Quote of the Week – Dissolution

“The Constitution has no severability clause; it is a whole, in and unto itself. Except by Amendment, in accordance with Article V, it is unchangeable. The government that exists in Washington, District of Columbia, exist only by its creation by that Constitution; and, only by obedience to that Constitution does that government continue to exist.

“Error was anticipated, and this Court, in particular — this Supreme Court — is the arbiter of whether any act of the Legislative or the Executive is consistent with, and within the powers and authorities granted by that Constitution. In that sense, the fuse to destruction of both Constitution and government created by it lies in the hands of this Court alone. Should this Court fail in its obedience to the Constitution, then it, alone, would be responsible for the dissolution of that government created under the authority of the people.”
– Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom

Brave New Bookmarks

Apparently, Brave New Books right here in Austin have tons of freebies in store (most of which is Ron Paul memorabilia) that you can pick up along with whatever you’re buying from them while you’re there. One of these are their very own bookmarks. Here’s the front:


Here’s the back:


In case you can’t read the back, it says, “Books are weapons in the war of ideas.” This is followed by “The war rages on: The War on Drugs, The War on Terror, The War on Food, The War on Freedom, The War on You…”

End the Fed

Mistletoe, despite it’s connotations with Christmas, is in fact a parasite that feeds off of trees until it kills its host. This is done very slowly over a period of many years so as to suck the most amount of wealth from the host while delaying its inevitable demise. Such as is the case with the Federal Reserve Bank that parasitically steals the productivity of the American populace through devaluing the dollar by over 95% since 1913, which has only been possible thanks to the complicity of the traitorous US Congress who sanctioned all of it.



Dr. Ron Paul hails from the Austrian school of economics. His influences were F.A. Hayek, Hans Sennholz, Murray Rothbard, and of course, Ludwig von Mises. He describes his experiences as a youngster with the decoupling of the gold standard from the dollar, increased dollar devaluation through inflation, and how his family survived the 1970s thanks to the underground economy. To claim that Dr. Paul is a fervent Goldbug is to understate the case.

His interactions with former and current Chairmen of the Federal Reserve are quite enlightening. With regards to Alan Greenspan, Dr. Paul noticed that they both were devotees of philosopher Ayn Rand. In an attempt to resolve how they ended up on opposing sides, Dr. Paul brought with him to a photo op a copy of the original faded green Objectivist newsletter edition where Greenspan had written his 1966 article, “Gold and Economic Freedom.” During this short visit, Dr. Paul asked Greenspan to autograph the article and whether if he’d like to put a disclaimer on it, to which Greenspan replied that he had just recently reread it and still stands by everything he wrote. This would suggest that even the banksters value gold for some reason, even if the clueless American mainline public does not. “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke is simply very evasive and secretive under Congressional questioning.

Paul presents what I think is the most eloquent argument for total abolishment of the Federal Reserve Bank according to the philosophical/moral, constitutional, economic, and libertarian contexts. The philosophical case is essentially that it is blatantly immoral to steal (in this context of this situation, by counterfeiting). The constitutional case is that the very issuance of FRNs explicitly violates Article 1, Section 10. The economic case is that “elastic” fiat currencies always fail because they do not retain the value of the people’s productivity since totalitarian governments have this very bad habit of stealing wealth through inflating and borrowing. The libertarian case is that central economic planning (which necessarily occurs if a country has a central bank) is antithetical to the tenants of Liberty. Considering the rampant thievery, the rape of the (federal) Constitution, the historical detriments of running a nation into the ground by debasing the currency, and central economic planning, you’d think that the cumulative cases for ending the Federal Reserve System would be overwhelming enough to take the spotlight of mainline political discourse and not just in dissident circles.

I had mixed feelings regarding Dr. Paul’s suggested treatments for what ails the body politic. “Speaking out” publicly against the Fed and reading regularly updated libertarian websites are important yet quite limited for the very simple reason that “awakening” people en masse has a terrible track record (as opposed to helping people see through the fog in small/local groups as well as on a one-on-one basis). The good doctor’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education website redirects towards a non-English page, so I’ll just assume it’s been taken down (may I suggest the Foundation for Economic Education as a viable alternative?). Campaign for Liberty has some potential social networking capabilities (feel free to take a look at my old C4L profile), but since the demise of Dr. Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign they seem to be exclusively focusing on legislative remedies. Deregulating the banking industry, repealing legal tender statutes, and auditing the Federal Reserve are all notable goals; however, they are outside the power of the common man since the only ones with the power to perform those functions are the duplicitous Congress (for the sake of saving everyone time and grief, writing your congresscritter stating you support these goals and asking them nicely to vote on the floor for bills that push them simply does not work).

