven by Christian religious fanaticism, fought to abolish it. As Benning put it: The North entertains the opinion that slavery is a sin and a crime. I mean, when I say the North, the Republican party, and that is the North; and they say that any stipulation in the Constitution or laws in favor of slavery, is an agreement with death and a covenant with hell; and that it is absolutely a religious merit to violate it. The full text of Benning’s speech is available here:

    http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm

    • Thanks: Wizard of Oz
    • Troll: kerdasi amaq
  9. chuckywiz: “I always wonder about Abolitionist John Brown. … Anyone cares to comment?”

    Brown was a Christian religious fanatic, as were most of the abolitionists. The usual story is that he was financed by “The Secret Six”, two of whom were Christian ministers, and none of whom were bankers. Unfortunately, that conflicts with the account Roberts is pushing here. Which was it, Dr. Roberts? Bankers or the Secret Six? Obviously it can’t be both.

    • Replies: @Jake
  10. chuckywiz says:
    @Patricus

    Thanks for the info.
    Are there any documented objective facts about Brown. All we hear is a narrative on his personality. Any debate?
    In my naive opinion associating his name with anti slavery takes the thunder away from corporate designated personalities.
    True Brown was a psychopath (personality), but what he did in anti slavery movement should be debated. After all it was quite significant.

    • Replies: @Patricus
    , @hooodathunkit
  11. that the creation of money is properly a sovereign power of the state

    Once you make that mistake, all is lost. The bankers can’t be trusted to conjure money from nothing and the scum in gov’t certainly can’t be trusted, as everyone knows.

    The idea that something called ‘government’ is a worthwhile institution while ignoring the political class’s control of government is the mistake most people make. Since the political class is in essence a criminal mafia, somehow maintaining that when they preside over making laws they are pure as the driven snow is ludicrous.

    Money is gold and silver that is mined, not conjured into existence. The miners produce the money and trade it for what they need and that’s how real money should come into the market. No need for gov’t in the money creation process.

  12. Patricus says:
    @chuckywiz

    Hello Chuckywiz,

    There are many biographies on Brown. Just google his name and books for almost no cost appear. Plenty of information can be found free on the web at places like Wikipedia (pretty fair in this case) and many others.

    He had a following of some African-American slaves and some abolitionists. Many church bells rang (supporters) when he was hanged. Any admiration was a minority view at the time. The years after the war show varying opinions of Brown, from madman to saint. It makes me consider how little we truly know about any historic figure.

    Some believe the Civil War was fought exclusively to free the slaves. If this is true then Brown is an important figure. Some believe other causes far outweighed the issue of slavery, so Brown would be another obscure nut case within this outlook.

    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
  13. @RoatanBill

    Money is what the state declares to be “legal tender for all debts public or private.” Period. That’s a factual definition. Everything else is confusion and hoax. There never was a gold standard and their is no logical connection between the amount of gold, or silver,( or cowrie shells, or coconuts or cows) available in circulation and the volume of circulating medium an economy needs to function. States have regulated their money supplies well, and ill. Private bankers have always, as a matter of policy, regulated money supplies to serve their own interests, which are, by definition, not the public’s. The problem is keeping the state serving the public interest, rather than the interest of predator oligarchs. This problem is not confined to monetary issues. It is pervasive. That’s the problem our democracy needs to solve. The solution is, as President Eisenhower pointed out, an “alert informed CITIZENRY” acting to “COMPEL” government in the public interest. Obviously the “two-party” system is not working to do this — is working, in fact, as it always has, to prevent this. Time to find a new method of forcing legislators to act in our interest. History offers one that has succeeded where effectively deployed — in the first case, in American history, the Committees of Correspondence — their most recent successful descendant — the Townsend Clubs — “compelled” Congress to pass Social Security (a success) but half-subverted by Congress and FDR’s bait-and-switch substitution of Wall Street’s fake-insurance system to make the poorer 2/3s of citizens “pay-as-they-go” instead of funding pensions out of general taxation (a failure of follow through). But, note, the METHOD worked.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  14. @J. Alfred Powell

    States issue ‘currency’, not money. Currency is a debt instrument, the opposite of money. If all debts were paid off there would be nothing to circulate.

    Your description of money is completely wrong. I suggest, at a minimum, view Mike Maloney’s – Hidden Secrets of Money for an introduction to the difference between currency and money.

    Contending that there’s a way to get the human trash known as a legislature to do the right thing for the population is delusional as is voting for those scumbags.

  15. @RoatanBill

    Nope, this is a bogus shell-game. On the history of “money” see Michael Hudson. A medium of exchange is whatever a community’s economy (a “state”) decides is legal tender. Period. In England until the Napoleonic Wars and after most domestic exchange was done by shop-keepers keeping accounts. This is the oldest method — goes back to ancient Mesopotamia. Problems arise when people take to hoarding the medium and charging for access.

    If we live in a democracy and we let “our” legislature get away with the crimes it does get away with, IT’S OUR FAULT and ONLY WE can fix it. Eisenhower makes that perfectly clear. If you get kicks out of cussing out legislators, go right ahead. It’s futile and infantile and utterly ineffectual, but, whatever rocks your boat.

  16. Corvinus says:

    “He argues correctly that it was not slavery and incorrectly that it was not the Morrill Tariff.”

    It was both. Slaves are long-lived capital assets which reproduce themselves. They appreciated with plantation expansion, depreciated with age, and “vanished” via capital loss (e.g. death, disability, or escape). There was an active secondary market for slaves between plantations, and slaves trained in the industrial arts (called artisan slaves) were contracted out for services rendered.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/empire-of-cotton/383660

    By the time shots were fired on Fort Sumter in April 1861, cotton was the core ingredient of the world’s most important manufacturing industry. The manufacture of cotton yarn and cloth had grown into “the greatest industry that ever had or could by possibility have ever existed in any age or country,” according to the self-congratulatory but essentially accurate account of British cotton merchant John Benjamin Smith. By multiple measures—the sheer numbers employed, the value of output, profitability—the cotton empire had no parallel.

    One author boldly estimated that in 1862, fully 20 million people worldwide—one out of every 65 people alive—were involved in the cultivation of cotton or the production of cotton cloth. In England alone, which still counted two-thirds of the world’s mechanical spindles in its factories, the livelihood of between one-fifth and one-fourth of the population was based on the industry; one-tenth of all British capital was invested in it, and close to one-half of all exports consisted of cotton yarn and cloth. Whole regions of Europe and the United States had come to depend on a predictable supply of cheap cotton. Except for wheat, no “raw product,” so the Journal of the Statistical Society of London declared, had “so complete a hold upon the wants of the race.”…

    Slavery stood at the center of the most dynamic and far-reaching production complex in human history. Too often, we prefer to erase the realities of slavery, expropriation, and colonialism from the history of capitalism, craving a nobler, cleaner capitalism. Nineteenth-century observers, in contrast, were cognizant of cotton’s role in reshaping the world. Herman Merivale, British colonial bureaucrat, noted that Manchester’s and Liverpool’s “opulence is as really owing to the toil and suffering of the negro, as if his hands had excavated their docks and fabricated their steam-engines.” Capital accumulation in peripheral commodity production, according to Merivale, was necessary for metropolitan economic expansion, and access to labor, if necessary by coercion, was a precondition for turning abundant lands into productive suppliers of raw materials.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/civil-war-cotton-capitalism-114776

    That cotton came almost exclusively from the slave plantations of the Americas—first from the West Indies and Brazil, then from the United States. When American cotton growers began to enter global markets in the 1790s after the revolution on Saint Domingue—once the world’s most important cotton-growing island—they quickly came to play an important, in fact dominant, role. Already in 1800, 25 percent of cotton landed in Liverpool (the world’s most important cotton port) originated from the American South. Twenty years later that number had increased to 59 percent, and in 1850 a full 72 percent of cotton imported to Britain was grown in the United States. U.S. cotton also accounted for 90 percent of total imports into France, 60 percent of those into the German lands and 92 percent of those shipped to Russia. American cotton captured world markets in a way that few raw material producers had before—or have since…

    When war broke out in April of 1861, this global economic relationship collapsed. At first, the Confederacy hoped to force recognition from European powers by restricting the export of cotton. Once the South understood that this policy was bound to fail because European recognition of the Confederacy was not forthcoming, the Union blockaded southern trade for nearly four years. The “cotton famine,” as it came to be known, was the equivalent of Middle Eastern oil being removed from global markets in the 1970s. It was industrial capitalism’s first global raw materials crisis.

    The effects were dramatic: In Europe, hundreds of thousands of workers lost employment, and social misery and social unrest spread through the textile cities of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Russia. In Alsace, posters went up proclaiming: Du pain ou la mort. Bread or death. Since very little cotton had entered world markets from non-enslaved producers in the first 80 years after the Industrial Revolution, many observers were all but certain that the crisis of slavery, and with it of war capitalism, would lead to a fundamental and long-lasting crisis of industrial capitalism as well. Indeed, when Union Gen. John C. Frémont emancipated the first slaves in Missouri in the fall of 1861, the British journal The Economist worried that such a “fearful measure” might spread to other slaveholding states, “inflict[ing] utter ruin and universal desolation on those fertile territories” and also on the merchants of Boston and New York, “whose prosperity … has always been derived” to a large extent from slave labor.

  17. Graham says that bankers, principally Rothschilds and Morgans, wanted a massive war that would greatly expand US national debt.

    Nah. I’m sure various bankers and businesses benefitted from the war and some may have pushed it. But this idea that every event in history is secretly controlled by a few bankers is bunk.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Hibernian
  18. OMG! One can actually comment on a PCR post? Wow!

    Honestly, PCR, that’s my biggest beef with you…you almost never allow comments! Your choice, but still…

  19. @lysias

    So, Andrew Jackson, who fought the Bank of the United States, deserves to be on the 20 dollar bill.

    Funny you should say that.
    https://greenpets.co.za/index.php/en/32-paranoid-goy/economics/155-dollar-pictures
    The satanists are a humourous lot. Full of symbols and sick jokes. Jackson on a 20 dollar note, hah! The Fed hated him, why would they honour him then? Follow the link and snigger with us.

    • Replies: @Anononymous
  20. @RoatanBill

    Money is gold and silver that is mined, not conjured into existence. The miners produce the money and trade it for what they need and that’s how real money should come into the market

    What you are saying is that the miners must own all the sources of capital and rule the world. Come to South Africa and see how that is working out for us.

  21. @RoatanBill

    “Money is gold and silver that is mined, not conjured into existence. ”

    Sadly, what they told us in high school is true: money is a measure of value because it is a medium of exchange. If a miner trades gold to a farmer for food, what use has the farmer for gold? Only as a measure of value and a medium of exchange. Some Indians used shells.

    Gold and/or silver are not inherently valuable. They are valuable by consensus. That’s what makes them money.

    • Agree: VinnyVette
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  22. GMC says:

    Good article – Ah the bankers – what we do without them ? We could do a lot better if we had honest ones. Alittle off topic but, my theory about the US purchasing Alaska, right after the Civil War is because I lived in Ak and Russia and have read some articles and facts about the times. A broke country finds ” 7 million bucks” to buy Alaska , at a documented time that leases were that price, not ownership. And the money supposedly, never got to Russia, because the ship sunk = { bankers deam}.lol Anyway, I think the Rothschilds own Alaska, not the USG, and if you notice, few infrastructure plans, if any, for opening up Alaska with roads, bridges etc. has occurred. The Native Corporate lands, can do nothing without government approval, and the rest of the land is in ” Government control”. 2 % is owned by the populace. Alaska is not allowed to have a relationship with the new Russian Federation, also.150 yrs later , the same bankers own over 120 Central banks. Doc Roberts is spot on.

  23. Miha says:

    If he wrote in English, Mayer Amschel Rothschild likely knew that “it’s” is (only and always) an abbreviation for “it is” (or “it has”) and actually wrote “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.” rather than that as quoted.

    Curiously and by the way, one group of people who typically and consistently make this mistake are programmers who work in a medium where a misplaced comma or period can spell disaster or at least a program that won’t run. Accusations that the programming language was written by ‘ a grammar Nazi are, strangely enough, unknown.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  24. Franz says:

    Being a civilized people, the southern people, Graham writes, had no idea of the barbarity of the North

    They knew all about it and quite a bit earlier.

    When Tom Jefferson was president, he said “Those Yankees lied” when a couple of fellows in New England saw a meteor fall, collected its remaining scrap, and made a report of it. Like many Enlightened men of his era, Jefferson though meteors were an old superstition, an optical illusion. So he figured the Yankees were lying.

    So why did Jefferson sign a contract mandating “a more perfect union” with a folk he did not trust?

