There are
many aspects of how our modern nations and economies are being managed today
that are in explicable to most people. Many people look at the high rates of
immigration and note the damage this does to social cohesion, the pressure this
puts on infrastructure and hospital systems, the fact that this is driving house
prices out of the reach of many Australians, and they think, “What on earth are
these idiots doing?” Don’t they know the damage they are doing to our country? The same question could be asked for pretty much every western nation.
But I heard a
principle stated a few years ago now that I find very compelling, “What a policy or
program achieves is its goal.” The reason I find this statement so compelling
is because of how it gels with what Jesus said, do not look at what they say,
but what they do. Judge someone or a system by its fruits. So, when you see
that modern economic policies are causing wealth to centralize in the hands of
fewer and fewer people, when you see that Australians, and people across the
West, are being displaced, when you see that poverty is increasing in
incredibly advanced and wealthy nations where it could almost be expunged, you
know this is by design, not by accident. The economy is not being mismanaged,
it is being managed precisely as certain elites intend.
John Gideon
Hartnett’s recent article The Great Taking: How Central Banks Could Seize
Your Wealth, gives us some of the detail for how the system is being
stacked to rob us all,
“The
Emergency Banking Act of 1933, had been passed by Congress on March 9, 1933,
three days after FDR declared the bank holiday, with only a single copy
available on the floor of the House of Representatives, and with copies being
made available to senators as the bill was being proposed in the senate, after
it had passed the house [34].
Was
it successful? We are led to believe that the Bank Holiday was a brilliant
scheme. Well it was—for some. It was enormously successful for those banking
interests who took the assets and consolidated their power. It certainly
demonstrated the power of “regime-shifting policies.” We will see that it was
not just about taking peoples homes and other stuff. As to ending the panic,
perhaps that is not so difficult to do when you have fomented the panic.
In
the Wikipedia article “The Great Depression” [35] we find the following
illumination of the Fed’s odd behavior in the years leading up to the bank
holiday:
The Monetarist explanation was given by American
economists Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz. They argued that the Great
Depression was caused by the banking crisis that caused one-third of all banks
to vanish, a reduction of bank shareholder wealth and more importantly monetary
contraction of 35%, which they called “The Great Contraction.” By not lowering
interest rates, by not lowering rates and by not injecting liquidity into the
banking system to prevent it from crumbling, the Federal Reserve passively
watched the transformation of a normal recession into the Great Depression.
The Federal Reserve allowed some large public bank
failures—particularly that of the New York Bank of United States [in December,
1930]—which produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and the Federal
Reserve sat idly by while banks collapsed. Friedman and Schwartz argued that,
if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought
government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the
quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not
have fallen after the large ones did, and the money supply would not have
fallen as far and as fast as it did.
This
view was endorsed in 2002 by Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke in a speech
honoring Friedman and Schwartz with this statement [36]:
Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an
official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton
and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression, you’re right. We did it. We’re very
sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.
As
this is “ancient history”, it was safe for Bernanke to make such an admission.
But more to the point, it would allow him to posture as the wise man who had
studied the “mistakes” of the Federal Reserve, and then to justify the Fed’s
extraordinary measures to follow in the Global Financial Crisis. Is the Fed
indeed “very sorry”? Can one believe the promise that “we won’t do it again”?
They have studied the lessons of the past in detail; however, their purpose has
been to prepare a new and improved global version for the spectacular end of
this debt expansion super-cycle. That’s what this book is about.
Contrary
to the image of success, which has been handed down to us, the Bank Holiday did
not end the Great Depression. There was no recovery which might have allowed
people to service their debts and keep their property. Why was that?
“Inexplicably”, the Federal Reserve kept conditions tight [37]:
According to literature on the subject, the possible
causes … were a contraction in the money supply caused by Federal Reserve and
Treasury Department policies and contractionary fiscal policies.
If
that was a comprehensive program to assure there was no recovery, it worked
quite well. Conditions remained broadly stressful for years, and they kept
price levels down, so that people had no opportunity to sell assets for paying
off debts. I know from family letters that, despite having no debts, times were
quite tough. Grandma Webb wrote to her son (who was in a youth athletic program
on an army base) about Grandpa Webb having been out trying to get any work for
Webb Equipment. That was in 1936.”[1]
What happened back then was that the US Federal Reserve backed some banks to survive and let the rest
go bankrupt. In doing this they confiscated all the money and possessions of
those who were dependent on the failed banks,
“The
Federal Reserve System and the banks selected by the Fed were prepared to take
things from people on a vast scale: their homes, their cars, and even their new
electric appliances, which had been sold to them with the innovation of
consumer credit. Did “the bankers” need to take this property? What was the
real purpose? Can you get past the idea that they were trying to help? Even if
we can, we are always led to think about this in a small way—that it is always
about a natural human greed for money and for material things. It was not then,
and it is not now.
Ask
yourself: if they don’t want your money, and they don’t really want or need
your stuff, and they’re not trying to help you, what do they want? What’s the
point of all of their efforts?
This
may be difficult to hear: It was deliberate strategy. It was about
ultimate, complete power, allowing no centers of resistance. And so, it was
about deprivation. It was about subjugation—and it still is, in more ways than
we know.”[2]
This was done to break people. As Hartnett
notes, this was about consolidating power, not about helping society. And as he
points out in the article there are many signs that they are manoeuvring
themselves to do this again, but on a global scale. In other words, debt has
been pushed on every nation and almost every household, so that all people,
everywhere, are vulnerable to hostile take over by the globalist banks.
This is a
very enlightening piece. Hartnett is not the first person I have read or heard
talking about this either. But this is the first really detailed piece that I
have read going into the mechanisms of how they would go about this. I
encourage you to read the whole piece as well, because it serves as a good wake
up call about how maliciously our economies have been run, and why we should be
working as hard as possible to minimize our exposure as individuals,
families, and nations.
Hartnett ends by noting that the plan is to bring in a digital currency to replace all of our fiat currencies that exist right now. I am personally sceptical about whether or not this could even work, because digital currencies require a lot of power and a lot of computing power, and both of these things are becoming more expensive and increasingly fragile due to international conflicts, and also green ideology. Renewable infrastructure is not reliable enough to base a stable digital economy on. So the elites may have a plan to do this, but they are undermining their own plan.
I also
think that there must be some elites who see the BRICS countries creating their
own economic system to break out of the western hegemony, and they must realize
that a digital currency would make our nations far weaker, economically. A well timed blackout would grind everything to a halt. They
may want to go digital and green at the same time, but these two goals conflict
with each other, and hard commodity based economies like Russia, India and
China are on the rise. This creates pressure on western countries to back away
from such goals. Hence, I
don’t disagree that there is some plan like this in the works, I just think the
fractured nature of the elites in our world might make it harder to achieve
than some people realize.
However, some say BRICS is in on this whole thing, and they may be right. The games of international elites are far above us, and there is always moves and countermoves between elite factions. And new alliances forged.
Either way, Hartnett’s informed perspective on this issue is a must read. So is limiting exposure a must. Now is not the time to finance for a new car, for the top line phone, or for those upgraded appliances you don’t really need. Now is the time to dial down your spending as best you can. Instability is increasing, whatever way it goes, that fact alone means that the powerful financial elites will make moves to consolidate their wealth. Ordinary people might be in their way. Be watchful.
List of
References
No comments:
Post a Comment