Other recommendations seemed more plausible and within the grasp of the forgotten man. Preparing for hyperinflation is wise, considering it is one of the mathematically inevitable consequences of the Federal Reserve’s malfeasance. Establishing alternative currencies are probably the long-term solution, such as ones based on mutual credit, time dollars, self-issued credit vouchers, or even completely digital money. I was particularly pleased that the good doctor endorsed the underground/counter-economy, even though it inherently violates mala prohibita by trading goods and services in the grey and black markets. Considering the likelihood of socio-economic collapse (especially due to hyperinflation), it was very good of Dr. Paul to recommend that people take self-defense seriously by preparing for combat.

Ron Paul’s End the Fed, while containing some decent methods for surviving the Fed’s destruction of the dollar, fails to present a cohesive strategic plan for actually ending the Fed! The thrust towards the end seemed to be in favor of legislative remedy, particularly in auditing the Fed as the necessary precursor towards abolishing the damn thing (as I’ve mentioned before, this is done to conclusively prove to the fence sitting congresscritters that the Fed does not have their best interest at heart). Very similar to Dr. Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto, End the Fed is best suited to those who just began seeing through the fog of The Left-Right Paradigm. For the rest of us who have been at this for quite awhile, it only serves as further confirmation of what we must do in order to eventually kick the banksters out of the county, once and for all.

Austin City Council Meeting (9/27/12)

[Download a PDF of this article]

The American system of governance originally placed a higher premium on local governments, such as cities, towns, and counties. Now, it is the Almighty Federal Government that people tend to obsess over, considering the corporate media coverage as well as the flow of power that as exercised flows top-down instead of bottom-up. The federales use the congressional power of the purse to bribe and otherwise harangue the 50 state-level governments into doing whatever they want. Despite all this, it is still important to know the “lay of the land” of your local area.



After having my bag scanned and myself successfully passed through the metal detector without incident, I was able to waltz around the Austin, TX City Hall in order to burn a little time while I waited for the monthly meeting of the city council to convene. Turns out that the claim they have on their website that while they do charge for parking in their garage that, “Parking is free on Council meeting days,” turns out to be a complete lie. Monday through Friday between 5:45 am to 5pm the first 30 minutes are free, but after that, they charge the following:


31 min – 1hr = $3

1 hr – 1hr 30 min = $4.50

1hr 30 min – 2 hr = $6

2 hr – 2hr 30 min = $7.50

2hr 30 min – 3hr = $9


At least they had that nifty glass enshrouded press room, where all the city officials could look all important as they announced their admittedly symbolic “marriage equality” resolution, despite Article 1 of the Texas Constitution (the Texas Bill of Rights) stating very explicitly under Section 32 that “(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. (b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Like it or not, that also means no civil unions for queers, folks.

It does beg the question though as to why the Austin City Council is hellbent on defying the Texas Constitution. It’s not like its hard for them to get a copy of the state’s Constitution (especially considering that the Texas Capitol building is just across downtown). The even bigger question is why the Texas government is in the business of marriage in the first place? Why would queers want to be allowed to get a license from the government at all? So they can ask permission from the State of Texas to engage in an activity that would otherwise be considered “criminal,” just as the ignorant heterosexual couples do? According to that line of reasoning, then I guess that oppression is perfectly fine, just as long as we’re all “equally” oppressed. If they were smarter, the queers should argue that the three-pronged test for common-law (informal) marriage excludes them; this would still push forward their desire to be socially respected as monogamous couples while simultaneously not enabling government intrusion via licensure of marriage.

The actual meeting itself in council chambers was equal parts comedic and painful that I ended up leaving absurdly early. The opening prayer sounded like an sorry excuse for attempting to sound humanitarian by praising the wonderfulness and “love” allegedly exhibited by the council (rising for the prayer itself had the feel of being in a courtroom). There was then a series of speakers who had 3 minutes to blurt out their most important agenda items. First up was news that the local Metro (commuter train) rail line has increased ridership, with bar graphs to boot! There were also people complaining that chainsaws increased carbon footprints and thus only electric chainsaws should be allowed within the city limits since they don’t put a hole in the ozone layer (or so the tree hugger of the day said). One queer got up to solicit funding for HIV/AIDS “research,” which was promptly followed by his prostrating before the council for their beneficence in passing a resolution that even the fella himself admitted had no force of law. Another random gentleman was concerned about all the homeless bums who rummage through the garbage cans in downtown (which is pretty common); this was followed by another guy who wanted funding for “mental health services” for not only returning veterans but also their families.

Probably the most significant speaker I saw (since I didn’t stay around for the anti-fluoridation activists, given I didn’t want to pay anymore than what is reasonably affordable for parking) was a middle-aged lady who mentioned that not only was the tax money that the City of Austin received from its hapless residents not necessarily staying locally, but also that the financial records for bonds were not transparent. To top off the city officials’ secrecy about finances (since according to her, this wasn’t the first or second time she’s asked for them), she then mentioned that were unconfirmed reports that herbicides were being dumped into the city’s water supply; she simply asked the council for confirmation or denial of these rumours.