    In This One Mad Act, Izola Forrester, purported granddaughter of John Wilkes Booth, notes that Freemasons in both the north and south arranged the war, Lincoln’s alleged assassination, and much else. Without going into the details, Booth was a Rothschild operative and since Miss Forrester’s book lots of others have noted the wobbliness of the whole story. Booth’s connections were all Northern and the Lincoln killing is full of holes Not least being he had AWOL security and the moment a shot rang out, fifty armed federal troops stormed in and told the audience what they just saw or else… not an edifying history. Was Abe even in town?

    Easier by far to note that uniting all Europeans was the “project” of the 19th century; pushing it into wars and rearranging it was the project of the 20th century, and killing European Man off entirely is the project of the present century.

    Americans are too parochial. Frogs at the bottom of a well see only a part of the sky. Try for a wider view. Tie what happened here to what happened in Europe’s heartland during the same era and a morbid pattern emerges. Not too pretty but it starts to make much more sense.

    • Replies: @Jake
  25. GeeBee says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    You are undoubtedly right to invoke Michael Hudson in settling your debate with ‘Roatan Bill’ regarding the true nature of money. As Hudson states, ‘money’s true nature is the law’. Whether Mayer Amschel Rothschild did or did not say (and it is certain that he did not) the words Paul Craig Roberts attributes to him, viz: ‘Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws’ is immaterial. The fact is that once the ‘Money Power’, and especially that of the ‘Financial International’ gained control, the essence of the quote had become true. Or in other words, ‘the law’, once it was in the hands of the Money Power, would do that power’s bidding.

    Which leads me to your overly dismissive remarks aimed at Roatan Bill’s understandable condemnation of the snakes, sharks and jackals we know as professional politicians. The key to understanding these contemptible reptiles is to realise that they are little more than puppets. We do indeed live in a democracy, but it is a grotesque oversimplification facilely to state (and especially so using emotional upper-case) that: ‘we let “our” legislature get away with the crimes it does get away with, IT’S OUR FAULT and ONLY WE can fix it.’

    This problem goes to the heart of our much-vaunted ‘democracy’; what it is, what it does and what, more especially, it is and does not. Democracy, in essence, is little more than ‘the corruptibility of public governance by private wealth’ (Francis Parker Yockey). It always ends with rule by an emergent oligarchy (Plato). It is, in short, a gigantic ruse, whose purpose is to cede control of ‘the law’ to the Money Power, whose tactic in achieving this is, of course, that of ensuring that it ‘owns’ all professional politicians.

    This process goes back a very long way. Michael Hudson has much of relevance and wisdom to say on this very topic. Because he is an economist and an economic historian, he has a remarkable perspective on this process and has written much of great insight and value. Because he is sane, and wishes to retain his tenure, he stops short of a full explanation of how we got here. To add this ‘third-rail’ perspective to his analysis, is a question of reading between the lines. ‘Let the reader understand’ (as ancient Jewish scripture often said, when it hinted at their thoughts upon the Roman Imperium.) The process was long, but its aim was to abolish ‘the palace’ and replace it with ‘democracy’. Which is to say, to implement a covert coup, whose result bequeathed absolute power to the merchants and the money-masters.

    I have summed this up as ‘a process that saw the merchant installed on the ruins of throne and altar’. Instead of a king, whose duty and loyalty lay in dispensing good governance, we have instead, all across ‘the West’, a dismal and depressing array of governments proclaiming ‘freedom and democracy’. Or in other words, ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité‘, that old lie designed to disguise rule by ruthless and venal oligarchies. Once these powers had ‘privatised’ these formerly traditionalist nations, and turned them into subservient ‘extractive’ economies, the process was complete.

    There is no going back. We had a chance, in the first half of the twentieth-century, but of course, the ‘good old US of A’ made sure that it was cruelly extirpated, and then this foul crime was disguised beneath a cloak of unremitting propaganda, whose all too successful effect has been to project the crimes of the victors onto the vanquished. We live, metaphorically, in ‘The Twilight of the Gods’. Wotan never expected to get a second chance, and it is certain that the victorious and impregnable Masters of the Universe will make sure that (as they so cynically like to put it) ‘Never Again’ will their loathsome rule be challenged.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  26. Jake says:

    So let’s review our history, shall we.

    WASP culture is the product of the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell made that Judaizing manifest outside theology by making alliance with Jews, specifically becoming partnered with Jewish bankers. From then on, slowly at first, Jewish bankers became essential to WASP Empire. Jewish money was necessary for WASAPs to continue waging wars against non-WASP whites, which means that WASP Empire achieved two main things: do grave harm to white Christian cultures, and make Jews richer.

    Anglo-Saxon Puritan New England was founded by WASPs. New England Puritan culture is the primary component of what would become known as Yankee culture, with other component parts assimilating to it. Yankee culture followed Brit WASP culture in allying with Jewish bankers to do great harm to non-WASP whites.

    Anglo-Zionist Empire.

  27. The national treasury is the perfect vehicle for the need and creation of money supply… lock up, nay, hang the thieves of Wall Street!

  28. Jake says:
    @Franz

    The kulturkampf is about permanent war against Christ and Christendom. It is a total war. It intends total cultural extermination and as close to extermination as it can get of the descendants of the peoples who built and maintained Christendom: whites.

    Whites rebelling against Christendom have been necessary. The Protestant Reformation was necessary. The British Empire covering the globe was necessary. The US ‘civil war’ won by Yankees was necessary.

    The great replacement for Christendom is Anglo-Zionist Empire, and it will act always to destroy and scatter any white culture that is more closely tied to traditional, pre-Modernist European cultures than is WASP culture.

  29. Jake says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    John Brown was a fanatic of a wing of Judaizing heresy. Huge swaths of Yankees were easily led into such fanaticism from the basis 0f Anglo-Saxon Puritanism being a Judaizing heresy.

    Perhaps the usual story is slightly misleading in order to draw people off the true scent.

  30. S says:

    The North was more business-like in its approach. The North wanted the slaves as wage labor that did not have to be taken care of in old age, as the plantation owner had do do. Unlike the plantation, once the northern industrialists used up a person, the person could be discharged.

    Despite talk of ‘tarrifs’ (the South) and ‘slavery’ (the North) as being the causes, I would submit that a primary cause, if not the cause of the US Civil War of 1861-65, was the long standing conflict between the North’s wage slavery (ie the so called ‘cheap labor’/’mass immigration’ system) then centered in wage slave (ie ‘cheap labor’) dependent Massachusetts, and the South’s chattel slave system then centered in chattel slave dependent South Carolina.

    The North’s systematic theft of the value of the individual’s labor (ie the slavery) was most efficiently and profitably taken directly from ‘the immigrant’s’ pay, ie their wages, and hence the term, wage slavery, versus the South’s costly and inefficient means of systematically stealing labor (ie the slavery) by way of physically owning a person as property (ie as ‘chattel), and hence the term chattel slavery.

    The war was over slavery on both ‘sides’, North and South, and I would go so far as saying the evidence was overwhelming that this was the case.

    The implications are simply too hideous, too ugly, too devastating, and hence why it dare not be spoken, let alone generally even be allowed to be thought.

    It would explain the 1840’s construction of Lawrence ‘Immigrant City’, Mass, and the 1850’s construction of it’s sister city, the infamous ‘abolitionist’ center of Lawrence, ‘Bleeding’ Kansas, each financed by the same Lawrence family of Massachusetts textile factory magnates. This is a ‘tale of two cities’ of which little is tought about.

    Latter 1850’s Kansas, where guerilla armies privately financed by Northern industrialists and Southern planters fought for control of the territory, has long correctly been seen as a microcosm of the coming US Civil War.

    But why not go directly to the ‘horse’s mouth’ so to speak on this subject?

    Below are the December, 1863, London economic calculations of Robert Walker, the financial representative of the Lincoln administration in London at the time, and there to obtain loans for the US (Union) war effort from British banks, of which he was quite successful.

    The calculations were part of an open letter (of a series by Walker) attempting to explain why the North had to prosecute the war against the South.

    Lincoln’s celebrated and eloquent 1863 Gettysburg Address to a grieving nation has long been celebrated for it’s brevity. He should, instead, simply have cut to the chase, and read Walker’s economic calculations as for why all those men, North and South, had to die on that Northern battlefield.

    The Continental Monthly (March, 1864) – American Finances and Resources

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….”

    Eliza Andrews, whose family had been one of the self described ‘privileged 4000’ families who ruled over the South thru 1865, and as an adult had lived through the war in Georgia, says in words what Walker had said in numbers with his London economic calculations.

    ‘..a question of dollars and cents..’

    The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl 1864 – 1865 (1908) – Eliza Andrews

    ‘Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world’s chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the “great moral crusade” of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South.’

    ‘It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.’

    [A search of the two ‘Making of America’ websites (or my archives) will find a direct link to Walker’s London economic calculations found in the March, 1864 edition of the Continental Monthly journal. Eliza Andrews quote from the foreward of her 1908 book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl (1864-65) can also readily be found on the net under that book title.]

    • Agree: Cking
  31. Realist says:

    More on again, off again comments…what bullshit.

  32. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Seldom in 100 pages counting notes has there been so much information on how we have been deceived”

    You are still being deceived.

    This just in: The Federal Reserve is _not_ a wholly private inc. Not at all. It is “private” in name only.

    That is, it is a fully protected by the government, [via the Federal Reserve Act – 1913], entity. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/1913-federal-reserve-act.asp

    In other words, it is a fully, protected by government, fiat- money issuing entity which is “legally” protected by the government from market competition from any/all other [attempted]money issuing entities in the US.

    That is: it is a “legal” [ie government protected] “money” issuing MONOPOLY, fer chrissakes!

    Monopolies are supposedly illegal in the US, but that is certainly not the case with the Fed.

    Furthermore, if its of any interest at all, these days, the Fed is ENTIRELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Agree: Cking
  33. @paranoid goy

    “The satanists are a humourous lot. Full of symbols and sick jokes. Jackson on a 20 dollar note, hah! The Fed hated him, why would they honour him then? Follow the link and snigger with us.”

    Are you aware that the Fed doesn’t have anything to do with the design of the currency? “Hah!” And your last sentence just seems racist.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  34. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    8.Dr. Robert Morgan says

    “It’s easy and cheap to make allegations, but some proof (and it obviously hasn’t been presented here) would be nice. In point of fact, both North and South were Christian, and Christianity has a long history of internecine murders and war. They’ve never needed bankers to “foment” their hatred of each other.”

    It seems also easy and cheap for you to make allegations without proof.

    Whether or not the Christians needed bankers, the Jewish bankers were there all the same, not only fomenting the wars but financing both sides. Roberts’ article is perfectly correct. Some of the ‘proof’ you want is in this article on this site:

    https://www.unz.com/lromanoff/lets-have-a-financial-crisis-first-we-need-a-central-bank/

    And you should be ashamed of yourself for such an obvious little package of falsehoods. The world needs people who tell the truth.

  35. whoever try to change this will be killed on the spot,2 war worlds were used to keep this control, to late for the American people to fix this by intellectual means, but not to late to apologies to the world for lettings the bankers control the world through USA mighty.
    the financial collapse will do it ,eventually

  36. @Anononymous

    The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability. Gold and silver check all the boxes.

    The main point is that there’s a significant difference between currency and money although most people mistakenly assume they are equivalent; they are not.

    When something can be created by edict, fatwa, stroke of a pen, that’s not real. It’s phony from the get go. That the bankers want control of money creation via the fraud of currency is understandable because they are vile creatures. That gov’t wants an unlimited supply of money and is willing to settle for currency because the people are ignorant of the difference is also understandable so they can purchase votes and start wars.

    Deficit spending, wars, ridiculous social programs and many other ills are all traceable to the use of unlimited currency instead of limited money. The limiting factor is the key.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @anon
  37. @paranoid goy

    Very shallow thinking on your part.

    Today, the bankers and politicians control the flow of currency and look at the mess they’ve created. Although they emit the currency, the entire world is awash in it.

    The same mechanism that disperses currency disperses money. The miners mine it and need to trade it for goods and services which is how it gets emitted into the society. That was true for thousands of years until the bankers came up with their scam of fractional reserve banking.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  38. zard says:

    In their divide and conquer operations in the political area, bankster jews have set up demonrats vs repugnicans in the USA. These 2 puppet parties are both controlled by bankster jews.

    Trump donated big money to demonrat Hillary Rotten when she ran for senator of Jew York and again when she ran for president the first time. Trump was a demonrat until the banksters tapped him to run for prez as a republican.

    Trump is a banksters’ puppet whether there is an R by his name or a D, as with almost all politicians in high office. It’s not the USA only that is controlled by bankster jews. It’s global.

    Every nation whose central bank is under the Bank of International Settlements, BIS, located in Basel, Switzerland is a nation controlled by the Jewish Banking Empire.

    All the major nations and most lesser nations are controlled by the banksters with the power of money.

    Small time politicians who please bankster jews are praised in the Jews Media and financed into big time politicians. A would-be honest politician is smeared by mass media, de-funded, and ruined.

    A politician like JFK who earnestly tries to shut down bankster evil after he is elected gets de-platformed in the worst way.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  39. anon[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    Money is gold and silver that is mined

    No, they are called ‘gold’ and ‘silver’. There is no such thing as a ‘money mine’.

    Public ownership — as in equity — of the Monetary System is the rational, fair, and also entirely aligned with all religions except that of “Golden” Calf worshipers. “Pay unto Cesaer”.

    There is nothing at all wrong with fiat currency if the owners of the issuing agency are the people. The only issue with fiat is TRADING with other nations using your own fiat. That is it. Sure, for trade, we can use Gold or Oil or Computing Power, or whatever commodity our trading partners will accept.

    I wonder if idiots like you are genuine knuckle draggers or if you are paid to post this crap all over all the time.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Mefobills
  40. S says:

    On my upthread post (#27) I don’t use the term ‘slavery’, as in wage slavery, as hyperbole.

    It’s been researched, and it was families such as the aforementioned Lawrence family of Massachusetts textile factory magnates, which had been of the same sort who had owned chattel slaves in the Northern colonies.

    People are creatures of habit, and what these elite families and hangers on of the North (as well as in the South) with their chattel slaves had become used to was doing anything, but anything, than pay the prevailing real time local costs of labor to (generally) their own Anglo-Saxon people.

    With wage slavery via the so called ‘cheap labor’, aka ‘the immigrant’, you still get your ‘hit’ of systematically stolen labor by simply paying far below* what the prevailing real time local costs of labor is (or would be) without the immigration taking place, or, the immigrant being present.

    True, the often desperate skilled (or, more likely, unskilled) ‘immigrant’ can eventually simply quit if they don’t like the pay, but, that’s perfectly okay in this arrangement, as the hirer can simply quickly take on another desperate immigrant at far below prevailing real time local labor rates, it not being called mass immigration for nothing. The flow of unpaid for labor thus remains unbroken.

    The people not engaged in chattel slavery (or its modern metasticized manifestation, wage slavery, aka so called ‘cheap labor’) ie the vast majority, have (unjustly) over the centuries simply gotten used to the very negative and nefarious results of the practice by a relative few and their hangers on, particularly within the Anglosphere.

    Slavery has rightly, and with reason, been called a scourge upon mankind.

    * Such as often two thirds below prevailing local rates of labor being ‘paid’ to imported Chinese in California in 1876 as determined by the California state legislature when investigating the matter.

  41. Guy Jean says:

    Gary North, historian, has written about John Brown: https://www.garynorth.com/public/17059.cfm
    “THREE INDISPENSABLE MEN

    Two men produced secession. If they had not done what they did when they did, there might not have been secession. Secession was not inevitable. The so-called irrepressible conflict did not have to produce a war that killed 750,000 men. The third man provided the crucial argument for secession when it really mattered.

    One of these men you have never heard of. One of them you have heard of by name, but you know little about him. The third everyone has heard of and knows a lot about.

    The first man was Laurence Keitt. The second was John Brown. The third man was Abraham Lincoln.”

    • Replies: @Atlanta Man
  42. Hibernian says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Problems arise when people take to hoarding the medium and charging for access.

    Problems arise when the medium is expandable or contractable at the whim of politicians and/or powerful private parties. FIFY.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  43. Hibernian says:
    @RichardTaylor

    In an age of self sufficiency and cottage industry, demand for clothing and food for the soldiers aided in the development of the meatpacking and readymade clothing industries.

  44. @anon

    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.
    Socrates

    The bankers and politician control the money, not the people. That should be obvious to anyone. The people gain control of an honest money system when no one can conjure it into existence, as there is no other option. It is when money can be created out of thin air that some get rich and others stay poor.

    Are you a banker or in any way connected to the supply of money or credit? You sound like someone who benefits from the fraud that is central banking, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking.

    History records thousands of years of using PM’s as money and only when the Italians discovered they could perpetrate a fraud did the idea of fiat come about. It took a long time till it was perfected to produce the 100% phony money/currency system backed by nothing more than the BS of the people with a vested interest in its continuation.

    • Replies: @anon
  45. Hibernian says:
    @paranoid goy

    What you are saying is that the miners must own all the sources of capital and rule the world.

    Typical leftist projection, whataboutism, and stuffing words in other peoples mouths. The amount of gold in the earth’s crust was decided by the Lord, not any industrialist or industrialists. Gold originally became a medium of exchange not by government decree, but by natural free choice of traders due to its its corrosion resistance, scarcity, portability, and ductility. (I understand that not all of these are independent of each other.)

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
  46. anon[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    (Not the same anon):

    The characteristics of money are durability, portability, divisibility, uniformity, limited supply, and acceptability. Gold and silver check all the boxes.

    You are wrong, knuckle dragger.

    A defining characteristic of “money”, from time immemorial, has been a ‘stamp’ of ‘the Sovereign’.

    See, minerals and metals that are mined are just that: commodities. You need to take that piece of gold, have ‘the Sovereign’ stamp it with a ‘head’ (sometimes with a ‘crown’) and then, and only then, is it “Money”.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  47. Mefobills says:
    @anon

    Gold and Silver when mined, and then coined, becomes money. The coin is ‘stamped’ by the law, and is now denominated in a money price. For example, if the coin is a dollar, then it is priced in dollars due to the legal stamp.

    The money erupted from the ground (when mined) and hence is seigniorage on the existing money supply.

    Pay unto Caesar was Jesus economic message to Christians, that the money power belongs firmly under secular law, and not religious law. Jesus whipped the money changers for swapping Roman coins for their temple coins. My understanding is the temple coins had no stamp. Jesus also started his mission on the Jubilee year, and was taking on the Pharisee creditor class.

    Public ownership of the money power as in equity… can only be done when the equity is shared by the entire population. The entire population uses money ergo it is part of the commons, or public good, and thus is part of government and law. You cannot distribute equity to the commons via private means.

    You are correct about trading with other nations using a national “fiat” money. Trade between nations is barter, and the unit of account for trading has to be barter related. Keynes Bancor was the closest accounting unit to that ideal. Gold or silver also works well in the international trading role, when the trading gold standard was implemented post WW2 up until 1971. It is a mistake to allow national money to be the unit of account for world trade, especially given Triffin’s dilemma.

    Then you call Rotan Bill an idiot or knuckle dragger. When you use ad-hominems, you lose. Even though you were partly correct.

  48. Mefobills says:
    @Ann Nonny Mouse

    So, probably a wholly government-owed central bank is best, maybe government-owed retail banks are best, private banks made criminal; but maybe co-ops are an alternative

    That would be a mixed system, something like what Canada had from 38-74.

    BIS came a knocking in 74, bribed Parliamentarians, and overturned the State Bank.

    BOC stock was wholly owned by MOF (ministry of finance). MOF would tell BOC to issue sovereign loans AND sovereign debt free.

    MOF and BOC would “sit on” and “jawbone” the private banks further down in the system. This jawboning was to prevent them from doing bad hypothecations.

    Hypothecation is the creation of bank money simultaneously with a debt instrument, and this speaks to your co-op as an alternative. If you have a mixed system with private bank hypothecations, said private banks have to be tightly regulated to only emit credit toward enterprise that can be paid back with higher productivity. This ‘regulation’ was overcome in the case of Canada. Australia also had a State Bank post WW2 with a similar story of being usurped.

    Hudson has done a good job in his latest book, “and forgive them their debts” that explains how humans created money, and that CREDIT was always issued by the Sovereign and the public were in DEBT to the king.

    The public used the King’s money. Today, things are reversed, where the Government of the people is in debt to privateer banks. These banks are “corporations” who ostensibly distribute their equity to shareholders.

    China has made a mistake by allowing mid tier private banks in what amounts to a mixed system. This mid tier has created debts that have pushed housing prices, and now many Chinese are becoming priced out of home ownership.

    Canada’s sovereign money system did well from 38 to 74.

  49. Larry Romanoff: “Whether or not the Christians needed bankers, the Jewish bankers were there all the same, not only fomenting the wars but financing both sides.”

    LOL. Did Jews finance both sides in the Thirty Years War? Or the Albigensian Crusade? Or the genocide of the Arian Christians in N. Africa in the fourth century? Do tell.

    Christians have never needed bankers in order to hate one another, either then or now. Nor did they in the Civil War.

    Larry Romanoff: “Some of the ‘proof’ you want is in this article on this site:”

    You don’t present any proof, only more allegations. Evidently you don’t know the difference.

    Larry Romanoff: “And you should be ashamed of yourself for such an obvious little package of falsehoods.”

    My “little package of falsehoods” mainly consists of a reference to a primary source, Confederate General Henry L. Benning. I only ask, who should people believe, a man who was actually there at the time and involved in these events, or conspiracy theorists with an agenda writing more than a century and a half later, such as you and Dr. Roberts?

    Now that we’re on this topic again, let’s ask another question to which neither of you will be able to give a straight answer. Namely, bankers supposedly “fomented” hatred between North and South over slavery in order to cause the war. Yet, Roberts has also said in other places, such as the followup article immediately after this one, that the North cared little about the slaves. Well, which is it? Clearly, they can’t have been both filled with hate over slavery and indifferent to the negroes at the same time. Thus, the entire narrative is internally contradictory and absurd.

    Slavery provided the moral justification for the war, which was just another in a long series of bloody, fratricidal wars between Christians. Without Christian fanaticism, there would have been no war. Rather than trying to retcon history, you religious nuts should just learn to deal with it, and admit the damage you’ve caused.

  50. Agent76 says:

    2020.05.24 The Agenda animation: Global Debt and COVID-19 Explained

    When global business owners, economists and bank bosses call to end lockdowns, they’re often criticised for putting profit before people, but just how is the COVID-19 pandemic changing our financial foundation?

    https://newseu.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-24/The-Agenda-animation-Global-Debt-and-COVID-19-Explained-QGm1Bu1lHa/index.html

    January 14, 2020 The world is drowning in debt

    In fact, it broke that record in the first nine months of last year. Global debt, which comprises borrowings from households, governments and companies, grew by $9 trillion to nearly $253 trillion during that period, according to the Institute of International Finance.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/economy/global-debt-record/index.html

  51. Slavery provided the moral justification for the war,

    No, it wasn’t the justification. Read Lincoln’s inaugural address. He was jake with slavery and he was concerned with the monies/duties the feds would continue to collect its the south

    The 18960 census showed there were more black slaves in the north.

    In America is is ALWAYS about black slaves and not white slaves .

    The Yankees did not give one crap about their white slaves and they sure as hell were not about to set them free…

  52. onebornfree says: • Website
    @RoatanBill

    “Since the political class is in essence a criminal mafia, somehow maintaining that when they preside over making laws they are pure as the driven snow is ludicrous.”

    Yes, exactly. But because most people live in a fantasy world because they are state indoctrinated via their “education” system, most are psychologically incapable of ever understanding that:

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.”

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    “Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.” Albert J. Nock

    ……and so instead of calling for a huge reduction, or even a total elimination of the state, most call for more state [i.e criminal] “solutions” to problems actually caused by the criminals themselves, thereby guaranteeing the continuation and expansion of their own slavery, and that the problem[s] they want solved will remain unsolved , and get even worse.

    And so it goes….. and will go, until enough people wake up to the fact that they have been enslaved by a 100% criminal class, and look for non-government solutions to all of their problems, simply because government solutions never can/will work.

    “Why Government Doesn’t Work” https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Regards, onebornfree

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  53. Anon[624] • Disclaimer says:

    The Federal Reserve exists solely to make the rich richer, in good times and bad, especially bad. After every crisis, the rich somehow always get richer, thanks to the Fed and its Congress stooges.

    Or maybe we should thank their (((puppet masters))).

  54. Doris says:

    Eustace Mullins – Who rules the rulers ?

    • Replies: @hooodathunkit
  55. kikz says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    for more info on slavery in the other Northern states……

    http://slavenorth.com/

  56. @onebornfree

    It really is a wonder how people manage to function at all when most have no logical reasoning abilities.

    Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.
    Winston Churchill

    I think precisely because they can’t think for themselves that they invented or signed up for the fraud that is government that tells them how to think, what to say and how to act.

    The vast majority of people have convinced me to be a misanthrope.