When I approached her after she finished speaking (since she was sitting only a few seats away in the row ahead of me), she couldn’t tell me much more but what she did reveal to me was that she suspects embezzlement, considering the fact that the spreadsheets she showed me didn’t balance out at all. In regards to the herbicide dumping, she asserted there were photos but she needs more proof before she’s comfortable enough accusing anybody of anything. Considering what’s at stake, I can’t blame her. I wished her well and went on my way.

Speaking of escaping from the scum who run the place, another thing that bothered me about my visit to city hall was that there were cops everywhere. I remember that where I used to live, whenever I attended a city council meeting, I never saw a single flatfoot, ever. I felt I was at a lower security airport or football stadium with all the armed blue costumed government agents milling about.

There was also all the huge stage lights and camera crews. Although there was a tiny bit of that from where I came from so that folks could watch on local access, here in Austin it was more like a movie set or television studio; it was quite irritating. The pandering empty platitudes that the local politicians spewed were even more fruity that the queer pride oven mitts.

Overall, it’s only worth going to the Austin City Council meetings if you arrive later than 10 am when they eventually get around to “general citizen communications.” There is a speaker sign up sheet that you can get on ahead of time so that your name and topic can appear on the agenda. I wished I was able to stay for Ronnie Referseed, Linda Greene, and Russell Doyle bitch about fluoridated water; that would’ve been fun (at least a little bit). You can also see on today’s agenda all the millions upon millions of dollars that the council flagrantly wastes (such as on the Fiesta de Independencia Foundation), allocates towards the police state (such as the Austin Regional Intelligence Center), and bestows upon their corporate cronies (such as CH2M Hill, Inc). Isn’t run amuck government just wonderful?

Holidays in Hell

Traipsing across the planet is a fine thing. You get to visit places you would normally never see, you get to talk to people whom you’d otherwise never get the chance to, and you get to eat foods that would have turned your stomach back home but now you don’t have that choice anymore to consume something more palatable instead. What is even harder is attempting to find humour admist the world’s cesspools.



The author relates his various international sojourns during the 1980s. He traveled everywhere from Lebanon to Korea, Panama, Poland, the Philippines, El Salvador, South Africa, Nicaragua, Mexico, Palestine, and even France. Surviving the Lebanese Civil War, the Sandinistas, and even Disney’s Epcot center, O’Rourke gives a very satirical flavor to dictatorships the world over. Widespread poverty amongst the abundant resources of the world provides our intrepid journalist with a wealth of material.

I found the Mexican nationalists illegally scampering across the southern border to be uniquely intriguing. Manolo Ortiz, the then-INS southern regional public relations chief, told O’Rourke that the Border Patrol apprehended 128,000 aliens in 1968. By 1984, the figure jumped to 1,000,000 before being outdone by the 1985 annual figure nearly approaching 2,000,000 (this is nothing to say about those who weren’t caught). Of course since then, if you express any concern about such gate crashing (such as from an economic perspective that can demonstrate how the remnants of the American free market simply cannot absorb that many people that quickly), you’re branded by the eugenicist friendly corporate whore media as a xenophobic “racist” (which is funny for me because that would also mean that the native born mestizos and even tejanos who value private property and the Constitution are also supposedly racist against “their own people;” aren’t contradictions fun?).

I greatly enjoyed P.J. O’Rourke’s Holidays in Hell. It was an excellent effort at making comedy out of otherwise gut wrenching living conditions the world over. Being able to laugh in the face of adversity is an aptitude we all need to develop, especially as the American Empire inevitably slides into the sands of time.

The Creature from Jekyll Island

Despotic special interests typically have a desire to co-opt governments since the unfair protections and undue privileges can be enjoyed at the expense of the body politic. Corporatism at its essence is the merging of oligopolistic corporations with the State. The ultimate tyrannical cocktail is the emergence of a corporation that pretends to be an Administrative Agency of the federal government when in fact it monopolistically controls the issuance of currency and credit. I am referring to none other than the Federal Reserve Bank.



The main thrust of this book seems to make the case for why total abolishment of the Federal Reserve System is warranted. Seven reasons are given:

  1. It is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
  2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest.
  3. It is the supreme instrument of usury.
  4. It generates our most unfair tax [which is inflation].
  5. It encourages war.
  6. It destabilizes the economy.
  7. It is an instrument of totalitarianism.

A crash course of sorts is given on economics as well as on the mechanizations of the Federal Reserve itself, especially in terms of what the author refers to as “the Mandrake Mechanism.” Literally, the currency is conjured out of less than nothing, since it is based on debt, instead of on value. If there were no debt, there would also be no money. While the actual procedure itself seems complex, it is inherently illogical since it is deliberately designed to confuse those who attempt to decipher what it actually is, which is to say, the Mandrake Mechanism is nothing more than legalized mass counterfeiting. This is why the Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are particularly susceptible to the necessarily increasing artificial expansion of the money supply (which is not held relative to real increasing productivity as measured by the available goods and services in the economy) that causes the hidden tax of inflation, which robs everyone by reducing the purchasing power of the dollar.