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  57. @Guy Jean

    Gary North made a few mistakes in his article. The number of delegates in South Carolina was 169 not 159. The vote was legally binding. The South Carolina state legislature called for the elections of delegates to be held for a secession convention. All 169 winning delegates ran as secessionists. A super majority was needed for secession. Of the 12 states that held constitutional conventions eleven voted for secession. Missourians held their convention too early, Arkansas and Tennessee had not yet seceded which at that time would leave Missouri surrounded by a yankee sea. Had they waited a month or so they probably would have joined the South. Sterling Price, president of Missouri’s Secession Convention, would change allegiance and become a Confederate General. Arizona territory would also vote to secede and “join her fellow Southerners,” as her causes state. Lincoln was in Washington and ordered the invasion not of New Jersey, which still had about 20 slaves but Arizona territory where slavery was illegal. His troops had to go through New Mexico, a slave territory, without freeing slaves or arresting government officials. All five “Civilized” Indian tribes seceded and joined the Confederacy which is not surprising considering the North’s history. Ever notice there is no northern counterpart to Oklahoma? See King Phillip’s War.
    Although the constitutional conventions were the legal mechanisms for secession, Virginia Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Texas held legally superfluous but more telling of the sentiment of the people, direct elections on independence or staying with the union. Virginia voted 90% for independence, 80% if West Virginia is included in the tally. Richmond’s vote in the plebiscite was 3,682 to only three for the Union. Two of these votes were doubtlessly cast by the brothers of Elizabeth Van Lew. Lincoln’s capital city didn’t get to vote but in a way they did. The part of DC returned to Virginia in 1848 voted 75% for independence. Tennessee voted 69% for independence with Shelby County (Memphis) voting something like 2500 for independence to only 5 against
    independence. Of the Southern states only Texas had a say in joining the US. The other state were joined in semi-secrecy under the Articles of Confederation and /or the present Constitution and the controlled reconstruction readmission elections. In 1845 Texans voted 66% to give up their sovereignty but with the understanding that they could vote to reinstate their independence any time they wished. Sixteen years later they voted 75% to get out. The US is doubtlessly going through enormous changes. Hopefully the People can control their fate and not the people in charge who are now destroying the country.

  58. anon[139] • Disclaimer says:
    @RoatanBill

    The bankers and politician control the money, not the people.

    Correct. So the remedy is not spewing gold nonsense. The remedy is to have Public ownership of the Monetary System. Tar and feathering the banksters and their servants is optional.

    The issue of how these nations supported by National monies is the main issue. But these can be addressed by system level negotiations, one to one, or as part of a larger grouping of trading partners.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  59. onebornfree says: • Website
    @RoatanBill

    “The vast majority of people have convinced me to be a misanthrope.”

    Tell me about it. 😏 . I’ve been that way for 30 years. My only advice is to constantly remind oneself, when out amongst the masses of humanity that nearly every one of them is bound to be an unchangeably brainwashed , government infatuated slave, and to protect/conduct oneself consistently and accordingly with that unchangeable , unfortunate fact of life fully in mind at all times.

    ” ….These people are a part of that system, and that makes them our enemies – you have to understand most of these people are not ready to be unplugged…”:

    Regards, onebornfree

  60. Mefobills says:

    From PCR’s article:

    Graham says that bankers, principally Rothschilds and Morgans, wanted a massive war that would greatly expand US national debt. By acquiring this debt and having legislation passed that would designate the debt as reserves for the issuance of money and credit, the banks would be able to use their power to expand or contract the supply of money and credit to control government and rule the country.

    Why is the above quote controversial? In-groups of humans have attempted to self-aggrandize at the populations expense since time immemorial. Owning the money power is the only magick that works. The alchemy is not turning lead into gold, but instead is the raking off of rents and unearned income.

    The founders screwed up at the Constitutional Convention. There was a lot of pamphleteering going on at the time, analogous to today, where confusion was being loudly spread.

    Article 1 section 8:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    Borrow from who? That one word is a serious problem. To “emit” money on the credit of the United States is more correct. The King emits his sovereign credit, he does not need to borrow from anybody.

    The first bank of the United States was a compromise, and we can see now that the Revolution was fought in vain, because the money power was not properly codified in law.

    Hamilton brought war debts into the first bank, and then made these war debts the bank’s capital. He did this by convincing Congress to lay tariffs on imports, and to tax whiskey and Postal goods. The tax income then vectored to service bond holders of the first bank.

    Hamilton also made sure there was a sinking fund maintained by the first bank, which was to be used to pay off the bond holders. At that point the first bank would have converted to be a wholly owned bank of the Treasury.

    This was not made clear, and the sinking fund was never used – or at least I can find no evidence.

    Hamilton also made sure that sovereign credit issued by the first bank vectored into productivity modes, so he was not wrong about improving productivity to then pay the bank bond holders.

    The compromise of the first bank and constitutional convention was too weak, and the language in Article 1 section 8 was not strong enough, so privateer tyranny entered into the American polity through the back door.

    Oligarchy has always been with us, as psychopaths and power mad people want to take over and self aggrandize. They do this by enclosing the land, or doing their best to own the money power.

    A certain (((creditor class))) has taken rents and usury mechanisms to the extreme (it is good for the tribe), but all civilizations produce these sort of psychopathic creditors.

  61. Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque: “Read Lincoln’s inaugural address.”

    I have. I quote from his second inaugural:

    One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.

    So General Benning and Abe Lincoln agree, slavery was the cause of the war. QED.

    • Replies: @kerdasi amaq
    , @Georgia
  62. @anon

    Even though you’re a nasty individual, I’ll reply.

    How do you propose that the ‘Public’ gain control of the money system, since the public is dumb as a stump for the most part.

    With a world wide money system of time honored gold and silver denominated in grams, there would be no such thing as a gov’t currency. Prices for goods and services would be in grams of each instead of Dollars in the US, Euro in Europe, etc for the identical product.

    There would be no arbitrage between currencies that don’t exist.
    There would be no currency conversion.
    There would be no central banking as they can not conjure metal into existence.
    There would be no world reserve currency.
    There would be no long term deficit spending.
    There would be less capability wage war as materials would need to be paid for in real money, not counterfeit.

  63. Mefobills says:

    Here is another quote that should not be controversial… it is common knowledge – but apparently news to some people:

    _____________

    https://www.turningthetidepublishing.com/shop/blood-money

    “This work supplies rare insight into the American Civil War as having been caused by powers of high finance in Paris, London, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, which planned, agitated, and financed the conquest of the Old South in exchange for control of banking and currency and major news media in the United States. The war was not fought over secession, slavery, or protective tariffs as we have been told, but was a grab for power which established a banking cartel on Wall Street, still running our country from behind the scenes today.

    and

    The investment of financiers in the destruction of our constitutional order was converted into war bonds which paid interest, supplied currency to money lenders, and became a major capital basis of a new and dominant system of banking and currency across the land.

    ____________

    Note that the financiers were using Hamilton’s compromise, where war bonds had interest that was serviced via the “money lenders” banking system and taxation.

    The South doesn’t get off the hook either though. The southern economy was converting to an extraction economy, whereby a plutocracy of land holders were enclosing the land. They were using negro labor as tractors to make the land produce, especially cotton.

    The south would have fallen into the orbit of the predatory Bank of England.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and John Remington is being a little too lenient on the South. There were massive screw ups on both sides.

    Richard Franklin Bensel in “Yankee Leviathan” is another source which describes the economic polices of the North, which strengthen a privateer financial class.

  64. L.K says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Thanks for your comments.

  65. The human being, in devolution: Seeing our species as separate in skin color is not a highly intelligent reality. Thinking our species is not one organism, globally, is subterranean thinking stuff. Materialism? Money >digital algorithyms since when?!< a hoax wrought upon our humanity. Education, Medicine, Science, Literature, History, etcetera & whatabout ART! 9 Solfeggio Pipes tuningforkshop.com, nanoparticles? i.e., e.g., covid et al etc! Ultrasound & an enlightenment long past due!

  66. Mefobills: “Here is another quote that should not be controversial… it is common knowledge – but apparently news to some people:”

    LOL. A quote from a conspiracy theorist praising his own book! Yeah, that’s very convincing. I have to admit it does explain one thing though. Since you think repeating this nonsense proves something, it’s no wonder you’re so confused.

    Let’s note too that the conspiracy theorist claim that Dr. Roberts endorses is stronger than just that banking interests were involved in causing the war. After he forgets that he’s just said that bankers “fomented” hatred of the South due to slavery in order to cause the war, he goes farther and says that slavery played no role at all, which is contradicted by both General Benning and Abraham Lincoln, along with mountains of other evidence.

    You guys really need to get your story straight.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @kerdasi amaq
  67. @Hibernian

    Yes, and what they’re doing is hoarding (monopolizing) the medium and charging for access. And expansion per se isn’t the problem, it’s expansion for what. Expansion to inflate asset prices and thereby extract higher rents is inflationary. It detracts from the wellbeing of the commonwealth. Expansion to fund genuine infrastructure development and social progress is not — it fosters well-being of the commonwealth. The republic — the res publica — is the commonwealth — that’s what it means. The res privata — “private property” — works to confuse kinds of property. Owning your own home is not the same as owning 10,000 other people’s homes. Calling both “private property” is a fraudulent toxic hoax.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  68. Mefobills says:
    @RoatanBill

    With a world wide money system of time honored gold and silver denominated in grams, there would be no such thing as a gov’t currency. Prices for goods and services would be in grams of each instead of Dollars in the US, Euro in Europe, etc for the identical product.

    The dark ages were because of gold as money. The Temple fell just as Jesus predicted, because gold was consecrated to the walls. That means that gold coins were hidden in the walls, so the walls had to come down.

    The first coins in Rome were bronze disks, the fiat of that era. The stamped value of the Roman coin was much higher than the metallic value.

    After the second Punic war, Rome shifted to precious metals. The “creditor class” that donated their jewlry and gold to be melted down, also demanded that they own military goods production. Of course, they sent shoddy goods to Rome’s soldiers. Soldiers wanted precious metals because they were good as money in foreign lands.

    Rome had no ability to jubilee mounting debts, and worse the gold as money was being consecrated to the vaults.

    The dark ages were over after the fourth crusades, when enormous amounts of Byzantine gold was released from the vaults.

    It took man thousands of years to figure out that money is an abstract thing belonging to the law, and it is retrograde (a step backwards) to make claims about how it is honest money, or it is magical because it is shiny and doesn’t rust.

    The study done by the colloquium i.e.Hudson’s team has completely destroyed the myth that gold and silver predate government currency, or somehow supplant government money. Gold by weight was an extension of the Barley ledger.

    Gold was used as a proxy for Barley weights to allow long distance trade between Temple Cults. It was weighed on a balance beam scale, and its weight was in “grains” (grains of barley). Since it was soft, it could be cut off of a rod cast in gold. A knife could cut off nuggets till the balance beam balanced.

    The Temples in those days also housed a welfare class of widows and orphan kids, and their goods production was sold long distance. Later, the temple city state used gold to trade long distance to acquire minerals and metals not available locally.

    Gold by weight was used originally a proxy for temple clay ledger accounting and between city states.

    Egypt used Gold hoops to trade long distance. Internal to the Egyptian economy, they used clay shards. The shards represented how much grain was in the Silos.

  69. @RoatanBill

    Wrong. All money is not debt. In fact, true sovereign money should be a credit instrument not a debt instrument. The Constitution refers to these credit instruments as “bills of credit” and forbids states from issuing them along with the issuance of coins.

    These credit instruments are not debt. Neither are coins debt. They also are credit “instruments.” Coins and bills of credit operate the same way, so said the Supreme Court in the “legal tender cases.” To issue coins the federal government does not need to tax or borrow to issue them. It merely mints them and spends them into circulation. The same is true for “bills of credit.”

    The government could issue 22 trillion dollars worth of bills of credit and demand that they be used as payment for its debt.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  70. @anon

    Also wrong. Bills of exchange, typically issued or endorsed by merchant banks were part of the money supply from well before economists wrote about “the money supply”. However the notion of the acceptability, or suitability, of gold and silver as money is deeply flawed. Just consider a money supply which can be radically changed by new mineral discoveries! Also consider the implications of huge changes in the market price of gold and silver.. .

  71. @davidgmillsatty

    All money is not debt.

    I said currency is a debt instrument. I never said money is a debt instrument. Learn how to read.

    I didn’t read the rest of your post because you started off with a non sequitur.

  72. @RoatanBill

    Maybe you haven’t heard that there is an asteroid that has quintillions worth of gold and silver, known as Psyche -16.

    https://www.rt.com/business/462703-golden-asteroid-everyone-billionaire/

    Once we begin mining asteroids gold and silver will be as worthless as dirt.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    , @Mefobills
  73. Cleburne says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The most vocal “Christians” in the North were the Unitarians of Boston and environs, who by definition were not Christian in the traditional sense. They recast the Gospel in terms of social progress, with progress meaning the ideals of the French revolution. (Interestingly, Edmund Burke wrote his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” in response to a Unitarian minister in England who shilled for liberty/equality/fraternity.)