According to the author’s Goldbug economic perspective, there are four different forms of money: commodity, receipt, fiat, and fractional. Commodity money is literally any sort of commonly considered valuable good that is socially accepted as a reliable medium of exchange (in order to overcome the limitations of direct barter). Receipt money was originally used as a claim check or IOU of sorts that was traded as a medium of exchange in and of itself (in order to overcome the limitations of weight and portability that plagued commodity money). Fiat money was whatever was declared by the State as money irrespective of free market dynamics; to refuse to accept fiat currency in payment of (genuine) debt was to violate legal tender statutes and usually punishable as a criminal offense against the State. Fractionally reserved money is essentially receipt money that is not 100% backed by a commodity money of some kind. Using this typology, I don’t think it is incorrect to describe FRNs as a fractionally reserved, fiat, receipt, funny money.

Griffin goes on to describe the origination of the Federal Reserve Bank as proposed legislation that was written by high finance special interests on Jekyll Island off the coast of Georgia. This creature was shortly thereafter given birth by the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which was signed by President Woodrow Wilson. Not long after that, America was sucked into World War I, which of course necessitated the federal government to take out even more loans from the Federal Reserve in order to fund the war effort, sinking the country into a position of indebtedness to the bankers. While Griffin describes the sinking the Lusitania as if it were a false flag operation (with one of the key operatives being none other than Winston Churchill), I should emphasize that either way, the Federal Reserve would still profit from the United States’ entrance into the Great War at the expense of the American populace, pursuant to the Hegelian Dialectic. Every imperialistic war of aggression since then as been little more than an excuse for the bankers to profit from the massive loans they make to the federal government, at interest. This is why the national debt can never be paid back, because those loans constitute only the principle, so it begs the question of where the interest is ultimately supposed to come from?

Fast forward to the Bolshevik Revolution, and we find that the up-and-coming Russian communists were funded by none other than Western high financiers, such as the Wall Street bankers and the network headed by Cecil Rhodes that spawned many round table groups, one of which became known as the Council on Foreign Relations. This methodology for instigating and capitalizing from imperialistic wars of aggression is described as the Rothschild Formula. Even before the Federal Reserve was enacted, this is a long standing technique which can also be particularly demonstrated at the Battle of Waterloo, when Nathan Rothschild was able to knowingly lie about its outcome with the goal of consolidating a dominant holding of England’s debt into his own hands.

We are next to examine the three previous central banks of the United States: the Bank of North America, the deceptively titled First Bank of the United States, and the equally untrue Second Bank of the United States (all of whom were precursors to the Federal Reserve). It would behoove us to understand why these three central banks were abolished, since it would additionally make the case that abolishing the Federal Reserve is not something new or otherwise “radical;” and it would seem to be the case that they were all abolished because each of the bank’s respective charters were allowed to expire. Considering that the Federal Reserve is responsible for the so-called “boom and bust cycle,” in addition to the recessions and depressions since its inception, it would beg the question as to whether this fourth central bank of the United States also has a sunset provision that would allow its charter to expire as well?

It is postulated as part of one very bad scenario that the banking industry would eventually be nationalized. I find this humourous, since Ellen Brown claimed in her book that nationalizing the banking industry is what needs to happen as part of her overall “solution” package; what else can you expect from a faux Greenbacker globalist? What really interested me was Griffin’s sixteen point plan for Ending the Fed:

  1. Repeal the legal-tender laws.
  2. Freeze the present supply of Federal Reserve Notes.
  3. Define the “real” dollar in terms of precious metal content.
  4. Establish gold as an auxiliary monetary reserve.
  5. Restore free coinage at the US Mint.
  6. Pay off the national debt with Federal Reserve Notes
  7. Pledge the government’s hoard of gold and silver to be used as backing for all the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.
  8. Determine the weight of all the gold and silver owned by the US government.
  9. Determine the number of all the Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.
  10. Retire all Federal Reserve Notes from circulation.
  11. Convert all contracts based on Federal Reserve Notes to dollars.
  12. Issue Silver Certificates.
  13. Abolish the Federal Reserve System.
  14. Introduce free banking.
  15. Reduce the size and scope of government.
  16. Restore national independence.

Sounds intriguing. I wonder how it would fair relative to Gary Hunt’s “An Economic Solution” monetary reform proposal?

Griffin also has other suggestions that can be accomplished in the context of individual action. He recommends how to prepare for the mathematically inevitable socio-economic collapse:


  1. Get out of debt.
  2. Pick a sound bank.

    Maintain accounts at several institutions.

    Do not keep over $100,000 in any one bank.

  3. Diversify your investments among blue chip, over-the-counter, growth, income, large, small, mutuals, bonds, real estate, bullion coins, mining stock, tangibles, and even [foreign] currencies.
  4. Avoid the most recent “best” performers.
  5. When investing in coins, avoid those with a high numismatic value.
  6. Maintain a stash of cash, including some old silver coins.