    Robert Dabney, Presbyterian theologian and one-time chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson, wrote at length on this issue before, during and after the war. Richard Gamble, a historian at Hillsdale, sums it up nicely in “A Fiery Gospel,” his analysis of that Yankee hymn of hate known as the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Thomas Fleming’s A Disease in the Pubic Mind is worth a look too.

    Also, the Confederate Army was a largish one, and Benning’s opinion wasn’t the only one (which isn’t to say he was wrong, but there were a lot of different perspectives among the Confederate officers and men).

  74. R.C. says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You seem to forget (unsurprisingly) that, in reasonable discussions or debates (and everything else) the term ‘reasonable’ is and properly should be reasonably applied.

    What’s a reasonable level of proof for an article and ensuing discussion is, quite reasonably, less than that necessary for a capital murder trial.

    You claim Dr.Roberts has failed to ‘prove’ his points. Clearly, he’s proven his far better than you have. His are points/conclusions are fact-based and quite reasonable. Yours appear to be merely fact-free ‘talking points.’
    R.C.

  75. Mefobills says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The story is completely straight.

    PCR is not a conspiracy theorist praising his own book.

    Here is a reprint from the article. Roberts is reporting on another author, not himself. PCR even includes a link to turning the tide publishing, where you can buy the book if so inclined.


    Most of his monograph, Blood Money: The Civil War and the Federal Reserve ( turningthetidepublishing.com ), is about the bankers and their money trust. Graham traces step by step the formation of their power over the United States right through the creation of the Federal Reserve. Graham maintains, as did William Blackstone, that the creation of money is properly a sovereign power of the state, not the act of a private interest as it is in the case of the Federal Reserve.

    Conspiracy theorist is a term that came into being after JFK was murdered. You should watch Eustace Mullins about conspiracy (see above Doris #55). There are whole websites about proven conspiracy facts.

    The term Conspiracy Theorist is an implanted memory that carries negative connotations. This means that the propaganda worked and the population was duped. That you use it as an ad-hominem to tear down PCR says a lot about you.

    Conspiracies are simply a group of people conspiring together toward an end.

    The first stage of grief is denial. Older people, rather than reject a lifetime of false narrative, will never get past the denial stage.

    The step past denial is anger, so I won’t be surprised by an angry reply.

  76. @davidgmillsatty

    Most of what cosmologists claim these days is BS, so who cares about their pronouncements.

    Even if it were true, the mining would entail costs so astronomical that anything mined, even plain rock, would cost a fortune.

  77. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You are total moron.
    Every war ever conducted had an underlying economic reason,
    And who believes that reason for war was to free the slaves, (ideological reason) is an absolute idiot.
    The war was about cotton, and the price of it. You retard did not even notice that first action of the north was to cut out access to the port through cotton was exported by South.
    England did pay for cotton higher price than domestic industry. Than the processed cotton products England did sell for lover price in US than domestic industry.
    So the England was blocking US from developing their own textile industry.
    In my opinion Lincoln had no choice than to block export of the cotton.
    The freeing of Negros also benefited textile industries.
    White communities did notice that people working in textile industries were dying after 3 to four years. (With lungs full of cotton fibers) So the slaves were made free to work in textile industries and die there.

  78. Mefobills: “PCR is not a conspiracy theorist praising his own book.”

    The quote you pasted was from the author of the book, you dope. Scroll to the bottom of the page and it’s possible you MAY be able to figure that out.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  79. Hibernian says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    I “hoard” my car. I don’t leave the keys in the ignition inviting someone to steal it. I “hoard” food so that I don’t have to make a trip to the grocery store every other day. When government, oh, excuse me, the “people,” determines the distribution of private property, it’s not private property anymore.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  80. R.C.: “You claim Dr.Roberts has failed to ‘prove’ his points. Clearly, he’s proven his far better than you have. His are points/conclusions are fact-based and quite reasonable. Yours appear to be merely fact-free ‘talking points.’”

    Right, my quoting original documents authored by participants in the war explaining its cause are merely “fact-free talking points”. On the other hand, Dr. Roberts’ wild claim that slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war is accepted by you as “quite reasonable” and “fact-based”. I’m afraid this sort of idiocy says more about your own reasoning abilities than the strength of my argument.

    • Agree: Wizard of Oz
    • Troll: kerdasi amaq
  81. Zarathustra: “Every war ever conducted had an underlying economic reason,
    And who believes that reason for war was to free the slaves, (ideological reason) is an absolute idiot.”

    I don’t contest that money was involved. It’s a part of human affairs and is of course involved with anything a government does. But as I’ve said, Roberts and most conspiracy theorists go farther (too far!) and say that the North’s Christian fanaticism to abolish slavery played no role, which is contradicted by both Lincoln and Benning. If you’d rather believe the conspiracy theory than the statements of men who conducted the war and told you why they did so, look in the mirror to find the idiot.

    • Troll: kerdasi amaq
    • Replies: @Zarathustra
  82. Gold and silver only have monetary value because human beings “affix value to it” .
    Could just as easily be copper or iron ore matters not.
    Paper greenbacks only have value as money because society agrees to “affix value to it.”
    The sovereign govt seal of approval matters, only because the citizenry agree to accept it as “legal tender.”
    If we all agree to stop accepting fed issued money as “legal tender”, it would have no more value than the paper it was printed on.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  83. Fungus says: • Website

    Unrelated but of interest to everyone, if true: The Queen of UK and her evil spawn are all illegitimate frauds. Joseph Gregory Hallet has demonstrated over decades his descendence from Ann Boleyn, and rightful place on the throne. Why this matters is he is a highly intelligent, humorous, honorable man who can speak of occult history in fantastic detail off the top of his head. He has filed all relevant documents which cannot be ignored by the UK bureaucracy, as shown on his website. His goals include rewriting the Magna Carta as intended, to include lodial title to land for people of England, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand. Of note is that the US Constitution will also fall under scrutiny in the exact same fashion, as it was based on the Magna Carta, currently a watered down fraud.

    Queen Idiot has removed her “royal” insignia from Buckingham Palace and gone into seclusion in Windsor Castle. At a minimum this man is fascinating. kingof.uk is his website and his lengthy talks are also found on bitchute.com.

    With God anything is possible, ladies and gentlemen.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  84. More on abolitionist John Brown:

    ‘Many 19th century abolitionists were not peaceful idealists but blood-crazed fanatics, who cloaked their dreams of war and slaughter in apocalyptic, Biblical language. John Brown, whose band began its infamous raid on Harpers Ferry by killing a free black man, is the primary example’. – Gregory Hood

    Robert Moran replies:

    John Brown was a nineteenth century version of an antifa or BLM rioter. He wasn’t just a “blood-crazed fanatic”, he was a blood-crazed CHRISTIAN fanatic. For a good picture of him and how he was regarded by a great many in the North, read Thoreau’s A Plea for Captain John Brown, wherein he is compared favorably to Jesus Christ and the angels. There’s a reason that all of the movements and personages Hood is complaining about resemble John Brown, and that is because, in their egalitarianism, their utopianism, their vision of a raceless future, they are displaying their true colors as just another version of Christianity. Belief in the crucified rabbi has become optional for some of them, true, but the rest of the Christian moral vision remains.

    Hood’s essay isn’t very good insofar as it obscures this connection by calling the current goings-on a “new” religion. Referring to it this way is a hackneyed trope that attempts to strengthen the very root of the plant from which all the evil tendrils spring. Only when it is widely understood and accepted that all men are NOT brothers will the root finally die, and the evil tendrils wither. The white man has this lie as the centerpiece of his culture of lies primarily due to Christianity, not because some “new” religion has sprung up in opposition to it.

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/

  85. Cleburne: “The most vocal “Christians” in the North were the Unitarians of Boston and environs, who by definition were not Christian in the traditional sense. ”

    Christians have been murdering each other in wars over who is or who is not a “real” Christian for two thousand years. The Civil War is just another instance of this fratricidal tendency.

    Cleburne: “Robert Dabney, Presbyterian theologian and one-time chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson, wrote at length on this issue before, during and after the war. Richard Gamble, a historian at Hillsdale, sums it up nicely in “A Fiery Gospel,” his analysis of that Yankee hymn of hate known as the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Thomas Fleming’s A Disease in the Pubic Mind is worth a look too. ”

    Again, this is just more Christians squabbling. Fleming’s book in particular is a prime example of motivated reasoning. As a Christian, Fleming’s objective is to shield his religion from the blame that can be attributed to Christian fanaticism in causing the war. Consequently, according to Thomas DiLorenzo’s review of the book, he ascribes the cause of the war to New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.

    It’s always the same. Christians try to escape blame for the consequences of their own egalitarian religion’s inherent lunacy by blaming others they condemn as heretics, or in Roberts’ case, blaming bankers. I’m not impressed.

    • Troll: kerdasi amaq
  86. @J. Alfred Powell

    “If we live in a democracy and we let “our” legislature get away with the crimes it does get away with, IT’S OUR FAULT and ONLY WE can fix it. Eisenhower makes that perfectly clear.”

    Dwight Eisenhower was a lifelong servant to the MICC. So much for any advice from Ike regarding the MICC. His little brother, Milton, was another piece of work. Chosen to be the first Director of the War Relocation Authority, Milton oversaw the displacement of American citizens of Japanese descent from Southern California to Bum Fuck, USA. Seizing their valuable SoCal properties and redistributing them to connected private buyers. In 1975, 30 years post WW2, Milton may have felt somewhat remorseful, uttering “it was a dark time for the nation”. Not sure if he meant the threat of these Americans committing acts of sabotage or the activities of the Relocation Board.

    Exactly how are “We”, the little we, aka the People, going to fix the inherently corrupt system, where Corporations control both of the two allowed political parties, aided and abetted by Media Corporations that deliver the chosen narrative that we must follow. A system where every US President ever, is related to every other US President. It’s a small club and We are not in it. All of the Checks and Balances are controlled by a small group. If the Supremes won’t review something, they neither check nor balance it. The system has many gatekeepers in place to prevent the Public from gaining entrance.

    The Tea Party in 2014, isolated, marginalized, with no donations nor RNC funds for re-election. Disappeared.

    It was only 18 years from the Boston Tea Party to the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania. George Washington enacted an unconstitutional Federal tax on domestic production of whiskey. Corporations were able to pay the tax as a cost of doing business. It was an onerous burden for the smaller operations. Why did George enact the tax and then brutally suppress resistance? Western PA was far from the Atlantic coast banks and their supply of dollars. The locals used bottles of whiskey as local currency, instead of giving the Bankers their cut. Send in the Federal Troops as enforcers.

    Banker Profits Matter. That’s the American Way.

  87. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You do not understand the basic human needs. And you do not understand the importance of textile industry. Let me give you a hint in the form of question. What is that wheel on India’s flag.
    Here are the human basic needs:
    Food
    Stove on which food is cooked.
    Bed to sleep in.
    House as protection against elements.
    Clothing.
    Because clothing is made by textile industry Textile industry is one of the essential industries that state must have to be economically independent.
    Eventually today the textile industries developed to the point through competition that the prices of textile products become less significant.
    But that was not the reality of those days.
    Lincoln did not want a war he wanted only stop selling cotton to England.
    Nobody did really care about Negroes. Maybe John Brown but he was hanged.
    And Negroes were not set free.
    They only changed from individual ownership to collective ownership by whites.
    (You would probably do not understand so I do have to explain it to you. They were free to leave their owners. But they were also free of any resources and money and most important they did not have any collective social coherence.)

    Negros would have chance to be free only by claiming some arable land somewhere and build a house and live of the land.
    But than all land was already taken by whites.

  88. @VinnyVette

    Sounds right but I think you would find the Gestapo intervening before you had your conspiracy to deny legal tender up and running…..

  89. @RoatanBill

    Maybe you haven’t heard that there is an asteroid that has quintillions worth of gold and silver, known as Psyche -16.

    https://www.rt.com/business/462703-golden-asteroid-everyone-billionaire/

    Once we begin mining asteroids gold and silver will be as worthless as dirt.

  90. Art says:

    Clearly the private owned FED and other Western central banks are not working for humanity. The decisions they make are designed to benefit and maintain the Jew bankers, first and foremost.

    The Constitution says that congress should establish a US owned bank. The Federal Reserve is a misleading name – it is an out and out lie.

    It is time for congress to do its duty and reestablish a US owned national bank – PERIOD!

    p.s. Trump is compounding the problems by using the US money transfer system as a foreign policy war making tool. Shame on him. He is putting at risk the Dollar itself, for the benefit of Israel.

  91. Cleburne says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    You seem to have a real animus against Christians, Dr Morgan. May I respectfully inquire the discipline for which you were awarded your doctorate?