I found this particular criticism against Griffin by the FauxCapitalist to be somewhat silly when he asserted, “Be wary, therefore, of anyone who does advocate a gold standard with less than 100% backing.” While it is true that Griffin does advocate a return to the gold standard, he explicitly states, “…we must create an entirely new money supply which is 100% backed by precious metal – and we must do so within a reasonably short period of time [emphasis added].” So, unless Griffin contradicted himself elsewhere, FauxCapitalist’s insinuation is either disingenuous or simply ignorant.

I wholeheartedly recommend that all political dissidents to read G. Edward Griffin’s The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. It is a very good history of how the United States sank back into the grip of yet another central bank and its concomitant consequences upon us all, since were are all inherently reliant upon FRNs for our very survival in the market economy. What pleased me most was how Griffin’s “A Plan for Eliminating the Fed” monetary reform proposal was actually serious about dismantling the Federal Reserve Bank (unlike Ellen Brown’s faux “Populist” list of random erroneous suggestions that simply were not thought out). If we can accurately recognize the engine of our destruction, then perhaps we’ll actually have a realistic chance at securing our Liberties.

Karen Kwiatkowski on The Proof Negative Show (9/6/12)

The following is a transcript of the 9/6/12 broadcast of The Proof Negative Show on Freedomzier Radio. I called in to ask Karen Kwiatkowski about grand strategy, particularly in terms of not voting and Committees of Safety. The original audio is hosted on BlogTalkRadio as a free downloadable podcast; this partial transcript occurs between approximately 1 hr 45 min –  1 hr 56 min. Alterations have been made to correct for grammar and speech disfluency; any mistakes are solely the fault of this humble blogger.



SleepySalsa (SS): Karen, what would you suggest that we all do to resist these tyrants?

Karen Kwiatkowski (KK): There’s a lot of things we need to do. One is to really get educated on the nature of tyranny, because I think the more we know about tyranny and tyrants, both historically and what’s in the present day, that we’ll be less afraid. Fear is not really gonna help us that much. We kinda have to assert ourselves to prevent tyranny and to resist it, but fear is not the best driver. Knowledge and power….we have to have a sense of our own power as people to resist tyranny. Education is a big thing. I think the other thing we can do is prepare ourselves to live lives that are as free as they can be and to kind of nullify in our own experience some of what we see around us. So, in a sense I’m saying turn our back on it to some extent. For example, I don’t like to be patted down and groped by TSA and I disapprove of that, in principle. I don’t think it’s necessary, I think it’s wrong, so I don’t fly. Now, that limits me because I don’t fly, and I have to drive places. It costs me more money sometimes, and it limits my ability to move around, but I’m also not patronizing that sector of government in society, I’m not patronizing it. I think there are so many others, and I’m one of those people, I’m retired military, so I have a military retirement check, but I’m trying to be prepared anyway as that becomes inflated away (as all entitlements will be), as all government money is, everyday it loses its value. So, what am I doing? I’m trying to become mentally and economically prepared and skill wise prepared, kind of “preperationist” type thing (the preppers) to be able to live in a world where we have hyperinflation, ’cause I think it might be coming. If we aren’t dependent on the government as much and we don’t fear its tyranny and we’re willing to turn our back on it, we won’t be good subjects to the tyrants. We will be bad subjects. Obviously, there is some danger in that. If you speak out and resist government, we’re the ones to picked off and sent away. We just had this thing in Virginia not long ago, I think two weeks ago, with Brandon Raub (I don’t know if you heard of his case).

SS: Right, of course.

KK: He’s a former Marine, he served in Iraq (I think) two tours; harmless guy, good guy, nothing wrong with him, no problem. But they didn’t like what he was posting on Facebook and they tried (in fact they did for a short period of time) involuntarily…the government came, arrested him (although they said it wasn’t an arrest), and they put him in an insane asylum. This is a Soviet tactic for dealing with resistance. So, we have to exercise all of our rights and we have to resist and we have to be ready for the consequences of that, but we also can’t be too afraid of doing it, because fear (I think) feeds into how government work. If you think about just our recent 20th century examples of totalitarianism, whether it’s Cambodia or fascist Germany or the Soviet Union communism (the eastern bloc communism, Chinese communism); these totalitarianism systems really thrive on fear. When the people no longer fear the government (as happened in the Soviet Union, if you end up with a government collapsing under its own weight, because the people no longer really believe it and follow its rules) fear is a big part of government maintaining its power, so we can’t be fearful of it. We have to understand how tyranny works, we have to try as best we can to live outside of that, and to help others do the same thing. I’ll give you a little example. I constantly….probably a lot of people know about George Carlin, he has a skit on not voting (been around for a long time). He says I don’t participate and I’m not responsible for what these evil politicians do because I didn’t put them up there. The people that voted for them put them up there. I mean, if we had “none of the above” option on our electoral ballots, I’d tell everybody to go vote. Because we don’t have a “none of the above” option, in a sense voting is contributing to belief, a faith in government that is not deserved right now. I almost converted my mother (who is a lifelong Republican voter who totally believes in it), she really does understand that that really in some ways kind of promotes the kind of no choice government that we’ve seen for the last 60 – 70 years. Anyway, just do what you can in your own sphere of influence and you try to be prepared for the worst.

SS: Well, speaking of George Carlin, wouldn’t that mean therefore that’s it time now to work outside of the system with whatever ways we can, instead of trying to either push for a counter or even anti-Establishment candidate, or even something like the Libertarian Party. I mean, considering you brought up George Carlin (ok, I’ll take you to task), isn’t it time to start working outside of the system, and preferably, coming up with some sort of plan to restore the Republic?

KK: Well, there’s a problem with planning, and it’s very difficult for elements that are diverse and geographically and even politically separated to work together. We see this already. Look in the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement is perfectly correct, but it causes difficulty between the far Left and the far Right, both of whom are anti-war, but because of their differences, they really can’t make forward progress, so I would say we do both. We work within the system and we work outside of the system. It depends on who you are and what you’re sphere of influence is. Take me, for example. I’m sitting here telling people not to vote, except that I take that back in the 6th district of Virginia ’cause I ran a primary campaign against an Establishment Republican, and I’m doing it again in 2014, but we think we’ll beat ’em. But I want people to vote for me in that respect, so I’m contradicting myself [emphasis added] in some ways by saying don’t vote, but oh, vote for me. That is something I can do in the system. I have a lot of friends who are Republicans who are liberty-minded Republicans and they have pursued positions of authority and power and influence within the Republican Party. The 6th district Republicans are about half liberty Republicans and half Establishment, so they’ve had some success, and the other half of my friends are libertarians and outside the Party independent thinking type people who are doing…pursuing change, pursuing liberty (what is good) and they’re doing all that outside of the Party. They have rejected the Party. I don’t think we can say there is one way to do it. I think everybody has to do everything that they can, and for some people who are already positioned or the type of person who works well in a type of organization….heck, taking over the Republican Party and turning it into a liberty party…nothing wrong with that. That’s a good thing. Voting Libertarian and actively strengthening the Libertarian Party, that’s a good thing. Speaking of that, it’s good to see Wayne Allen Root found the right Party to go to.

SS: Well, obviously, contradictions cannot exist. If you see a contradiction, you need to check your premises, because one of them happens to be wrong. Now, to the colonial period, it was something interesting that the Founding Fathers (you mentioned them earlier)…one of the several things they did was they set up Committees of Safety, if you’ve ever heard of them?

KK: Yes, indeed. Yes, I have.

SS: Ok, well, would you suggest then that people start setting up Committees of Safety locally then?

KK: In fact, I think they are, and I think it’s a great idea. On a kinda modern version of that to some extent (not completely duplicative)…the Oathkeepers movement….these guys are doing that. They’re kinda straddling both organizations….both in and out of the Party, telling people, “Hey, we’ve got a Constitution, let’s follow it; let’s reject the tyranny and follow what we think is the real fundamental law, the Constitutional law of the land, and don’t follow orders from the tyrant.” Yet that’s a national organization, so, good place to be. You can be a Republican or a Democrat and be in Oathkeepers all at the same time. You can be on a Committee of Safety and you can be an officeholder in your local Republican unit or Democratic unit.

SS: Actually, no you can’t, but obviously that’s a discussion for another time.

KK: Oh, you can’t?

SS: No. The Founders were not part of a CoS and an officer (like a governor) with the British Royal government, but my last question really entails…what do you see being the line in the sand, in the bigger scope?

KK: I don’t think in terms of lines in the sand. If there is a line in the sand, we crossed it a long time ago. We’ve lost the Republic. There is no Republic. People are represented in this country? I don’t see that. If there was a line in the sand, it happened a long time ago, maybe 1913 with the establishment of the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank system. I don’t see anything at this point which is a line in the sand. I think all of us need to just assume we’ve passed it and take action in the ways that we can. Of course, those ways are going to be unique and different for every person. Not everybody can do the same thing. The Peter Schiffs of the world can do what the Peter Schiffs of the world can do. Other people can do what they can do, but we all need to be doing something. The land in the sand, if there was one, has long been crossed.

SS: Ok, well, thank you Karen for answering my questions.

The Web of Debt

The international banking cartel has ensnared the whole planet in a web of debt. Virtually all of the money supply is created as promises-to-pay between borrowers and lenders in the form of loans. Interest is attached to the principal of the loan, but since the entire money supply originates from only the principal, that means the only way for the borrower to fulfill the loan contract is to run on the treadmill of perpetual indebtedness. This creates an atmosphere whereby there is a permanent “transfer” of wealth through fraud from the real producers of the world to parasitic bankers and the governments who granted them monopoly privileges over the issuance of currency and credit.