    Anyway, I’ve enjoyed this chat, it reminds me of college. Enjoy your weekend.

  92. @RoatanBill

    Currency just means the instrument carries no interest. It has nothing to do with whether the instrument is a debt instrument or a credit instrument. Coins carry no interest and they are not debt instruments, yet they are currency.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  93. Mefobills says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Other people here are calling you a total moron, I don’t have to.

    This UNZ article relates to PCR article at his website:

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/29/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/

    this is the UNZ link where we are currently at. Notice the similarity?:

    https://www.unz.com/proberts/the-bankers-blood-money-secession-and-invasion/#

    They both say the same thing and refer to this:

    https://www.turningthetidepublishing.com/shop/blood-money

    where you can buy John Remington Graham’s monograph.

    PCR is reporting on Grahams monograph, and when you scroll to the bottom of the page at this link, it only refers to PCR’s website.

    Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative

  94. Hibernian says:
    @Fungus

    Why this matters is he is a highly intelligent, humorous, honorable man…

    Who claims the rightful kingship based on allegedly being descended from Anne Boleyn who died about 500 years ago. Whatta guy!

  95. Mefobills says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    Currency just means the instrument carries no interest. It has nothing to do with whether the instrument is a debt instrument or a credit instrument

    People that get caught up in the “currency” argument are often brainwashed libertarians. They are looking backward to the gold coin era.

    “Currency” is a relic of the age when gold as money served as the basis of bank credit. Banks operated as a inverted pyramid, where gold or reserves supported 10 times as much bank paper “credit.”

    Currency in the 2000 years of gold coin history, was coins – made of silver, gold, or sometimes electrum. Coins jumped from pocket to pocket and from transaction to transaction.

    Currency comes from “to make current” to flow. To jump from pocket to pocket. Pocket money is general demand, pay to the bearer, and is not demanding interest (unless loaned out).

    Today, virtually all money comes into being when somebody hypothecates themselves with a bank loan, whether it is the government or a person. If the government hypothecates itself it is public debt, if a person does it, it is private debt.

    Today, private bank ledger decrements or increments with coin or notes when you withdraw or deposit. In economic speak, it is called on-accounts, where coins and notes substitute with numbers on a bank ledger, where the bank credit as money came into existence with a debt instrument.

    Today all money is on-account, and coins and notes are representations of bank money (bank credit). Currency as a word practically means nothing, and only has meaning in historical context.

  96. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Terribly sorry for misspelling your name above. I am currently reading

    Day of Wrath

    per your recommendation. Thanks for all you do.

  97. Mefobills says:
    @davidgmillsatty

    Once we begin mining asteroids gold and silver will be as worthless as dirt.

    The Spaniards took so much gold and silver out of the new world, it caused price inflation in Spain.

    Spain then thought of themselves as rich, and slowed down their production of goods and services, as they could import goods from elsewhere. The magic gold tree means you don’t have to work and labor to make things.

    Spain soon slipped from relevance as a world power.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  98. Notsofast says:
    @paranoid goy

    The federal reserve is neither federal nor a reserve. They were put in place supposedly to be able to maintain the value of the dollar and they have failed utterly if that b s is to be believed. These private institutions receive 5% for “printing” our money for us. Money is in fact created out of thin air. We are told we must pay interest on the money we create in deficet spending. There is no end to the money available to the war machine or when the ponzi stock market needs to be inflated and the ubber ponzi derivatives market threatens collapse. We may increase the national debt by 50% because of bad flu season. At some point the entire tax base wont pay the vig on the debt. Maybe at that point we will just say our money is backed by the net worth of country. If the value of the dollar falls maybe we can recover our manufacturing base and the people wont be saddled with the debt created by demon bankers. Not likely, but a man can dream, im sure the banksters would burn the place to the ground before allowing that to happen, might be going on right now.
    PS i did not mean to address this to paranoid goy

  99. @Patricus

    Only the ignorant and/or perverse admire the life of John Brown.

    I agree. Henry Thoreau was one of those ignorant and perverse people. I have never understood the attraction of Thoreau’s work. He was an unproductive pissant who lived on largesse from others. John Brown was obviously a murderous lunatic, and as you have said, only ignorant and/or perverse personalities will find anything to admire in him.

    There was a silly little song, “John Brown’s Body” that was written by some northern dimwit and became popular after Brown was hanged for murder. The idiotic Julia Ward Howe used the tune for her disgusting “hymn”, The Battle Hymn of the Republic. New Englanders in those days were gripped by a common insanity that survives in and only slightly different form to this day, though it has been deliberately spread outside of New England.

    • Agree: Cleburne
  100. Moderator Ron…. Is it too difficult in these Covid times to find competent psychiatric nurses as minders?

    Graham says that bankers, principally Rothschilds and Morgans, wanted a massive war that would greatly expand US national debt.” and so on

    However before you read too much and think you are going mad how about finding out what even Google and Wikipedia know.

    J.P. Morgan & Co. was a commercial and investment banking institution founded by J. P. Morgan in 1871. The company was a predecessor of three of the largest banking institutions in the world — JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Deutsche Bank (via Morgan, Grenfell & Co.) — and was involved in the formation of Drexel Burnham Lambert. The company is sometimes referred to as the “House of Morgan” or simply “Morgan”.

    Of course the glib and cheery use of the Rothschild name should have put one on alert…

  101. @chuckywiz

    George MacDonald Fraser’s historical novel Flashman and the Angel of the Lord is the best starting point, although it’s better if Flash for Freedom! is read first. Fully annotated if you want further facts.

  102. @Doris

    LOL ! Long gone but not forgotten neighbor of mine.

  103. @AccountExec

    Their brothers “looked after” the production of American popular culture, too. Boy, have they ever done a stellar job!

  104. Hibernian says:
    @Mefobills

    Inflation due to precious metal discoveries is nothing compared to the printing press inflation caused by governments. Germany in the 1920s and China in the 1940s are only the most extreme examples.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  105. Interesting. I’m always suspicious of anyone shrieking about muh Rothschild, Federal Reserve, or Soros though. To simple. No one guy, family, entity or even country runs the show. Its the whole system. Heres a youtube video of a dude telling the story I saw years ago.

    I don’t take it too seriously. Sure the Fed is a big problem, no doubt. But life for workers/poor folks wasn’t much different before the Fed was created. Its the system. CAPITALISM! Pretty much all wars are for money, resources, land, labor, nothing new i don’t reckon.

    Been thinking about getting this audiobook, was told it is good, its on one of the things that has always been on my mind, how poor white folks were treated in the South:

    Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South (Cambridge Studies on the American South) Hardcover – May 8, 2017
    by Keri Leigh Merritt

  106. Mefobills: “… where you can buy John Remington Graham’s monograph.”

    Sigh.

    Yes, everyone has the link to the book ordering page, so you can quit spamming the forum with that url now. I figured there was a good chance you’d be too stupid to remember which page you lifted the quote from, and I was right. You poor hopeless retard, THAT is the page on which you will discover, if you scroll to the bottom, that the quote you gave above in #64 that begins “This work supplies rare insight …” is in fact from conspiracy theorist Graham praising his own book. From the looks of it, he couldn’t find anyone else to give it a favorable review except PCR.

  107. Zarathustra: “Nobody did really care about Negroes. Maybe John Brown but he was hanged.
    And Negroes were not set free.”

    No, of course they weren’t. And they weren’t made citizens and given the vote after the war either. Slavery never ended.

    What color is the sky in your world?

    • Troll: kerdasi amaq, Cleburne
  108. @Hibernian

    No, you’re denying the key distinction between actual personal property — that is property that pertains to your person and your personal use and is “owned” as such because it is your own for your own use — your usufruct — and property which is “owned” in order to extract a toll from someone else to use it “for their own” at your discretion and charge. The one is personal property, the other is a (il-)legally created supposed license to predate on your neighbors. Refusing to grasp or grant the proper sense of “private” when you talk about “private property” doesn’t change the actual facts, it just makes a fraudulent claim to justify pillage.

  109. @Patricus

    The idea that the war was fought to free slaves is nothing but post-war mythologising invented to confer a faux nobility on the victors. The Union Army was fighting to preserve the Union(by destroying it): not to benefit the black race.

    What really happened was , in effect, a coup d’etat by the Hamiltonians against the Jeffersonians.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
  110. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Dr. Robert Morgan is the sole arbiter of truth; you are not allowed to think differently from him.

    • Replies: @Cleburne
  111. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    The real cause of the war was the refusal of the North to let the South leave in peace.

    • Agree: Cleburne
    • Disagree: Corvinus
  112. Cleburne says:
    @kerdasi amaq

    Yeah, and all those stale boomer opinions. Really a bore.

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
  113. Mefobills says:
    @Hibernian

    Germany’s government did not cause the hyperinflation. They stopped it.

    Germany’s central bank had been privatized under the Dawe’s plan.

    Germany had its debt denominated in foreign money.

    Currency shorting by foreign entities through private banking caused the hyperinflation.

    The shorts were backed by foreign gold, dollars, and pounds.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  114. Georgia says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Why do people lie about this so much? That was just thrown in after the fact of the war–this is what Lincoln actually stated as to Slavery (i.e. it was NOT the cause of the Civil War) — Lincoln could not have been clearer and if he had lived he planned to return all Slaves to Africa:

    “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

    • Agree: Cleburne
  115. Excellent review Paul. In the future, countries need to follow our type of Constitution and not let it be undermined by loopholes and bad judicial interpretations. So, they will have to add more details to their Constitution to prevent what we went through.

  116. Georgia: “Why do people lie about this so much? That was just thrown in after the fact of the war–this is what Lincoln actually stated as to Slavery (i.e. it was NOT the cause of the Civil War) — Lincoln could not have been clearer and if he had lived he planned to return all Slaves to Africa …”

    This brief statement competes with PCR’s Civil War articles for mendacity and absolute, shameless inversion of the truth.

    Why indeed do “people” lie about this so much? Maybe they are just following Lincoln’s example. Lincoln’s second inaugural address is a matter of public record, and in it he finally admitted that slavery was the cause of the War. It’s also true that Lincoln was a politician who at times said that it was NOT the cause of the War. You could say with perfect justice that Lincoln himself invented the lie that the War wasn’t over slavery.

    More, in the second inaugural, he not only says that slavery was the cause of the War, but that all people knew that it was the cause. This implies that there was widespread public support for abolitionism, which of course the result of the War — the end of slavery, and the granting of citizenship and the vote to negroes — shows to have been the case.

    In further emulation of his hero Lincoln, commenter Georgia goes on to repeat the lie that Lincoln, if he had lived, planned to return the slaves to Africa. But this is contradicted by Lincoln’s last public address before being assassinated, wherein he urged that citizenship and the vote to be given to negroes.

    “The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. … The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them?”
    – Abraham Lincoln, last public address, Washington, D.C., April 11, 1865

    The truth is, Lincoln never had any plan to forcibly deport the negroes to Africa. The most he ever did was help a few to voluntarily depart. “Colonization” was to be only for those negroes who volunteered to leave, and Lincoln was smart enough to know that few would do so. He envisioned that the millions that remained in the United States would make excellent Republican voters.

  117. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I think it is fair to say that Lincoln’s opinion changed over time. War tends to do that. And probably like most politicians what he said depended on who his audience was.

  118. Hibernian says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    There is no such thing as “the people,” except on a small scale, and even then it’s questionable. I know; I live in a condo and deal with a condo board that does the bidding of a clique of about 30%, at most, of the owners. Socialism, in practice, is usury practiced by the State. Private ownership of capital goods is a far lesser evil except for a few things like public roads and the military.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  119. Anon[373] • Disclaimer says:

    Lincoln was a typical fork-tongued unscrupulous shitbag politician. The near perfect specimen of the modern day American variety. He’s an American Saint, right up there with FDR.

    https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/colonel-baldwin-meets-mr-lincoln/

  120. Hibernian says:
    @Mefobills

    What about China?

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  121. @Hibernian

    Oh, if your god laid down the rules of economy, there’s nothing more for me to say. But just for interest’s sake, why not try think up a system where an entire geographic region is not relegated to the class of sheep by your god’s choice of metallic soil content distribution.
    Also, and I say this with all the love you deserve, you cannot eat gold, unless you garnish it with say, a beef steak? Which is always the product of labour.
    The issue of money needs a rethink, but if we leave it to ‘economists’ we will keep circling around the gold/fiat/cowry shell nonsense.
    In the meantime I’ll go practice my “leftist whataboutism”. I’ll also reflect on the ductibility of gold and the religious obsession with it.
    I leave you with one last thought: Gold is only sacred to those who pray to vengeful gods, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Incas, Indians, Christians…
    To the rest of us, it makes pretty jewellery.