Most of the chapters of this book begins with a quote taken from L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The author maintains that Baum’s story is in fact an allegory on “monetary policy.” This assertion is used to propagate the Greenbacker Populist perspective of economics, that is, that the government can issue a fiat national currency backed only by its own full faith and credit interest-free and therefore debt-free. Sounds nice, huh? Problem is, there are several inherent flaws with manipulating The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in such a manner so as to promote a school of economic thought and, by extension, an active plan for monetary reform.

First, The Wizard of Oz cannot be a monetary allegory due to the inherently subjective nature of literary interpretation. Even Hugh Rockoff conceded in his academically published position paper that his interpretation was but one way of doing so, and this is further supported by the several different political interpretations of The Wizard of Oz. I earlier postulated a completely original literary interpretation of Baum’s tale that more or less favored the gold standard, so as to illustrate the malleability of such interpretation with the ultimate goal of demonstrating why basing any serious plan of action strictly upon a subjective interpretation of a work of fiction is simply fallacious.

Secondly, the proposed solution for somehow transferring to the Congress the ability for them to issue their own interest/debt free fiat currency suffers from a lack of understanding about the fields of economics, politics, and history. The author gives a one-sided portrayal of debt-free fiat currencies without examining the case studies where the exact same treatment was given that resulted in horrendous consequences. Alternatively, in those case studies where she does examine obvious government culpability, she instead lays blame onto mildly benefiting scapegoats (such as currency speculators) instead of those actors who were truly responsible for the massive thefts (who are the governments and the central banks they empower). Incredibly, she reveals her true interests as not being against the Federal Reserve exclusively, but as being for the expansion of the welfare State through the issuance of nearly limitless government issued currency that are to be used to bankroll free lunches.

A common theme I noticed throughout her book is that the author really likes to whine and bitch a lot about various financial bad things ad nausuem and ad infitium (to the point of nausea and beyond). She complains incessantly about everything ranging from short selling to foreclosures, taxes, the Plunge Protection Team, derivatives, the gold standard, hedge funds, and the national debt. I understand that (as most of the alternative media unfortunately limits itself to) she is attempting to perform a watchdog function against the Establishment, but spending hundreds of pages on simply reciting what most of us are pretty much already aware of is not at all productive. This, combined with her 21 economic errors and 31 historical errors, begs the question as to her competency regarding her watchdog capabilities as well.

To be fair, some of the other non-fiat currency proposed solutions are potentially viable in terms of raw utility; however, some of them rely upon the government (such as the Congress or the Treasury department) in some way, shape, or form to do something of their own accord. What should be painfully realized here is that by virtue of the fact that some of these other solutions necessarily require the coercive power of the State, they are realistically outside the power of the common man to do, either by himself or with the voluntary cooperation of others within the free market (and writing your congresscritter does not count, since it just doesn’t work). Therefore, any such batch of proposed solutions are not viable in this context since it necessarily relies upon the enemy rebel government to act contrary to its own despotic interests by working against the international banking cartel; nothing short of a miracle will resolve this obvious contradiction.

In the course of examining the background and current activities of the author in preparation for this literature review, I kept coming across these claims by some of her readers and faithful disciples that “she is such a terrific writer,” or something to that effect. I hate to break it to you nice folks, but Brown is a terrible writer. These assertions of how her book was “entertaining and easy to read” truly dumbfound me; I had to force myself to survive all the way to the bitter end. I have read mainline college textbooks cover to cover that were more “entertaining and easy to read,” like my dry oceanography textbook (pun intended). At least there were a lot of pictures and graphs amongst the technical data to spread out the density of the paragraphs, which I can’t say for Brown’s lengthy treatise.

Ah, but the carnival of this book doesn’t stop there. Even her own fellow Greenbackers do not support her, such as Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute (AMI). As was stated by a fellow AMI researcher, “Unfortunately, this book doesn’t live up to its promises because it’s conclusion still leaves us all stuck in a web of debt.” It also turns out the Brown admitted that the Federal Reserve’s QE2 is “the Populist Solution,” given that it’s “the next best thing.” As if being the Federal Reserve’s cheerleader wasn’t bad enough, she openly stated in her book that she is completely in favor of a global reserve currency issued through a global central bank by what she called a “World Parliament” formed by a “World Constitution.” She wrote very favorably of the World Constitution and Parliament Association attempting to openly form an “Earth Federation” that is to be the “Common Wealth of the Earth.” Silly me……this entire time, that’s what I thought the globalist bankers always wanted, wasn’t it?