  122. @Anononymous

    Your comment is irrelevant, I only answer because I need to know where you found racism in my comment, article or anywhere else.
    Or are you a machine programmed to “win” every argument by accusations of racism? Surprised you did not add anti-semitism too.
    Also, go buy yourself a sense of humour, the old one seems to have fallen off.

  123. @RoatanBill

    As I said, come to Africa and see those mined trillions trickle down on us. Just remember to report to the local UN peacekeepers first, walking on the Mine’s land is a sure fire cause for terminal disease…

    …and be careful of getting your economics theories from cowboy movies about prospectors and sherifs… Rio Tinto, Anglo Gold and so on are worlds away from your romantic fantasies.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  124. @paranoid goy

    I don’t have any romantic fantasies. People in different parts of the world encounter conditions not found elsewhere. That’s the way the cards were dealt. I wish it were otherwise, but it’s not.

    I know that an ounce of silver in the hand is worth something more than a green piece of paper with dead presidents on it when the SHTF during a hyperinflation. With the Treasury / Fed printing with abandon, they are blowing up the stock, bond and real estate bubbles currently and sooner or later they’ll burst. The UBI currently showered on the average person is also going to increase prices eventually.

    Economics is bullshit from any and all sources. I wouldn’t trust an Austrian economist any more than the jerks in the Chicago school.

    My economics comes from my own analysis of what is real and what is fake. Fiat currency is fake money. All fiat currencies eventually experience a degradation to zero for a variety of reason because their intrinsic value is equal to toilet paper. Silver, gold, land are real intrinsically.

    • Replies: @davidgmillsatty
  125. @zard

    Now learn to say all that without spewing racist invective. The time spent swearing, could be used for thinking about the way out. Yearnings for genocide not entertained on any side…

  126. @RoatanBill

    Silver and gold and land are real. The fact that they are real does not make them worth a fucking thing. What makes them worth anything is force. George Washington famously quipped that government is force.

    • Replies: @RoatanBill
  127. @davidgmillsatty

    government is force

    Agreed.

    Is it your position that gov’t force is causing the prices for gold and silver to rise?
    As gov’ts routinely come and go, is it your contention that land becomes worthless when the gov’t fails and only regains worth when some new scum form another gov’t that the morons vote for? The fact that it grows food has no worth in the intervening period?

    Normally I wouldn’t reply to a comment as absurd as yours, but I’m interested in seeing if you can double down on such stupidity.

  128. @Hibernian

    You’re totally off topic. The topic is justice and right, not “justifying” your preference for private pillage. “Socialism is usury practiced by the state” is 100% nonsense. Do you know it and don’t care, or don’t know it? Who cares?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  129. @J. Alfred Powell

    Refusing to grasp or grant the proper sense of “private” when you talk about “private property” doesn’t change the actual facts, it just makes a fraudulent claim to justify pillage.

    Not in the case of gold money and its silver currency form. Hard money such as gold was always regarded as portable property before the advent of central banks. Those banks not only control the issuance of currency, they also claim ownership of the currency issued.

    When gold is recognized as money, rather than as simply a commodity, its status as a private (and portable) form of property sets it apart from fiat money. As private property, it is outside the control of those who claim control of their own issued currency, by virtue of its possession by the bearers of hard money.

    • Replies: @J. Alfred Powell
  130. @Twodees Partain

    No, flat wrong. Gold is only money when declared legal tender. The gold standard was never practiced, ever, anywhere, except to a limited extent by England and France and a few other countries — intermittantly including the US — after 1880. There is no connection in reason between the amount of gold or silver available to act as a circulating medium and the amount of circulating medium any given economy needs for its exchanges. The “value” of gold or silver is utterly arbitrary. The primary result of making it legal tender — and otherwise is NOT money — is to empower those who hold it. Brooks Adams spelled this all out around 1890. You’re 130 years behind.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  131. Hibernian says:
    @J. Alfred Powell

    Thank you for supporting your POV with facts and logic.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  132. @J. Alfred Powell

    Is this valuable passage from a book? Please provide the author and title.

  133. It’s the Jew controlling the Nigger!

  134. Mefobills says:
    @Hibernian

    China has four large state banks, which they kept after Tianman square incident.

    I wouldn’t worry about China if I were you, they can pretty much withstand anything given that their money power is sovereign.

    Globo Homo has more than met its match with China.

  135. @Mefobills

    Globo Homo has more than met its match with China.

    Which is exactly why Globo Homo’s promoter/sponsor, Jews Corp., is geeking up its golem, USA, to attack China just as it got its USA golem to needlessly enter WWI and WWII on its behalf.

    “Anarchyst” is outrageously accurate here

    https://www.unz.com/gatzmon/the-last-zionist/#comment-4052056

    with this sad truth:

    In a perverse sort of way, (I)srael’s favorite “war song” is “Onward Christian Soldiers”

    Also sad to see the biggest truth-teller on TV, Tucker Carlson, succumb to Jew hypnosis on this issue of using USA as (((their))) golem to attack China.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  136. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    in the second inaugural, he not only says that slavery was the cause of the War, but that all people knew that it was the cause.

    Would you kindly show me which second Lincoln Inaugural address you are reading?

    Because the copy at the Library of Congress does not state what you claim it does.

    Moreover, as has been explained by PCR and others, lawyers were just as smart then as they are now. The issue of slavery was framed as legal justification, because Lincoln had no right to interfere with state’s rights, per the Constitution. The South wanted a legal battle, not a war.

  137. Genrick Yagoda: “Would you kindly show me which second Lincoln Inaugural address you are reading? ”

    I quoted the relevant part of it above, in comment #62.

    • Replies: @Genrick Yagoda
  138. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    I am assuming you are familiar with the word context. The paragraph before states that neither side wanted war. As I pointed out, all sides wanted to avoid war. Lincoln stated the war “somehow” indicating that slavery was an issue of legal contention, but pointed out

    the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it

    So therefore, he acknowledges that the cause of war was NOT slavery. That was only a legal issue that the South used as their constitutional argument.

    You are a smart guy, I should not have to explain this to you.

  139. Genrick Yagoda: “I am assuming you are familiar with the word context.”

    LOL. That’s pretty funny coming from a fellow with the pen name Genrick Yagoda. The “context” argument is the one that Jews use when they’re explaining that a rabbi saying “Even the best of the goyim must be killed” doesn’t really mean that “Even the best of the goyim must be killed”. Of course not! How could anyone be so stupid as to think so!

    Genrick Yagoda: “The paragraph before states that neither side wanted war. As I pointed out, all sides wanted to avoid war.”

    If true, then war would have been avoided.

    Genrick Yagoda: “Lincoln stated the war “somehow” indicating that slavery was an issue of legal contention, but pointed out “the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it” So therefore, he acknowledges that the cause of war was NOT slavery.”

    Non sequitur. The fact of the matter is he just told you slavery was the cause of the war. It literally could not be put any plainer. If he goes on to give other excuses for it (i.e., preserving the Union), he’s in no way reversing himself. It’s only Lincoln’s attempt to minimize abolitionist sentiment as the cause of the war, and shift the blame to the South instead. He’s just playing to Christian hypocrisy.

    The remainder of the speech is full of abolitionist pathos too, all about the war being the punishment of a just God for what he and his audience see as the “sin” of slavery, calls to prayer, and sympathy for the negro slaves. It’s the kind of language that wouldn’t have been out of place in a sermon given to an abolitionist congregation.

    Keep going. You’re proving my point. Then as now, Christians can’t face the fact that the Civil War was caused by their own religious nuttery.

  140. @J. Alfred Powell

    The recognition of gold and silver as the only valid money is unequivocably stated in the US Constitution; Article 1, Section 10. I’m not 130 years behind, but you are trying to gaslight anyone reading this tripe that you are trying to pass off. The fact that you cite Brooks Adams shows that you are confused by your silly socialist indoctrination and unlikely to know what you’re talking about.

  141. @Hibernian

    Sorry to correct you publicly, but you misspelled “stuff and nonsense”.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  142. Cking says:

    OK, Ok, Mr. Roberts doesn’t want his cherished Civil War hero statues, Confederate memorials, etc. to be desecrated, destroyed, taken away, etc. Nevertheless, I am very disappointed by Paul Craig Roberts’ intention and recital of America’s Civil War history. Why call it the War of the Northern Invasion when there was an awful lot of preparation for what was the Confederate’s War of Secession. Many Union generals were working for the Confederate cause before there was the Confederate States. Arms and ammunition were transferred from the North to the South years before the First Bull Run.

    [MORE]

    General Lee quit the Union Army, took his commission as a general in the Confederate Army, ordered not-yet-Stonewall Jackson to Harpers Ferry, organized 800 men at Philippi, Virginia, and the already organized Confederate Army with arms stolen from Northern Arsenals, was massing troops on their Virginia border just 20 miles from Washington DC that ultimately provoked the not- so-well trained Union Army to respond in First Battle of Bull Run. Of course the war was not about Slavery, it was straight up about succeeding from the Union, as Lincoln himself said so many times before he was elected President; then suddenly the Civil War became all about preserving what was left of the Union, out-like-a-light, on its back; President Lincoln saying very shortly after the election ‘I hope to have God on my side, but I have must Kentucky’.

    Kentucky, being a state with both Union and Confederate sympathies, yet most are benefiting from the economic ties to the North, votes to be neutral, in the coming Civil War, but the Confederates immediately meddle and demand a thousand men be drafted for the Confederate cause. Confederate armies invade Kentucky. At this time, it should be pointed out from the very beginning that most of the so-called Confederate States did not have a clear majority of their own population to go off and secede from the Union. The Confederate leaders, pistols in hand, ordered the votes for a simple majority for a cause so dangerous, destructive and deadly to hundreds of thousands of precious lives. And on the slimmest of margins, lucky to get 49% of the popular vote in any state, this is what supposedly legitimized tearing the Union in two, to institutionalize Slavery and destroy America’s Manifest Destiny, that most definitely would have had the three or four European powers inviting themselves in, furthering the breakup the North American Continent. Wars are fought, because War is profitable, We know that. And I’m sure Confederate President Davis knew it too. I can’t respect that.

    Going on about Lincoln being a racist, in this day and age, is just hysterical. Completely giving Great Britain’s many layered, multiple flank, warfare offensive against the United States a free pass is inexcusable. John Wilkes Booth got his orders from a Confederate cabal ensconced in Canada, members of Palmerston’s Zoo of misfits and anarchists, no doubt. It was British PM Palmerston who conveyed his disgust for the Morrill Tariff. British Navy Yards built blockade runners, and a lot of the corporate/financial crime Roberts talks about is planned in London and it attacked both North and South, especially the Industrial North’s assets and domestic corporations for consolidation and multinational corporations. The Queen is said to own thousands of acres of farm and/or cotton plantations in the South today.

    Thank God for President Lincoln’s prescience, statecraft, the Greenback, the Union Army, and will power, and the men and women who sacrificed everything to keep the United States of America as the Founding Fathers envisioned, a government ‘of the people, for the people, and by the people’. Today we must correctly identify the enemies and their cause of this American Republic; Mr. Roberts is right to be scornful of the Congress; under the current national security crisis they perpetrated, the Democratic Republican party system does not have the slightest legitimacy to even exist. It is the American people who must now perform, employ our prescient minds, we have an obligation and duty to once again keep the United States unified; it is the only imperative, as the whole world, all of humanity is dependent on the stabilization of the United States. Mr. Roberts, find your duty sir, your duty.

  143. @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Then as now, Christians can’t face the fact that the Civil War was caused by their own religious nuttery.

    Christians don’t have any single view of what caused the war. You’re attempting to place the blame somewhere, anywhere, except for where it belongs. Blaming any actual religion for the war is a non-starter and could only be true if you were to place the blame where it belongs: with the New England fruitcakes who weren’t even Christians and their alliance with a few other political sections in existence at the time.

    That group wasn’t any more unified in purpose than are Christians today. There were the zealots who have since thrown over Christianity as a common religion of their ranks, in favor of Unitarianism which is not even a Christian sect, only a thinly based quasi-religion, separate from any other established religion.

    They allied themselves with a class of bankers and industrialists who had no religion other than their own pursuit of power. Another non-religious section in that alliance were the politicians who were members of a new radical party: The Republican Party. Along with some other elements, that group of allies are to blame for the war, which is known by some as “Lincoln’s War”. Lincoln served the interests of that group.

    The ones today who can’t face facts are the descendants of that group: the republicans and their allies, the zealots committed to “progressive” change through political maneuvers and the sanctioned actions of their current class of cannon fodder: ANTIFA and BLM. The alliance of these sections give lie to the idea that the GOP is to be viewed as “conservative”, whatever that is supposed to mean today.