I DO NOT recommend anyone waste their money (ironically) so they can read Ellen Brown’s The Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. She has no workable plan, her analysis is rubbish, and her proposed methodology leaves much to be desired. This lawyer is no economist or even a competent historian from what I can tell. What does come through clearly is her desire to ignore TANSTAAFL, regardless of the unintended consequences resulting from her desire for welfare statism. As president of the Public Banking Institute, Brown is plunging headlong towards the establishment of state-level government owned banks modeled on the Bank of North Dakota. Ellen Brown is no Messiah, and based on her treatment of detractors from both the Goldbug and Greenbacker camps, she deserves to be ostracized from all American political dissident circles so that her diversionary and disruptive influence can be mitigated as much as possible since she is an operative within the Carnival of Distractions.

The Fruitless R”love”ution

Well, kids, it’s official….Mitt Romney gave his acceptance speech for the Republicrat Party’s nomination to support his bid to become the next Imperial Excellency of the United Socialist States of America. Unfortunately, this also means that the good doctor ultimately failed in his presidential bid, just like four years ago. Of course, the mainline libertarians have rolled out their ex post facto justification that Ron Paul actually won in terms of “converting people over to the cause for Liberty,” just like four years ago. Millions of dollars worth of donations were completely wasted (this go-around, approximately $40,000,000), just like four years ago. To top it all off, Dr. Paul joked recently on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno that he needed to rest for 2016 (implying that he might make yet another bid for the US presidency), even though he has already announced his retirement from the mainline political circus by not seeking for reelection of his congressional seat.

Is it really any wonder that the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign was going to epically fail like it did? As I have said before, it was never his electability that was the problem, as evidenced by his history for winning straw polls as well as the grassroots sources of his campaign contributions. The main issue is what can he do should he get inside the White House? Dr. Paul would be facing a very hostile, statist Congress AND the 1,000+ Administrative Agencies (the federal bureaucracy) who care very much about control and very little about our Liberties. Even Gary Hunt admitted that the core problem of electing this Messiah to the presidency is due to the fact that, “The nature of government has changed to the point that return to the confines of the limitations imposed by the Constitution is nearly impossible. Separation of powers has become ineffective because of the power of the political parties and the political elite.” So, in other words, the Paulbots were playing a rigged game whose only eventual outcome was to lose. I sincerely hope these Ron Paul Refuges attempt to find better ways to secure their Liberties, such as by forming Committees of Safety in their local areas.

Like I’ve also said before, “Those who desire some strategy that either involves methods that don’t work or a Christ archetype are simply avoiding the responsibility necessary for self-liberation. Such cowardliness deserves to be ridiculed and ostracized from the ranks of the realistic and the brave. Participating in the Carnival of Distractions for its own sake, all the while claiming to be ‘fighting for freedom,’ is in some ways crueler than being controlled opposition, for it demonstrates a type of mental insanity that is very difficult to overcome. If we are to move the cause for Liberty forward, let us all refuse to be suckered by the promises of all of these ‘Messiahs.’” I trust the Ron Paul Refuges, like the Tea Party Refugees, now have the courage, and the brains, to move more along the line towards that “state of nature” that the Founders talked about.

The 2012 Ron Paul for President site has been taken down. If you surf to www.RonPaul2012.com, it redirects you www.CampaignForLiberty.com. Speaking of which, C4L is now pushing the newest version of “Auditing the Fed” (H.R. 459). The THOMAS database of legislation (provided by the Library of Congress) says that it has passed the House of (non-representing) Representatives and has been “received by the Senate.” But wait a second….hasn’t the Senate blocked earlier versions of Audit the Fed? Oh, they have? So, why should I expect it to miraculously work this time? Ah, that’s right… since Dr. Paul is retiring soon (and he failed to get his party’s nomination), he at least wants to go out on a minor success.

While I sincerely wish him the best, I wouldn’t hold my breath for an actual audit; invoking the spirit of Gary Hunt (again), it would take way too damn long to conduct the kind of audit that would be needed of the Federal Reserve System. Besides, the only reason it’s being pushed anyway is to convince the fence sitting congresscritters than nothing less than total abolishment of the Federal Reserve Bank is going to restore sound money of any kind. You, me, and the guy down the street have no power whatsoever to force the abolishment of the Federal Reserve Company (at least via lawful process); only the Congress can do that, and I don’t see that happening anytime soon since it would be against their own interests to do so. You cannot expect agents of the State to act contrary to their inherent tyrannical nature.

As I mentioned several months ago, “Who knows? Perhaps I am being too cynical. Perhaps a miracle can happen. Or perhaps electing even a good man to the highest office in the land is NOT how to achieve liberty. Time will tell.” Apparently, the latter has turned out to be the case. Time has told us what we need to know; it now behooves us to start heeding the experiences of history instead of foolishly repeating it. No More Messiahs…only truth. And the truth of the matter is that we can only liberate ourselves, no one else can do it for you. As Robert Heinlein infamously put it, “There Ain’t No Such Thing As a Free Lunch” (TANSTAAFL), and the very same applies to Messiahs. No shining knight on a white horse is coming to save you by doing all the fighting in your stead. Only you can do it. This is the essence of responsibility and self-determination.

It is finally time for us to have…