    In that vein, both “progressives’ and “conservatives” who honor the Lincoln mythology will never face the fact that their political ancestors caused the war. They seem to be trying to start another war, this time an actual civil war, rather than a war between two alliances of states in the same union.

  144. Twodees Partain: “Christians don’t have any single view of what caused the war.”

    Of course they don’t. As you demonstrate, they can’t even agree on who’s a Christian and who’s not. Unitarianism is related to Arianism, a sect of Christianity with a history stretching back more than a thousand years. While it’s true they had some influence, you’re also quite wrong about the dominance of Unitarians. Two of the most prominent abolitionists (Harriet Beecher Stowe and her brother, Henry Ward Beecher) were Congregationalists, not Unitarians. John Brown was referred to by his contemporaries as “the last Puritan”, and he too, was a Congregationalist. Lincoln himself had Baptist religious nuts for parents and frequently quoted the Bible.

    Christians also don’t want to accept responsibility for causing the war, which is quite understandable though neither honest nor honorable. So instead, like PCR and this Graham guy whose book he touts, they pretend any number of other hidden actors caused it. But I already refuted this nonsense above, in #50. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

    • Replies: @C.T.
  145. C.T. says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Robert Morgan:

    I’ve been quoting a lot of what you say on my site, especially this folly of American Christians not to acknowledge that they caused the Civil War.

    Yesterday Kevin MacDonald published an article on Christianity in which he says incredible things, always blind about how Christianity has been bad for the white race since its inception.

    Ironically, The Occidental Observer has been taken down and his article can only be read, at the moment, in Counter-Currents:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/08/kevin-macdonalds-preface-to-giles-coreys-the-sword-of-christ/

    I would be very interested to know what you think of that article. What strikes me as incredible is that Tom Sunic and others have told MacDonald that it is time to look at the role Christianity played in white decline. But KMD doesn’t seem to have the slightest intention of responding to these criticisms. He just ignores them.

    I will write something about his recent article/book review. More and more I believe that American white nationalism is flawed insofar as they myopically focus on the Jews when Christianity is the major cause of their misfortune (as I clearly demonstrate on my site).

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  146. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @C.T.

    > “But KMD doesn’t seem to have the slightest intention of responding to these criticisms. He just ignores them.”

    The problem is not exactly Christianity. Alexander the Macedonian was a “Christian” before Jesus the Jew. The problem is idealism in all its forms.

    When you look at Nature, what do you see? Do you see a teacher? Or do you view it as a pupil of your own schizophrenic ideals?

    I know that you are a Christian individualist. When you see a zebra getting torn to shreds by lions, your Christian heart aches. You desire to transform the world according to your Nature-hating delusions. You do not understand that the gene is a unit of evolution, not zebra’s feelings. An honest alien scientist/child will not care about the delusions of Jesus-worshippers, but only about that which exists in reality.

    Aryan Christian Richard Dawkins was asked by a Negro student in England why learning evolution is desirable. Dawkins answered that we must look at the evidence…

    No. The answer is only one – a scientific outlook (lets?) makes us kill easier. Makes us grow larger. Makes us consume more, and more efficiently.

    Those who deny the primacy of biological matter will be trampled by those who love their race and hate foreigners (kill civilized hominids because they are dangerous, enslave non-humans as livestock/national parks as resources). And there is no individual in this. Only the force of a race that seeks survival.

    The concept of “personal happiness” is as outrageously unscientific as that of “soul”. When you look at the geologic record, you see the traces of chemicals, you see the history of blind genetic material progression. Going against it, fighting against Nature, against cruelty and war and individual suffering is a path towards suicide.

    • Replies: @C.T.
  147. C.T. says: • Website
    @Adûnâi

    > “I know that you are a Christian individualist.”

    You’re a troll and after this last response of mine to a troll I won’t feed the troll anymore.

  148. C.T.: “I would be very interested to know what you think of that article.”

    The first thing that stands out is that MacDonald appears to have changed his opinion. I recall him writing at one point something to the effect of “Christianity isn’t necessarily the way forward”. Now he enthusiastically endorses a Christian revival, writing “I agree entirely with Corey’s conclusions and recommendations for a revival centered around the adaptive aspects of Christianity …”

    C.T.: “What strikes me as incredible is that Tom Sunic and others have told MacDonald that it is time to look at the role Christianity played in white decline. But KMD doesn’t seem to have the slightest intention of responding to these criticisms. He just ignores them.”

    Yes, that’s true. His monomaniacal focus on Jews leads him astray, and he has always been loathe to examine the weakness of his philosophical underpinnings. Reading him, I get no sense that anything except what the Jews are doing is important. White people seem to exist for him only to be victims of the Jews.

    I’ve already written about the inherent weakness of the Christian worldview, which is essentially a psychotic view of reality. Corpses come back to life, people aren’t really their bodies, but instead are “souls” trapped inside those bodies, demons not only exist but can somehow possess or take over those souls and bodies, things are conjured out of thin air, etc. Yet this is the worldview that MacDonald thinks is unequivocally good and “adaptive” because, after collapsing Western civilization once, and after a thousand years, it led historically to, among other things, the Enlightenment, the Age of Exploration, colonization of the New World, and science and high technology. But these developments contained within themselves racially destructive consequences. Colonization of the New World caused race mixing, and out of control technology is causing mass extinctions of plant and animal species, perhaps irreversibly damaging the climate and ecosystem. This is supposed to be adaptive? Or again, consider the cultural consequences of scientific birth control technologies and abortion, which have done more to bring about the destruction of the nuclear family than any amount of Jewish animus. How was that adaptive?

    From a philosophical point of view, MacDonald is being exceedingly naive, if not disingenuous. Whatever he approves of is adaptive. Anything he disapproves of isn’t. It’s the same approach he uses to Christianity. If Kevin MacDonald personally approves of it, it’s “good” Christianity (e.g., Luther’s disparaging comments about Jews, or Chrysostom’s), whereas if it’s a Christian ideology he doesn’t find it to his taste (e.g. the Scofield Bible, Christian Zionism, Christian churches sponsoring immigration, etc.) it’s been “corrupted”. These verdicts are absolute and eternal, too. There’s no sense here that conditions may change, and behavior that was once adaptive may later be maladaptive; no sense that some of the “bad” things may have benefits, just as the supposedly “good” things contained racially destructive consequences. Christianity itself, notably, may be the most prominent of the things that were “bad” but had benefits; something that once was of use, but now is only an impediment. MacDonald’s view of it is static, not dynamic, and that’s a weakness.

    No one can tell what is adaptive or maladaptive in advance. One can only pass judgement on that in retrospect, and even that judgement will unavoidably be from a particular point of view containing various assumptions and moral values. It’s not too surprising then that MacDonald, with his Christian moral values, praises Christianity as the way forward.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
    , @C.T.
  149. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Have you read Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind by Tom Holland? It’s been mentioned in the relevant article. It seems like a book about Christian axiology!

    > “Now he enthusiastically endorses a Christian revival…”

    Christianity must be right, and so must Evola: devolution is the order of the day.

    > “I’ve already written about the inherent weakness of the Christian worldview, which is essentially a psychotic view of reality.”

    Are these views even relevant? Are we trying here to save the Aryan race, or determine whether the dead can be resurrected? Or are you positing a separate view (that I am holding) – that a strict, totalitarian ideology based on reality would offer a superior probability of survival to my race compared to a similar ideology that is based in fiction?

    In the end, all that matters is the deeds, not the words. This way, you can finally found out who the true Christian is – the one who triumphs. Determine the tenets of Christianity from their behaviour. Then check whether they reflect the Bible – it so happens, they mirror the written word perfectly. Galatians 3:28 is the dominant creed, not the extermination of the Zulus and Palestinians.

    > “…and after a thousand years, it led historically to, among other things, the Enlightenment, the Age of Exploration, colonization of the New World, and science and high technology.”

    Do you credit Christianity with the scientific revolution of the 17th ct. onwards? Do you think, Europe would have had a better chance against the Turks without steam steel ships? After all, it was the scientific revolution that has the potential truly to kill Jesus once and for all – with the advent of Darwinism.

    I tend to view history as not predetermined. I see it as full of waves and storms. Many a battle could have set a different path had the outcome been changed. Frederick II von Hohenzollern might have doomed Prussia. One Napoléon I could have modified so much, it would have been unrecognizable. Wilhelm II might have have prolonged the 43-year-old peace. Darwin might have been taken to heart among the Anglos. Hitler could have won. Gorbachev, likewise.

    At its peak around 500 BCE, Sparta had some 20,000–35,000 citizens, plus numerous helots and perioikoi.

    Isn’t that too much to your liking? A Stone Age tribe didn’t number more than 50. AnPrim, ooga-booga, after all.

  150. C.T. says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Great. I’ll post your reply on my blog at midnight.

  151. Adûnâi: “… a strict, totalitarian ideology based on reality would offer a superior probability of survival to my race compared to a similar ideology that is based in fiction?”

    That depends on what you mean by “based on reality”, and which ideology. Even assuming you mean by this phrase something like “reality as determined by science”, it would still depend upon which ideology, since any number of courses of action could be taken once that reality is understood. For example, Kaczynski has what could be called a scientific view of reality, and he has concluded that the continued expansion of the technological system will lead to man’s extinction. If he’s right, and he’s ignored, then a totalitarian ideology that’s technophilic would lead to reduced probability of survival. On the other hand, a worldview based in fiction might well be anti-science and anti-technology too. Technological “progress” stalled under Christianity for a thousand years. So, under certain circumstances, a psychotic view of reality can actually increase the probability of survival.

    Adûnâi: “Do you credit Christianity with the scientific revolution of the 17th ct. onwards?”

    No. But many Christians do. Based on this article, that includes MacDonald.

    • Replies: @Adûnâi
  152. Adûnâi says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.

    – Friedrich Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra’s Prologue, part 3 – 4

    > “For example, Kaczynski has what could be called a scientific view of reality, and he has concluded that the continued expansion of the technological system will lead to man’s extinction.”

    So the merrier?!

    Sometimes, I do forget that I am talking to an Aryan racist. The question of ideology is indeed profound. What should the perfect aim be – to preserve this Aryan race for the next 100 million years unchanging, for it to die off at that point? Or to continue the evolution of Earth’s biosphere, to seek farther, to shoot higher, to labour more efficiently, and to overcome Man as a butterfly overcomes a caterpillar?

    Being rooted in reality for me means to imitate Nature as close as possible. That means growth at all cost.

    To the contrary, what you are arguing is not Darwinian. The method of biological evolution is trial and error. Whereas you are trying to forecast the future using your brain, intelligence, the tool that enables you to model reality.

    (Although currently, I’m not sure which path is more suicidal. A supercomputer that decides not to colonize the galaxy because light lag will fracture such an interstellar empire would act selfishly out of self-preservation, whereas Man seems far more flexible by his own nature, naïvely blind to the dangers. That said, taking unnecessary, masochistic risks to “create Übermensch” seems quite idealistic, Checharite, Christian… Reminds me of how Hitlerians were inspired by Nature, yet protected non-human animals. These contradictions are so weird.)

    > “On the other hand, a worldview based in fiction might well be anti-science and anti-technology too.”

    I try to focus not on the words, but on the deeds. Judenfrei China and Korea paid a high price for their rejection of technology and reality when they were subjugated by Japan and Europe.

    > “Based on this article, that includes MacDonald.”

    I wanted to add to my previous post a remark on how these people seem devolving. First James Mason and William Pierce, now Kevin MacDonald…

    https://chechar.wordpress.com/2019/01/24/dark-night-of-the-soul/

  153. Uncle Sam says:

    What people fail to understand is that private money creation is the heart and soul of capitalism. That is how it got started with the Bank of England in 1694. That was the first time in history that private individuals were given the privilege of creating and issuing a country’s money. Any country which has a privately owned central bank is a capitalist country.

    In America 97% of our money is created by the private commercial banking system when it makes loans. The remaining 3 % are coins which are minted and paid directly into circulation by the Federal government. The money that the commercial banks create and loan out is in the form of checks. This is in effect counterfeiting money. If you or I did that we would go to jail. But banks can do it. The loan money is then extinguished when the loan is paid back.

    Market economies really have nothing to do with capitalism. They go back to the ancient Sumerians of 4,000 BC, long before capitalism came into being. You can have a market economy based on private enterprise and private property without capitalism. If our government created our money, as the Constitution requires it to do, that would not mean the end of General Motors, US Steel, General Electric or any company, corporation or business. In fact, they would function much better by getting interest free loans from government banks. What destabilizes capitalism is the paying of compound interest on loans because the money to pay such interest is never created and put into circulation. In other words, what we are talking about here is a giant Ponzi Scheme which will inevitably collapse, as all Ponzi Schemes do.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS