What happned to Real Change: Toward a Final World Order?

Hi all,

As you know I’ve discussed, somewhat tongue in cheek, the idea of a final world order, which is a kind of play on the “New World Order” of popular vernacular. It is a radically progressive idea that is the antithesis of everything the western, neo-liberal democracy and the Anne-Marie Slaughter scheme of disaggregated states stands for. It is the alternative to the El Modelo, the IMF, the World Bank, The Chicago School, or the Washington Consensus as it has been variously called, among other things. But in the end this El Modelo is a model for a police state of a brand of far-right ideology that seeks to enslave the world not a little more brutally than it is already enslaved today. At first it seemed paranoid. Then as the President Bush, Jr. presidency played out and President Obama entered office it became evident that they were on to something. Numerous notable personalities have commented on this. There are echoes in the public discourse of 1930s Germany in which the canary was in the coal mine for any that wanted to look.  Anne-Marie Slaughter described this global, totalitarian nightmare in her seminal book “A New World Order”. Read it, please, because she was just as forthright about her views as Adolf Hitler was in his seminal work, Mein Kampf. And she is the movement’s guru. A friend of mine did a good review of this book here.

Academics in the Humanities and other areas as well have discussed this emerging police state in the United States and have lamented the lack of mass public opposition. The reasons for this are varied, they posit, but one key factor that seems to be a common denominator in all the examples seen is simple: the modern police state in its newest technologically-laden perversion is far better at instilling fear and intimidation into the lives of otherwise normal, everyday people; the kind of people that in the 1960s would probably be rioting in every major city in the U.S. by now. In fact, its become so clear that even so-called terrorists overseas are beginning to comment that their concerns, violent or not, are decidedly shifting prejudicially to the government and oligarchs of the United States and away from civilians. Having said that, I’m still not so sure that most people overseas even understand just how bad it has really gotten over here. Everybody is getting arrested all the time, for all sorts of bizarre reasons, and having their income and wealth siphoned and taken from all sorts of nefarious sources under dubious, false obligations. The only ones not yet drowned in this are the upper-middle class and their betters. That will change soon. So, the question becomes, how does one exercise their presumptively (on paper) Constitutional right to peacefully protest and lawfully dissent in such an environment?

As we saw with the short-lived and largely ineffective Occupy Wall Street movement the police state was able to suppress it by simply ignoring the Constitution by suborning Rule of Law and denying just equity, to put it in strictly precise terms. Aiding and abetting this was a new mass media totally sold out to the oligarchy to which the police state answers. In such an environment there is only one way to deal with this: all those of like mind will have to be willing to sacrifice more by extending their own resources, talents and time to providing safety and security for those who are the victims of police state brutality and injustice. And all of that can be done perfectly legally and with sound conduct. Here is what I think is needed.  Those who have more will have to give more. And those that need assistance who are productively challenging the police state need to have the security of knowing that if they can convince their colleagues of such a valid need, their colleagues will support them when the state effectively removes their livelihood, reputation, legal rights, etc. Of course, such a group would merely become the target of the police state itself unless, of course, this alliance is heavily decentralized. Those that want to help the cause should be loosely understood to fall into broad roles. There can be those that assist protestors targeted by the police state either by direct offers of a place to stay, a job, or whatever they can offer, and those that can donate for the cause. The other broad role would be those that are the active participants who go into the streets, get beaten and arrested for no valid reason whatsoever, such as what happened in Toronto, Canada a few years back, and who would otherwise be dissuaded from such action by the retaliation of the police state. By making sure these individuals have the very basic needs met that the police state tries to revoke or abolish as retaliation, the police state loses its primary tool of intimidation.

And just so its clear. The reason for the mass media sell-out is that, regardless of how objective they might want to be, they are still dependent on the existing social order and the institutions that protect them and allow them to profit. What they are realizing now is that revolution is getting razor close and they are afraid of upsetting these institutions. If they really reported the full truth the whole house of cards would come down in 24 hours and they know it.

And such a cadre need not be very large. Groups of as little as a couple dozen in each major city are enough to, if creatively planned and staged, force the issue into the mainstream press. In fact, if the press continues to play the shill, the activists can target them directly and forcefully. And when the general population sees that they are not intimidated nor having their lives destroyed, the general public is emboldened to act and no longer in fear of retaliation. So, in this sense, this idea is something like a pathfinder scheme in which small numbers of persons who have spent the time to build trust amongst themselves and to have vetted each other can act as a vanguard to alleviate or even remove the intimidation and chilling factor created by the police state. And I think it is that intimidation and chilling factor that is what is stifling opposition. It was instituted too quickly for the people to respond and prevent it in the whirlwind chaos of 9/11 and that is the only reason the culprits were able to get this scheme in place before mass opposition prevented it.

I believe the best place to start is with academia. Academics are the most educated and most credible assets we can rely on and recruiting them into a loose knit fraternity would be an ideal starting point. Part of the reason for this is that academics provide the sobered, rational backdrop against virtually all of reality society deals with in the public discourse and even the police state has to be careful about demonizing or undermining their credibility because they themselves depend on them to support the half-truths they use to fabricate larger lies.

To keep things highly decentralized, it could be organized as a mentor-activist arrangement in which those helping this effort would help match a mentor to an activist. The mentor would act as their direct support in case of retaliation and other more loosely affiliated persons could donate money to a mentor if that is all they can do at the time. I’m no expert is political organization and I know this scheme is probably unsophisticated and that perhaps there are already much better ways to do this, but whatever the case I’m considering this a call to action for anyone who has any ideas about how to do this to collaborate, The only precondition is that your intent is peaceful, lawful and Constitutional for the simple reason that stepping outside that boundary only dramatically improves the ability of the police state to stop the opposition.

As my readers know I am obviously progressive. But I am also a devoted General Federalist. There is no premium here on ideology and I’m not suggesting General Federalism as the only answer, so this isn’t connected to that in any way. In that vein, my readers will also know that I go to great trouble to remain as ideologically neutral and objective as possible and I do not make gratuitous ideological comments. This is a pattern that comes naturally from General Federalism which treats ideology as a kind of “opium of the masses”. Having said that, I would be remiss in this article if I did not characterize the beast for what it is. The evidence is now overwhelming that, at least in this case, this totalitarian project is decidedly right wing, characterized by an Aristotelian elitism that treats over 99% of the population as nothing more valuable than slaves, employs heavy deception to conceal these facts by appearing progressive, just as Aristotle specified, and, also as specified, to influence public policy makers through power brokers that hide behind them. One only has to read up on Venice, Italy and the early banking families to learn about this deeply ingrained philosophy that has a clear continuity to today. It was well-known and accepted in those days and the only thing that changed over the centuries was its gradual disappearance from honest, open discourse. The behavior pattern never changed.

Even if you just have suggestions, comments are welcomed, or you can email me directly. My address is kirkomrik@gmail.com. I have spoken to some about this but many, many more people are needed. If we could simply recruit just those die-hards involved in Occupy Wall Street it would be enough to get this started up. Thanks for your time and consideration.

- kk

P.S. I’m currently working on a very large article regarding this Aristotelian history as I think it is vital for people to know about it. My last few articles were written somewhat hastily and I hope to clean up some of the points I made there. Stay tuned.

Faction is the Quisling: the Moral Hazard of Bloody Neoliberal “Democracy”

Hi all,

I’ve posted an article written by a few people. I hope you enjoy.

If you’re a master con artist like the infamous Shylock you know that society needs currency to trade. If, somehow, you can tap into the process by which this currency is physically manufactured and put into circulation and force people to “borrow” it from you, even before you have even put it into circulation yet, then pay it back to you with additional interest, even though it was merely put into circulation as a tool for the public to trade in wealth and never intended to be “loaned” out, you can be more than just rich. More than just nasty rich. You can be GOD.

Let’s be upfront first. Money is not created “out of thin air” and “capitalism is not going to certainly fail because of an infinitely growing interest obligation”, etc. Read this article, watch our videos and learn something, if I may be so bold.

Now, a warning. If you try to unravel this mystery you’ll run into a massive wall of conspiracy theories, totally incorrect characterizations and misrepresentations of fact, disjointed mental processes and downright bizarre youtube videos. I know, its frustrating. But don’t fall for it. It’s not all that complicated or “sinister”, for no other reason than the fact that its been going on forever. But it is a nasty problem humanity needs to solve. I’ve always found it funny how those of us who have lived a life of abuse have such a clearer, more realistic understanding of our world. And those that were not abused seem to live in Oz, which is kind of a good thing, I guess. But to them I always say, its not about conspiracies (by these abusers), its just their particular pathology, their modus operandi. Its just normal living, that’s all. People make too much of a reality they weren’t equipped to handle, giving it catchy names and colorful descriptions. It’s just reality, that’s all. There’s no conspiracy or anything out of the ordinary. Everyone in our world does this all the time.

So, the scam works like this: just confuse the public by conflating two completely different concepts. One of them is (A) the process of creating new currency and putting it into circulation. And you have to do this for all sorts of reasons as a public service to allow people to engage in trade. The other concept is (B) the idea of “borrowing” or “lending”. If you can conflate these two concepts and get the naive (the Oz-landers) to believe that these two things are one and the same, you can make them borrow the very money needed just to make commerce possible, and make them pay it back to you with interest. Don’t see the con yet?

Look at this way. Imagine there were no money at all and everyone was forced to barter goods. They had to trade goods because they didn’t have money. Now some smartass comes along and says, you know what, with currency we could make it so that a given amount of currency is equal to a given amount of goods. That would make trading goods a lot simpler. You wouldn’t have to trade a ton of fish for 500 pounds of lumber. You could just use the currency that represents it and trade that. But the fifty million dollar question is, who is going to get this currency when it is first circulated? How do you decide to whom it shall go, and in what proportions it shall be granted? Who is entitled to how much? The easiest answer is to just say that it will go proportionately to each person based on the goods they possess, right? But thats not how it works. Instead, the currency is “loaned” (!!) to the people that possess goods – which the bankers call “collateral” – and the receiver of the currency (which is backed by his or her own goods) is forced to pay it back with interest … to … these novel businessmen called money changers or bankers. In fact, that begs the question, what exactly are you “paying back” and why? There is nothing to “pay back”. The goods belong to YOU, and so does the currency that represents it, which is why we invented currency in the first place, so you could use that to trade YOUR goods. What does a loan and interest have to do with the initial idea of using currency? Nothing. Get it now?

An actual loan would come about if someone handed over their own currency or wealth to someone else, gave them ownership thereof, and asked that they pay it back at some point with their own money or wealth; none of which would involve creating new money to inject into the pool of ciruclating currency. Currency (A) creation and currency (B) loaning are thus not conflated and confused. But isn’t that what banks do? No, and that’s the point. That is what our videos on this topic are about, which explain line by line the Fed rules here in the United States (which are little different than they are anywhere else these days). They’ve been doing this since the days of the Bank of England, and only shortly before that it was all loan-sharking and literally beating loan payments out of non-payers a la the Italian system started by the infamous Shylock. You see, “banking” has never been respectable, any more than the La Cosa Nostra that was formed right around the same time just down the street from Shylock.  It’s just that once they infiltrated governments with their scam they could use the government to legalize the scam and make it appear respectable.

Then why is it that so few people know about these Fed rules, even though they are published in the open (you can get them here on this site – see our documents “box”)? Well, because organizations to further these swindles have to be created so that they and only they can actually manufacture, either physically or electronically, all the currency, then deposit that new money into private banks. This way, the private banks have no idea what the con artists are doing. Central banks are excellent tools for this, for they operate in total secrecy and can simply “create” money by flipping internal switches, then depositing sums into private bank accounts. Our videos at http://federalism.jux.com explain how this is done. We made these videos because we couldn’ti fnd a single video on youtube that correctly explained how this works.

If you think this isn’t how it works, you need to read the articles here and watch our videos. It will be an eye-opener and it isn’t what you hear in the conspiracy forums either. It’s just a low-rent, trashy, underhanded and nasty three hundred year-old scandal of back-door swindles that’s gained respectability with the public because of the mind-boggling scale of the fraud and how much dirty money has been used to keep the public thoroughly clueless. These people’s actions are worse than those of the billionaire drug dealers that serve to distract us from the real kingpins. Justice in the world can only begin by eliminating institutionalized, organized crime.

As the Information Age drones on, these “secrets” will become more evident to the general population. If the full scale of the damage this has caused to humanity is revealed, and it will be, there is no question but that future observers will regard this not only as criminal fraud but quite likely as crimes against humanity.

There is insufficient space here to fully explain that statement, but it will suffice to say that the human suffering and anguish caused by this Scandal of All Time is so great, so pernicious and so massive that full public disclosure of this could easily result in unpredictable results and general political instability. The key difference of opinion within this camp appears to be that the black sheep called General Federalists hold that it is better not to let the public find out on their own, but to guide and shape the exposure of these facts to the public directly for the benefit of humanity. Illuminatio Ubique. How do we know about this? Its’ better not to worry about that, just research it yourself because we will give you the resources needed to verify it all on your own. The messenger is not the message.

Thus, before proceeding, it is vital to understand how money creation actually works, minus the conspiracy theories and hyperbole, so we can examine on its merit whether or not malfeasance could be involved in attempt to conceal the swindle. First, we note that there were only a handful of schemes that would actually have a material, negative impact on the central banking scheme of concealing and exploiting the conflation of the terms loan and money creation. These included any scheme that gave direct authority to the U.S. Treasury to print currency without an explicit bank “loan” being associated with it. Schemes meeting that criteria were the bimetal schemes, the greenback printings and anything else that did not require an obligor to repay. So. other schemes such as merely seeking a gold standard would not have done anything to break the central banks control. It is important to make this distinction if you want to play Sherlock Holmes. Every single person in a position to make these sovereign Treasury print runs happen and who has taken explicit action to try it has been assassinated. Here is that sordid story.

So, here is but a trickle of the trail of blood left by that vengeful, jealous and violent God.

President Andrew [mid. nomen nescio] Jackson, United States of America, 7^th in succession to office of same. Prior public service; United States House of Representatives, United States Senate, Military Governor for the State of FL and United States Army honorably discharged at rank of Major General. Born March 16, 1767 at Carolina territories and died 8 June, 1845 at TN. President Jackson was succeeded by election as President of the United States by President Martin Van Buren.

1. Two unsuccessful attempts were made against his life. The first occurred on 6 May, 1833 at Alexandria, VA. Robert B. Randolph boarded a naval vessel on which Jackson was embarked, proceeded to Jackson’s stateroom and physically assaulted Jackson and then fled the scene. He was chased and captured and Jackson did not press charges. The incident was probably not life threatening. Randolph had been previously discharged from the United States Navy (at rank of Lieutenant) by President Jackson for embezzlement.
2. The second attempt occurred on 30 January, 1835 at Washington, D.C. just outside the United States Capitol building at the close of a funeral whereupon Jackson was exiting the East Portico thereof. Richard Lawrence – born about 1800 and died on 13 June, 1861 – an unemployed housepainter from England who settled just outside Washington, D.C. at the age of 12, had been noted previously for aberrant behavior.

In the time leading up to the attack Lawrence became convinced that he was not receiving money due him as King Richard III of England (as he believed himself to be) from Jackson or the United States government because of establishment of a national bank prevented it. A further analysis of these claims is in order since Richard III died a long time before this and it isn’t clear if this is an inheritance claim or a truly clinical belief. The claim he made was for English estate claims associated with King Richard III of England, which might explain this belief in terms not as pathological as often is implied.

It was said that Lawrence’s personality and outward appearance abruptly changed just prior to the attack on President Jackson. The change, in particular, had to do with the fact that Lawrence’s normally frugal and conservative dress manner became flamboyant and expensive, as if he had come into a lot of money. He was accused of also becoming domestically violent, but these claims cannot be firmly validated at this point. Lawrence was prosecuted in a trial on 11 April, 1835 by Francis Scott Key but found to be “not guilty by reason of insanity” (mentally defective) by the jury.

Upon the attack on President Jackson, he aimed a pistol at President Jackson, pulled the trigger and it misfired. Lawrence drew a backup pistol and fired that one also, and it also misfired. Humidity could have contributed to the misfirings but, in any case, both pistols were later tested and no fault in the firearms could be found. While not confirmed, it had been stated that Jackson attacked Lawrence with his cane during the altercation. Lawrence was restrained and disarmed by others nearby, including the well-known David Crockett.

Lawrence later told doctors that his motive had been that he blamed Jackson for the loss of his job. He claimed that with the President (Jackson) dead

“money would be more plenty” (referring to the banking controversy in which Jackson was embroiled) and that “he [Lawrence] could not rise until the President had fell”.

Who in the world would give someone such a silly idea? Where do these nutjobs get their scripts? He further claimed that he was a deposed British King; to wit, Richard III, dead since 1485 and that Jackson was his [Lawrence’s] clerk. He was deemed insane and subsequently institutionalized.

 

1. President Abraham [mid. nomen nescio] Lincoln, United States of America, 16^th in succession to office of same and wartime Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Prior public service; Militia of the State of IL in 1832 honorably discharged with the rank of Captain, United States House of Representatives. Born 12 February, 1809 at Hodgenville, KY and died 15 April, 1865 at the Peterson House, Washington, D.C. President Lincoln was succeeded as President of the United States by President Andrew Johnson.

1. One successful attempt at assassination occurred on April 14, 10:13 p.m. at Ford’s Theater wherein President Lincoln was attacked by John Wilkes Booth (born 10 May, 1838 at Bel Air, MD; expired unknown) with a firearm from behind while Lincoln was seated. John Wilkes Booth had no prior military service, even in the ranks of the Rebellion that immediately preceded the assassination. However, it is generally accepted that he was a spy for the Rebellion known as the Confederate States of America. He hailed from the State of MD, was a sympathizer for the Confederate States of America and was a trained actor. A considerable body of evidence and knowledge surrounding this assassination has emerged over the years and will require a larger, separate treatment; however, historians now generally accept the view that a conspiracy of some kind was involved in this assassination. It is the nature of that conspiracy that is still disputed. Booth initially escaped Ford’s Theatre where the attack took place and fled to a rural property, hiding in a barn and not found by pursuers until 12 days after the attack. On 26 April, 1865 the United States Army arrived at the property where Booth was believed to be located in VA near the VA town of Port Royal, on the southern side of the Potomac and several miles south of the attack. As regards the chain of evidence, regrettably, the pursuit and capture/killing of Booth was performed not by law enforcement but by the United States Army. This would cause much confusion for researchers in the years that followed as to what the circumstances of Booth’s death actually were. All that is certain today is that Sergeant Boston Corbett, United States Army, shot and killed what was the presumptive Booth without identifying him (much less giving him a chance to surrender or to be informed of any rights – which was not practice at that time) when he ran from the tobacco barn in which he was hiding and which the soldiers had just set ablaze. Curiously, the United States Army recovered Booth’s diary and it later showed up in the evidence chain with 18 pages torn out. Years later, the officer that initially took custody of the diary (who we’ll name shortly) had apparently torn them out himself as those very same missing pages were found in a descendant’s house many years later. But the puzzle and riddle of these missing 18 pages grew much more tantalizing in recent years as researchers began to put it all together: for years no one knew what the pages said because they were coded and, of course, not even found until many years after the assassination (the key to the diary was found in Booth’s personal trunk shortly after the assassination). However, another key copy for decoding it was found by historians just recently and proved to be a rather noisy and shocking gun billowing with smoke for miles. The key was found to be before in the possession of a man named Judah P. Benjamin (this provenance is verified and not disputed) who was a Civil War campaigner for the Rothschild banking family. This key, to be clear, was unique to Booth’s 18 pages of diary notes and thus could not have been intended for anything else nor could it have been created by chance. For if either was the case, the key would have resulted in gibberish. Instead, the 18 pages translated into a lucid statement in perfectly clear, grammatically correct English. And it implicated, by name, Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, John Wilkes Booth himself, eight of his co-conspirators historians already suspected and over 70 government officials and businessmen. Of course, the funny part is that the U.S. Army unit giving chase to Booth and recovering this diary was led by none other than Secretary of War Edwin Stanton himself and he was the one who tore the 18 pages out. The connection to Judah P. Benjamin, then, is the element of this story found in undisputed facts that elevates this “banker assassination” conspiracy theory to something that might have a kernel of truth in it or at least justifies further inquiry. And that is the purpose of this very inquiry. If by undisputed historical fact we can establish that a Rothschild campaigner (these are the very people that pay out and take in payments for the promotion of their business in new markets or wherever a new business opportunity exists) was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln, by modern RICO statues alone the entire Rothschild family involved in that business would be eligible for conviction of first degree murder … and presumably, treason since conspiracy, by definition, would be involved. In those days and still figuratively speaking today, this was the fastest way to a thirteen wound rope than any other crime you can commit. Thus, the significance of this find is massive and few in the general public know about it. Based on the security of these keys and Benjamin’s role as paymaster it is almost certain that a financial relationship existed between Booth and the Rothschild family. But why?
2. President Lincoln seems to be one of the handful of rare individuals who were not only in a position to make things happen, but who shared a similar approach to contesting the authority and influence of the bankers and later the Federal Reserve. He simply had the U.S. Treasury print currency. Now, as with Kennedy’s Executive Order, it didn’t mean a specific amount had to be printed or that the bankers couldn’t also print money. That wasn’t the point. The point was that because of the corrupt manner in which central banks were injecting currency into circulation, on one in their right mind would use any of that currency if a currency freely printed by the U.S. treasury were available. Its important to understand at this point that a very specific, particular monetary scheme was being suggested here in Lincoln’s so-called “greenback” currency which would later become a pattern, a modus operandi, unique to virtually every person in a position of power who can enforce this scheme and who was subsequently murdered. Their specific schemes were different in some respects, but the outcome was the same: they all killed central banking.
3. President Lincoln expired on 15 April, 1865, 7:22 a.m. local time with the cause of death being a bullet wound to the head. If we establish as a working hypothesis that Judah Benjamin was in fact conspiring to kill Lincoln, then the next obvious thing a criminal investigator will do, if there is a possibility of a serial killer being involved, will be to flesh out the modus operandi of Benjamin in this crime and see if it matches others.  Of course, if it is a RICO-style organizational modus operandi, it need not be limited to Benjamin’s life span either. The only question is whether or not the “organization” can be said to have existed more or less in continuity over the time interval considered. This is the same logic used in courts in the United States when examining crimes by organizations such as the Mafia. The Mafia has a certain “style” of doing things and one can see their fingerprint, their artwork, even over several decades of time in which the actors involved in the first case are all deceased by the second case. Does the Mafia, for example, exhibit patterns that endure like this? You bet your ass they do. In fact, the La Cosa Nostra can be considered the Harvard University of the means and methods of organized crime that every aspiring noer-do-well tries to emulate. They are smooth, very low profile, eschew any and all publicity, are not messy, are master manipulators and purveyors of psychology, deception, fraud and propaganda, operate through proxies, patsies and nutjobs, never write anything down, have a loyalty so strong its like they’re all one mind, exploit and maneuver existing, externalities to further their own aims to further distance themselves from the illegal acts. In this way, they are the truest professional: they are focused on outcomes and getting their business objectives met. It’s never personal for them. One has to wonder if the Mafia are in fact the original teachers or if they, too, were once students of some “unknown” master. No wonder the CIA hires them, learns from them and does everything it can to make full use of them.  Just ask Fidel Castro. Ironically, the same place that modern banking was born is the same place the Mafioso call home: Italy. For Shylock is the real master.
4. Years afterward researchers discovered that John Wilkes Booth knew Vice-President Andrew Johnson quite well, shared a sister-duo-mistress and were on personal speaking terms even up to the day of the assassination of President Lincoln. How odd. It is a further oddity that all individuals who were material witnesses to the assassination of President Lincoln and the kiling of Booth subsequently went nuts; or, rather, were institutionalized against their will on account of being called nuts. One of the witnesses, President Lincoln’s widow, was known for an incredible political acumen and was convinced President Johnson was involved in her husband’s murder. The fact that Booth “dropped by” the house (the motel where the Vice-President was temporarily living) and wrote a note to Vice-President Johnson the morning of the assassination asking him if he was home kind of fueled that suspicion. Curiously, all of these material witnesses had the same complaint upon which their institutionalization was based: they said that “people were in the walls” and that they could hear their voices from “within the walls”. Odd that all of them would suffer the same fate and precisely the same pathological symptom complex (a very specific form of schizoid presentation never before or since seen in the annals of psychology whose only common denominator was that they happened to know more than just about anyone about the assassination of President Lincoln). This even included Sergeant Boston Corbett, United States Army, the man who shot “Booth”. He “jumped off a bridge” with a “suicide” note claiming that he was hearing those same creepy “people in the walls”. A couple sitting in the booth with President Lincoln when he was murdered went full up nuts when “the husband” tried to kill his wife and children by shooting and stabbing them. What’s odd about this rumor is that, curiously, no one died. How hard is it to shoot your wife and children and at least get one of them? In any case, they were hearing folks “in the walls”, too. Anyway, that was clearly sufficient grounds to institutionalize all of them. This pathos motif could have been conjured up by any sufficiently superstitious six year old child. Could this get any sillier? People are so naive.

1. President James Abram Garfield (a direct consanguineous ancestor of this author – 5^th great grandfather), United States of America, 20^th in succession to office of same. Prior public service; United States House of Representatives. Born 19 November, 1831 at Moreland Hills, OH and died 19 September, 1881 at Elberon, NJ. President Garfield was succeeded as President of the United States by President Chester Arthur.

Charles Julius Gautieu, a figure eerily reminiscent of Lee Harvey Oswald

1. Garfield’s presidency lasted only 200 days, from 4 March, 1881, until his death on 19 September, 1881, as a result of being shot by assassin Charles Julius Guiteau (born 8 September, 1841 at Freeport IL and died 30 June, 1882) on 2 July, 1881. The attack occurred at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad station where Guiteau shot the President in the back twice. Guiteau was prosecuted by six attorneys; Wayne MacVeagh (U.S. Attorney General), George Corkhill, Walter Davidge, John K. Porter, Elihu Root and E.B. Smith. The Judge presiding was Judge Walter Smith Cox. As in other assassination cases listed here, this perpetrator showed signs of harboring a pathological mental condition/s. Guiteau went to law school and became a licensed attorney in IL and practiced there in Chicago. He later relocated to NYC and practiced law there where he was arrested and convicted for embezzlement, after which he served prison time. After getting out of prison he dropped the legal profession (probably because as a felon he could not practice anymore) and took up occult theology. Contemporaneous descriptions styled him as a person of limited intellect but of narcissistic personality. He had also developed a reputation as a “mooch”, always looking for an angle by which to enrich himself.
2. Like with so many of the other cases, anomalies present in this case.  I came across this advertisement in the National Republican. It calls on people to listen to a Chicago lawyer (not a Washington, D.C. lawyer) and theologian speak on the Second Coming of Christ. The event was to take place at the Congregational Church at 10th and G St. NW — the first racially integrated church in D.C. — and the price of admission was a whopping 25 cents. “Show up before 8 p.m. on December 7th, 1877 to get a good seat.” What?! … 1877? That’s a full four years before he was in D.C. to shoot the President. Besides, wasn’t he in jail in NYC at that time? That one really got my attention. If you want to see the original, go to the Library of Congress here. Being known as a cheapskate and “mooch”, the follow-up research was even more tantalizing:
3. The Washington Post wrote a little piece in November of 1881, interviewing Rev. Dr. Rankin, head of the Congregational Church. This is what was reported:

A POST reporter chanced across the path of Rev. Dr. Rankin, the Congregationalist, last evening, and the conversation somehow drifted on the Guiteau trial. “Did you ever know,” said the good doctor, “that the vile fellow lectured in the lecture-room of my church about two years ago?” “That is certainly an unwritten chapter in the history of the assassin,” said the reporter. “Nevertheless it is so. One cold night he came to my residence and asked to see me. He showed me credentials and said that he wanted to secure the lecture room of the Congregational church to deliver his lecture on “The Second Advent of Christ.” I referred him to one of the trustees of the church.” “Did you attend the lecture?” “Thank fortune, I did not. He lectured, however. The trustee, by the way, wisely made him plank down a five dollar bill in advance. On the night of the lecture there were not over half a dozen persons present, and each one a crank. They pressed Guiteau so hard with their cranky questions that he became perplexed and left the platform in disgust, making the slim attendance an excuse.” “From your conversation with him, did you form an idea that he was insane?” “Far from it. I no more dreamt of his insanity than I did of the truth of his views. To me he was simply offensively disagreeable by reason of his egotism.”

I’m shocked that Guiteau had five dollars and, second, that he gave it up. Something stinks here and reminds one of the rather loud, obnoxious and attention-getting behavior of Mohammed Atta – the religious fanatic so devoted he was ready to kill himself for it – in Florida when he snorted cocaine, hired prostitutes and created major scenes in places like banks and airports; all where the public would remember him. But in this case, a dating gaffe is evident if this event were staged. And it makes one wonder, who really came up with the agent provocateur by nutjob scam in the first place? Remember, this was December, 1877 when Giteau was in jail in New York. There is more on this in what follows.

1. Astonishingly, Gitteau’s last public statement was a veiled suggestion that he had been put up to the murder and it sounds as if he is begging his handlers to come clean and free him: “I hardly think I am destined to be hung, and therefore give myself no thought on that, but am anxious to have my character and inspiration vindicated. To that end I need help as herein mentioned. My friends need not be ashamed of me. Some people think I am the greatest man of his age, and that my name will go into history as a patriot by the side of Washington and Grant.” Who the F is he talking about? Who would consider him a “patriot” of the stature of Washington and Grant? Think about this. Everyone hated this guy and there was no particular public hatred or disdain for President Garfield. And he seems to be suggesting that those that put him up to this would be those who esteem him as such. Of course, the bankers might well see it that way, but I can’t imagine who else would.
2. Guiteau’s testimony at his trial. It begins, “I have a brother named John [John Wilson Guiteau; he is eight years older than I am. He was bom at Ann Arbor, Michigan. He lived at Freeport * in his early days, and he went to Davenport, Iowa, in 1854, and lived there some fifteen years. He was a lawyer by profession and practiced at Davenport. In 1869, he went to New York city and entered the employ of the United States Life Insurance Company [owned by the Rothschild family]. He was with them two years, and was one of their principal men. He has a great deal of insurance brain. “I have a sister who is married to George Scoville, Esq., an attorney at Chicago. They were married in 1853 and have several children. My mother died at Freeport when I was seven years old, and my father was a widower for five years. He then married a lady at Freeport, named Maria. Bloodji in 1853. They have two children living a daughter (my half-sister), about twenty-five years old, and a son (my half-brother) about twenty-three years old, and I think that she lost one child in infancy.”  Gautieu went on,
3. Oddly, Robert Lincoln, President Lincoln’s son, was present when Garfield was murdered, just as he had been when President McKinley was murdered. The connection between the two Presidents is that both supported a bimetal currency system that, like President Lincoln’s greenback, would have bypassed the central bank. To understand why, the bimetal schemes allowed the Treasury to print certificates of value based on the value of these metals. This would eventually cause the central banks, over time, to become irrelevant and they would have to shut down. President Kennedy tried the same thing under a different guise much later.
4. President Garfield advocated a bi-metal monetary system. A bi-metal monetary system is one in which (A) both gold and silver money are Legal tender in unlimited amounts and (B) the government will convert both gold and silver into legal tender coins at a fixed rate for individuals in unlimited quantities. This is called free coinage because the quantity is unlimited, even if a fee is charged. It effectively bypasses central banks and is similar in that regard to a scheme created by President Kennedy by his Executive Order 11110 in 1963. While often misunderstood, the Order had the appearance of assisting the Federal Reserve when in actuality it would have bypassed it.

At his trial for mudering President Garfield, Giteau testified that, “soon after writing that article I wanted to go out lecturing to enlighten the world in reference to the discovery which I conceived I had made, and I got the Methodist church there — in Chicago — and I had my intention to deliver the lecture, well announced in all the Chicago papers, about the l0th or 15th of January, 1877. It was a Saturday night ; a cold, bitter night, one of the coldest nights of the year, and after making some preparations, and getting the hall, after considerable delay and trouble, I went there to deliver my lecture on the * Second Coming of Christ at the Destruction of Jerusalem.’ The announcement was made something like this: ‘Admission, twenty-five cents ; free to all who cannot afford to pay twenty-five cents.’ I went there about’ 8 o’clock, and found about twenty-five people, and I went on to the stage and delivered my lecture on the * Second Coming of Christ at the Destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70.’ ”

But this is a lie. Why? Because this very speech, identified precisely the same way, was held not in Chicago, IL but in Washington, D.C. on December 7, 1877. Because he wasn’t in Washington, D.C. on December 7 1877 but was rather practicing law in Chicago. He is deliberately covering something up and protecting someone. Who? His handlers? Someone else would have to have taken out this ad and given the speech.

He continued, “The next morning the Chicago Tribune gave me about three-quarters of a column — what they called a report of the lecture, setting it forth in rather unfavorable light, ridiculing me, etc., making fun of the failure of it, and the publication did me a great deal of harm. It brought me into contact … ”.

This speech occurred in Chicago, IL January 1877, not in Washington, D.C. December 7 1877. Read the news clippings and note the impossibility of this referring to some other speech:

Now, we’ll zoom back so you can see the dates:

And once again:

But how do we know that this was a Washington, D.C. paper? First, look at the title and google it. That is a Washignton, D.C. paper. Second, look at the paper. There are numerous D.C. place names there. But lets not be silly. Giteau was in jail in NYC throughout December, 1877 for embezzlement and most of those years he was in Chicago or WI with his sister. Someone was trying to place him in Washington, D.C. for a considerable time. Newspapers of the day reported that Giteau had only arrived in Washington, D.C. just days before the assassination and they even interviewed hotel staff.  Why did he need to be in Washington so long? Could it be because his actual handlers were in Chicago and people there knew about it? The original copy of the original can be found at the library of congress …

But it gets worse. Conceivably Gautieu might have traveled somewhat frequently between WI and IL if his sister lived in WI and they were not too far away. But it stretches all credulity that an indigent man (his legal practice was an abysmal failure) in the late 1800’s could so freely travel between Chicago and Washington, D.C. In fact, we know he didn’t.

On Monday, November 28th, Mrs. Scoville’s [Gautieau’s sister] testimony was continued as follows:

“He [Gautieu] visited her in Wisconsin in the summer of 1875. This time he was full of wild ideas about establishing a great newspaper, buying the Chicago Inter-Ocean, etc. Then she described how the prisoner soaped the hickory trees, and insisted that, if they were not apple trees, they were certainly peach trees. He became very violent about it, but the witness was very much amused. The prisoner that summer spent most of his time reading the newspapers and a Testament which he kept in his pocket. He said he was preparing to go in with Moody and Sankey. Finally, the witness’ son, Louis, would not stand any more nonsense from her brother, and put him off the place without her knowledge. She was very much worried about him, but a day or two afterward he rode past with a lady, and tipped his hat to the witness, as if to say he was all right. On his return she sent him to the cottage kept by the hired man, where he spent a couple of days.

The witness testified that in the summer of 1877, her brother Charles was still interested in some big scheme, lecturing [he was back in Wisconsin]. He denounced everybody who did not believe as he did, and said they were going to hell. He used to talk with one of the boarders at Beaver Lake — Mr. ‘Burrows — on the subject of the second coming of Christ, until she told him he must not talk to her boarders. Her brother never bore any malice. It was remarkable that he never laid up anything against anybody. In this respect she thought he was silly. Her brother had always been in dead earnest about everything. She never knew him to do as other young men in regard to games, or swimming, or anything of that kind. In ladies’ society he was always very polite and pleasant.  

  

1. President William [mid. nomen nescio] McKinley, United States of America, 25^th in succession to office of same. Prior public service; United States Army honorably discharged with rank of Captain, 1865, Governor of the State of OH. Born 29 January, 1843 at Niles, OH; expired 14 September, 1901, 2:15 a.m. at Buffalo, NY. President McKinley was succeeded as President of the United States by President Theodore [mid. nomen nescio] Roosevelt, United States of America (born 27 October, 1858 at NY, NY; expired 6 January, 1919 at Oyster Bay, NY).
   1. President McKinley took the bimetallism idea a step further and negotiated with France to try to adopt an international bimetallism standard. Such an agreement would have not only bypassed and obsoleted the central banks in the United States, it would have killed the very concept of central banking globally. This would be international banking’s worst nightmare.
   2. On 5 September 1901 at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, NY, McKinley gave a speech before 50,000 onlookers in which he spoke of his plans for his next term (having just been re-elected), the focus of which was his discussion of the international monetary system and his ideas on bimetallism. Just before this while they were in CA his wife Ida fell ill for unknown reasons and speeches on the same topic were cancelled there. At another speech the next day and at the same location, Leon Czolgosz shot him twice in the abdomen.
   3. Leon Czolgosz (born at Alpen, MI on 1873; expired 29 October, 1901 at Auburn Prison, Auburn, NY) would later claim that he was heavily influenced by Anarchists such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, despite being a registered Republican. Both Goldman and Berkman were extreme enemies of capitalism and banking having attempted to murder a man high in the hierarchy of a Carnegie corporation. He spoke very little but his last words before being executed were, “I killed the President because he was the enemy of the good people – the good working people. I am not sorry for my crime.” Czolgosz attempted to ingratiate himself with the Anarchist movement but was rebuffed because he was perceived to be an infiltrator. Subsequent investigation showed that he had no ties or communication with either Goldman or Berkman and couldn’t have been as influenced by them as he claimed. Curiously, after Czolgosz’s execution Goldman went into hiding and very little was seen of her since.
   4. Curiously, President Lincoln’s son, Robert Lincoln, was at the scene when Garfield was shot and murdered. Just as he had been in the case of the murder of President Garfield. What was Robert Lincoln, his own father also a President and murdered, doing at the crime scene of both of these rather noteworthy murders? [Author’s two cent opinion: because there was a splinter in the Rothschild family when a son decided to have a child secretly with … oh my god … a commoner, and a line of cousins came along that deeply opposed the designs of their kindred. There were two camps, both at war with each other and still at it today]

1. Congressman Louis Thomas McFadden, U.S. House of Representatives, United States of America. Prior public service; United States Army honorably discharged with rank of Captain, 1865, Governor of the State of OH. Born 25 July, 1876 at Granville Center, Troy Township, Bradford County, PA; expired 1 October, 1936 at NYC. Succeeded by Congressman Charles Elmer Dietrich (born 30 July, 1889 at Tunkhannock, PA; expired 20 May, 1942 at Tunkhannock, PA).
   1. Apparently there was at least one attempt on his life that was thwarted, a second attempt that was arguably an attempt at poisoning but never confirmed, then a third incident in NYC that killed him. All three are suspicious and the last two were never definitively resolved as to their nature and cause.
   2. In the third, final and lethal “attempt” he was in NYC visiting with his wife and son in late September 1936, when he was taken ill at  his hotel and died shortly thereafter in the Hospital for ruptured and crippled in Manhattan. The cause of death was officially listed as coronary thrombosis. He was interred in East Canton Cemetery in Canton, PA. Cause and nature of death indeterminate at this time.
   3. While we’ve not yet found what specific action he might have taken to undermine central banking or banking interests, he was extremely hostile toward banking interests, perhaps more so than anyone in history. However, psychopaths tend to be concerned with what people do, not what they say, so it is unclear what his role could have been. The key discovery would be, however, if there was some action taken that would have enabled the U.S. Treasury to start emitting currency, however the scheme actually worked in all its detail.

1. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, United States of America. Prior public service; United States Navy honorably discharged with rank of Lieutenant, 1945, United States Senator. Born 29 May, 1917 at Brookline, MA; expired 22 November, 1963, 12:30 p.m. local time at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, TX. President Kennedy was succeeded as President of the United States by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, United States of America (born August 27, 1908 at Stonewall, TX; expired 22 January, 1973 at Stonewall, TX).Through the years controversy raged over a police recording from Dealey Plaza where the murder took place, some claiming it indicated multiple shooters. But the techniques at those times were insufficient to conclusively determine (A) whether or not one or more firearms were discharged that day and (B) if the recordings heard were even of the correct event (as opposed to a later event in the motorcade processsion). All rational debate ended in 2000 when the scientific analysis using software on more powerful computers allowed a definitive conclusion based on the physics of sound propagation and how it behaves when it strikes solid objects (and thus the study of the echoes of shots as well as the shots themselves). Not only could it be verified that the purported shots were in fact gunshots and occurred in Dealey Plaza at (A) exactly the correct time in the motorcade (notwithstanding lengthy and labored arguments to claim otherwise about “where” on the “dicatphone” the recordings were and their temporal sequencing thereon), but they knew that (B) two shots came from two different directions, they knew (C) the caliber and (D) missile velocity of each round fired, (E) the number of rounds fired and (F) the exact location of the shooters; the software indicating one of them situated directly within the very same supposed window on the 6^th floor of the Texas School Book Depository in which it had been claimed Oswald was firing, its margin of error fitting inside the window itself. This study was quietly ignored by the media and most Americans never heard anything of it. Indeed, most conspiracy theorists investigating it have never heard of this peer-reviewed study. There were two gunmen, the other one firing one round from in front of the President, in the infamous grassy knoll exactly where the fence turns, just as railroad yard witnesses said many years ago when they reported two men behind the fence assembling, firing, and disassembling a rifle, then putting it in the trunk of a car they clearly identified and the car speeding off around the back side of the Texas School Book Depository, never to be seen again. The witnesses reported the two men appeared to be of dark complexion wearing plaid clothing. They were too far away to say more.
2. Oswald, or at least the general public, did not know the exact route of the motorcade until it was published 2 ½ days before the assassination. Since it passed directly in front of the building where Oswald worked, clearly Oswald either initiated the conspiracy or someone else had the juice to have the route directed to Oswald’s place of work. The problem with the former is that it is inconceivable that a professional hit could be put together at a random location on such a short notice. In other words, how could a modest man like Oswald conjure up the mighty forces needed to perform such an operation by dropping this demand on them only 2 ½ days before the event?

It seems that if there were more than one shooter, and we now know there were, then any collaborator would have been a consummate professional who would not simply wait for Oswald to realize that, oh, gee, the motorcade will be passing by my place of work so I’ll take a potshot at him. It’s ludicrous. Either President Kennedy’s motorcade was directed to that location, implying a highly influential collaborator, or Oswald’s job was directed to that location just before (highly unlikely as a ditzy and simple-minded housewife got him that job) OR the moon is made of cheese.

The motorcade was controlled and that follows necessarily from the D.B. Thomas study of 2000 aforementioned. Some detractors tried to claim in the earlier audio analyses that the gunshots examined were some other sounds because the recording occurred at the wrong
place on the tape and was of sounds recorded on the way to Parkland Memorial
Hospital. But when the D.B. Thomas study “fingerprinted” these impulses as
having uniquely originated from Dealey Plaza, the little discussion that had
started abruptly ended and the D.B. Thomas study fell into a deliberate
obscurity. It was never mentioned by the media and only one or two people
brought it up on internet discussion boards, the detractors never able to even
respond to it. It showed with scientific certainty that the proposition of their being less than two gunners was inconceivable and virtually impossible.

1. From Wikipedia: John J. McCloy was asked by Lyndon Baines Johnson to serve on the Warren Commission. He did. He was a banker and served as chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank from 1953 to 1960 and as chairman of the Ford Foundation from 1958 to 1965; he was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1946 to 1949, and then again from 1953 to 1958, before he took up the position at Ford.
2. From 1954 to 1970, McCloy was chairman of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations in New York (Chatham House), to be succeeded by David Rockefeller, who had worked closely with him at the Chase Bank. McCloy had a long association with the Rockefeller family, going back to his early Harvard days when he taught the young Rockefeller brothers how to sail. He was also a  member of the Draper Committee, formed in 1958 by Eisenhower.
3. WTF was this man doing on a murder investigation?
4. On December 6, 1963, just after John Kennedy had been murdered, Lyndon Baines Johnson awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, with “Special Distinction”.
5. As with so many urban legends, people on both sides repeatedly can’t get the facts straight. Executive Order 11110 signed by President Kennedy in the summer of 1963 did in fact bypass the Federal Reserve, despite what some on Wikipedia and elsewhere want to believe. No, the order never specified what redemption amount would be “ordered” nor did it require any of this. All it did was to say that “temporarily” (notably with no sunset provision) the U.S. Treasury would print “silver certificate” paper notes in exchange for a deposition in the Treasury of silver by anyone who wanted to do so. No, of course this doesn’t “abolish” the fed or some other such nonsense. But some of the people on Wikipedia seem to have a severe handicap when it comes to induction, common sense, human nature and seeing the big picture generally. The point of the Order was to destroy the Fed by causing everyone to go to a tool of exchange that everyone in finance knew would be dramatically preferred over the existing Fed notes. Why that is so hard for some to understand I’m not sure, but the point is that President Kennedy was attempting an end run around the Fed just as Garfield and McKinley had done with their bimetal concepts. It was a politically clever means of subverting the Fed, not an overt order to do so. But the Fed interests are not stupid and do not write for Wikipedia, so they knew what all this meant.
6. President Johnson personally, not by Executive Order, ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to recall the silver certificates President Kennedy had circulated up to that point. It was done almost immediately and the Treasury Secretary’s order is public knowledge. President Johnson got the picture and got it fast. Several years later President Reagan, in an effort to clean up the whole stack of all Executive Orders and remove redundancy, waste, etc., would sign an Executive Order formally rescinding President Kennedy’s Order.
7. McCloy also became a named partner in the Rockefeller-associated prominent New York law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. His nickname was “Chairman of the American Establishment”. Quite.

1. Congressman Larry Patton McDonald, House of Representatives, United States of America, born 1 April, 1935 at Atlanta, GA; expiration unknown LKA 1 September, 1983 at or near Moneron Island, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Prior Service: Flight Surgeon, United States Navy, rank and discharge status unknown. Congressman McDonald was succeeded in the office of same by George Darden (born 22 November, 1943 at Hancock County, GA and extant).
   1. McDonald was an admirer of Austrian Economics and a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he was an advocate of tight monetary policy in the late 1970s to get the economy out of stagflation, and advocated returning to the gold standard. In the Congressional Record McDonald repeatedly referred to the Monetary Policy system of the United States as criminal. But he was not of exactly the same stripe as Ron Paul, whom he often worked with. Why? Because here again he was proposing that novel twist on precious metal standards: the U.S. Treasury would print paper certificates upon deposit of gold, the same thing all the others had proposed and not a particularly common way of doing it. Notice that this particular system in all cases would have caused a massive business rampage away from Fed notes to the much cheaper and less onerous certificates.
   2. McDonald was quote as saying that, “the Rockefellers intended to control – first our own country, and then the world!” He went on to state. “Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, yes I do. I am convinced there is a plot, national and international.”
   3. 
   4. Hours before 1 September, 1983 Congressman Larry McDonald’s Boeing 747 commercial flight to Seoul, Korea lifted from the tarmac at Anchorage, AK and, instead of flying to Seoul, Korea, “accidentally” flew to the Soviet Union. In fact, it flew to a very specific place within the USSR in which a massive war game was going on in which the U.S. Navy and Air Force were harassing and provoking the Soviet air force in order to try to get them to energize their radar systems. The civilian plane managed to “accidentally” light up the entire eastern coastal air defenses of the USSR and the phone and communications systems used by the Soviet military to communicate with Moscow, so much so in fact that it gave the U.S. intelligence services years of data to pore over. It was a bonanza for President Reagan’s efforts to collect this vital air defense information. After cruising through the USSR for hours, the Soviet Air Force finally shot Larry McDonald’s plane down. This is a very long story, but recent investigations reveal that it is almost certain that some of the souls aboard survived a crash landing on the water off the coast of Moneron Island. The Congressman’s disposition is unknown to this day.
   5. And this also is quite a long story, but we now know that KAL 007 was deliberately employed to antagonize the Soviet air force and cause them to energize their radar systems. U.S. reconnaissance aircraft were all around KAL 007 while this was going on. KAL 007 was being tracked, paralleled and followed by a U.S. Air Force RC-135, the most sophisticated airborne electronic eavesdropping machine in existence at that time. Why do this with any civilian human beings on board, particularly a Congressman? Unless you want to kill him. They (the military) were asking for it.
   6. Apparently, the navigational avionics on the 747 were either malfunctioning or deliberately modified. KAL 007 was photographed at a military airbase outside Washington, D.C. just about 4 days before this flight at a secure location of the airport where avionics modifications for the NSA are made to aircraft. The U.S. media and government tried to deny this but the Soviets had already released the picture into the public domain. WTF was this civilain plane routinely ferrying non-combatant men, women and children around the world doing in an NSA electronic warfare modification hangar four days before, due to a “navigational” error, “accidentally” flying into the Soviet Union for hours, right through a bee-hive of U.S. military intelligence war games?

The deaths of Senators John Tower and John Heinz in 1991, both men having served on banking and finance committees and both dying in plane crashes within one day of each other are highly suspicious. But we don’t have enough information to sort his out … yet.

 

Senator John Tower

Senator John Heinz Banking, housing and Urban Affairs Committee, Committee on Banking and Currency for 40 years. He was a leading opponent in the 98th Congress of Senator Jake Garn’s proposal, contained in an overall banking deregulation bill, to allow banks to deal in securities through subsidiaries. Defending the interests of the securities industry, which opposed the provision, Heinz waged a lengthy but losing battle against it on the Senate floor.  Recognized as a specialist in economic affairs, Heinz took a strong nationalistic stance on money matters. He frequently spoke out against the rapidly increasing number of takeovers of American banks by foreign investors and institutions. In November 1979, Heinz appended to a bank deregulation bill an amendment calling for a six-month moratorium on foreign purchasers of American commercial banks, but the parent measure never became law.

On September 11, 2001 a massive attack against civilian targets in the United States was conducted that morning. Forget about the inside job. What is disturbing in light of the fraction of the history we’ve presented here is that virtually every target we can say with certainty was intended as such was related to banking and fianace; the insider trading on airline stocks beforehand, the financial audits looking for trillions of missing dollars at the newly constructed section in the Pentagon, the direct, pinpoint collision of massive airliners directly into the floors where the all-hands meetings were being held at the financial firms in which all employees were told to come with all their evidence of irregularity and meet that very morning, the suspicious collapse of another financially conspicuous building, building number 7 (possibly brought down by a civil defense self destruct explosive system installed when the building was built) and on and on. That is what makes 9/11 so fascinating. The blood just rolls on. But here’s the telling part: if multiple murders were required by 9/11 then the perpetrators are losing control of the situtation. They know it and they’re terrified. They are desperate. 9/11 was desperation in sheer terror. Blood is going to roll when the millions around the world wake up to the blatant truth.

So the blood rolls on. I have one word that just keeps coming to mind …

RICO

- kk

Victor Van Houten

J. Manley

Frita Fromm

A rather shocking and incredible article on 9/11 can be found here. It is hte hardest hitting, most complete investigation I’ve ever seen leaving the reader with no doubt that the official story is a sham. You can learn all about the background as far as the banking is concerned by visiting http://federalism.jux.com and watching the videos there.

Sadly, over the years, as these fascist interests took control of virtually all the worlds governments, traditional statespersons had no choice but to go along and try to get what they could through a strained environment of lopsided negotiation, acquiescing to the authority of the masters in exchange for being allowed to continue in some limited, publicy presentable role. They’re all just sycophants, mime artists and circus clowns now. So, don’t pick on Bush for like all the others he’s just a useful idiot. It is the entire program and theme of the Anne-Marie Slaughter Fallacy. These calls for a New World Order by politicians are just their fondly hoping and dreaming that when the internatoinal bankers do take over the world that they will be given some meaningful role in exchange for their priror support in accomplishing it. It’s the end product of the sick process of Stockholm Syndrome.

Some time ago it was easier to control a million people than to kill them. Now it is easier to kill a million people than to control them. Let the blood roll and liberty will be the victor. Bring it on. You, The People, are the only thing they fear. And boy do they ever fear you. The brutal and savage killing of a man most in his country thought of as a national hero, Quadaffi, has elaborated their deteriorating condition and no army they can muster will stop it.. It is up to you to take them down. And you can do that by spreading this infromation as far and wide as possible. You can illuminate everyone … everywhere. Educate yourself about the real world, not Oz, not their tired and predictable bullshit and not entertainment. No, learn about what is really going on and do everything you can to stop it. A great place to start is by joining the cause of the true admirers of the human freedom and liberty of the human soul, the black sheep of a sick family now turned to the light, the General Federalist Law Society, open to all.

See you on the other side,

- kk

Episode 2: Fractional Reserve Banking and Urban Legend

Fractional Reserve Banking and Urban Legend

The most illuminating video you’ll ever watch:

The Real Foundations of Political Ponerology

Like all of us beginning at a ripe young age, even Albert Einstein, was psychologically conditioned by anti-social abuse borne of a vicious cycle of the piling on of moral hazards in society. The same phenomenon destroyed Rome and it is an identifiable historical pattern.

Hi all,

Over the last few days you might have noticed I’ve been posting on a collection of related ideas that will now hopefully paint a more complete picture of where I intended to go when I started that exercise.

I’ve mentined the meaning and value of rule of law. I’ve mentioned how it hardly exists anywhere in the world today, contrary to what we here in the States are being told over and over. And I’ve mentioned how a breakdown of rule of law can lead to moral hazards, not just in government but in business, society, culture and education as well. And thats what makes the subornation of rule of law so insidious, for even a healthy, virtuous society can ultimately be destroyed to barbarity given enough time in a lawless, corrupt and moral hazard filled social structure.

And the process is a vicious cycle. For the subornation of rule of law begets moral hazards. Then moral hazards beget more subornation of rule of law. The victims are the citizens so affected by it, sometimes not even in the country where the subornation of rule of law began in the first place. We saw this in the case of Iceland which I recently wrote about. But now … the big picture. What is all this doing to humanity as a whole?

It is exponentially increasing the odds that humanity will soon become extinct. This can be seen by simply following the vicious cycle, one playing out for over 100 years in the United States so far. As rule of law weakens more and more the social contract itself, which is in truth simply an instrument of laws, disappears. Anarcy; effective or explicit is the inheritance of the insouciant. So, it is a fair and legitimate question to ask where did this begin, and how did it begin?

To be fair and complete, it really begin with super-alpha males who lusted for power and had no desire for rule of law in the first place. And back then this avarice didn’t threaten all of humanity.

And that is the key problem here.

Times have changed and now the ambitions and subjective objects of the most powerful super-alpha males in the world very much have the ability to annihilate humanity. Don’t assume for one second that powerful means ingenious: a powerful and succssful super alpha need not be Albert Einstein. This human avarice of a hyper lust for power and control is about to kill us … all of us, unless the weaker remainder, which vastly outnumbers them, can garner the initiative and drive to act and tear it down.

Is it any surprise that women are better credit risks than men? Or that female dominated parliaments ruled in countries that remained at peace – and were never attacked – for over 300 years? And that those same countries now have the highest living standards in the world? This is not to bash males, it is to point out that the sexes apparently do in fact have differences, taught or dictated by nature, that could provide clues here. We’ll come back to this.

What is killing humanity is the large-scale accretion of the powers of super alphas globally, in a way technology didn’t allow even 2 or 300 years ago. These once necessary evils, or put more fairly to them, these necessary left pathers, have now transformed into something nature never intended. It is fatal. And what neo-liberal western democracy has done is that it has turned out to be the shining city on a hill as the exponent of the mechanism by which the global catastrophe ultimately plays out. In other words, its the engine under the hood that drives the behavior and cooperation of the super alphas. It does this by the vicious cycle born of the structural vulnerability inherent in the philosophical underpinnings of neo-liberal democracy itself and the ensuing cycle whereby moral hazards are produced consequent to the structural vulnerability. And because that structural vulnerability never just goes away, everyone just complains and talks about how to repackage it with all sorts of “isms”. The same moral hazards just produced by the initiating structural foible then, in cyclic fasion, undermine that “structure” of rule of law yet again. The process just repeats. After 200 or so years of this the structure is gone, the streets are full of blood and the leaves of liberty are shaken strongly with the blood of what usually ends up being that of the oppressed more than the abuser.

Now, as for the personalities that fill these roles in the broken system as it ages and collapses in a kind of slow-motion train wreck, because the process is one of compounding moral hazard it has no alternative but to appeal most to those most comfortable with the most moral hazards. Like a 50 Tesla magnet pulling an iron coin from one centimeter away, the “system” draws the most pathological maniacs society has to offer to fill these roles. The entire system is fatal from the start. That is why General Federalists believe that moral hazards are de facto a weapon of mass destruction. So, we shouldn’t be surprised that the banking industry was set up long ago to siphon your wages by as much as an order of magnitude, stealing your wealth and leaving you with scraps … basically slavery. And it shouldn’t be surprising that we are lied to or that things like the impropriety of events surrounding the attacks of 9/11 appear more and more obvious as each year passes.

The point I’ve tried to make here is that when governments like the United States become dysfunctional it isn’t just some institutional or theoretical failure of the “ideology” upon which it is based. It is a social and cultural phenomenon – one could argue a flaw or weakness – that gets magnified exponentially over the generations due to the smallest and seemingly most unremarkable institutional defects at the beginning of the experiment. So, that too, is why General Federalists regard global rule of law as a much, much tougher proposition than merely contemplating the social contracts of individual nations.

And in this vein, it is particularly insidious that a system such as the neo-liberal democracy tends to minimize favorable human characteristics and maximize unfavorable human characterstics continuously over many generations, inhering these changes over time in culture. It is dark … and witchy. But its obvioulsy not sustainable.

Not only for the sake of durability, but out of a love of virtue alone, anyone speaking of global rule of law is not a little conspicuously unconcerned about these things when they talk of building a world governance with no constitution, no public discussion and no institutions or voter suffrage. And topping that list of suspicious insouciance is the total ignorance given to the question of the role of international banking continuing “as usual” with no reform or change whatsoever, the same banks that have raped and impoverished third world countries all over for decades with deliberately predatory “loan” practices. The problem isn’t global rule of law per se, the problem is whose global rule of law? Theirs or yours? Indeed, the problem is that the greatest secret of all of human history is much more mundane and simple than most might think. The secret is that you are all slaves and don’t even know it. “Illuminati” my ass. It’s the slavery, stupid (facetiously stated). For if you are being paid only 1/10 of the amount to which you are entitled, does it look not a little like you are simply being paid enough to survive and keep working … kinda like slaves are? And yes, its true, whatever industry or career you work in you are, generally speaking, about ten times wealthier than you ever knew. Its just that the remaining 9/10 is being stolen from you and that is the secret so many are terrified about the public discovering. It is Brzenzski’s Great Awakening so many people I know are so scared of. Before you discount this – as easy as that is to do – I’d point out that all of this becomes rather lucid with a good reading of the work “An Introduction to General Federalism” found here (<-link). I strongly recommend it. There are videos of it on federalism.jux.com as well. A friend plans to do a documentary on this soon to explain it more thoroughly and accurately than we think it ever has been.

So, to understand the sociopathic nature of the inter-social (and anti-social) abuse this causes, we can refer to one of my other posts where I explained in detail how human beings strive to protect themselves and their emotions from the shock of being forced to act against their conscience; that infamous Misinformation Effect. I wrote about it just a few days ago. Only recently are psychologists beginning to realize that this is the most extreme form of emotional abuse and one ubiquitously perpetrated against citizens of nation-states.

In conclusion, we know now that in its canonical, mature form the western, neo-liberal democracy which throughout human history has carried any number of names, from Shylock to Bernanke, nurtures and insinuates to its most visible zenith the cult of personality, the Great Dissemblers, who become died in the wool agents of the organic power structures of that society headed by a cabal whose eclat is their misty and thin apparition, their silent march across our lands, their ephemeral passage through history and their personality exposed only by the astute who observe that witchy concurrence of the acts of super-alpha maniacs and these ghosts of history. And now, to their trepidation and horror, vast technological change warmly invites the billions of tired and poor innocents to elaborate the condition: the Emperor no longer dons the invisible cloak. And we are become the Final World Order.

- kk

Enlightened Justice

Hi all,

Call me a reformer if you like. Or you can just call me Benedict Arnold if it makes you feel better. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the ancient dichotomy of world views between materialism and moralism sounds a lot like what I’ve said before about McDonald’s and Burger King, Democrat and Republican, etc. So, was there a point to where I was going with that? Well, yes. When we paint this motif in terms of materalism and moralism it takes the conversation to a more fundamental level. To advance this conversation as I’ve suggested I’ll need to be consistent. I’ve said that morals are public myth. By extension, so too must materialism be a myth. I think it is. Let me explain.

Admittedly, most people I know walk the materalist path. But what does that mean, exactly? Well, if you believe in stem cell research becasue it benefits humanity, particularly on the individual level, you might be materialistic. On the other hand, if you object to it on the grounds of morals, you might be a moralist. But the water muddies up a bit when we take these examples to extremes, and that is where I think reform is needed. What if we advanced a social contract in which everyone agreed that we would allow individual liberty without qualification save for the one condition that whatever we do it cannot manifestly harm another? Then I believe we are talking about a kind of enlightened justice. For to say that we can all pursue power, money, sex and whatever else without placing any restrctions on the manifest harm it might cause others then we are taking materialism to an extreme. And a society like this in the Information Age where everyone knows about, accepts and thus practices unbound materlalism cannot last long. And most detractors of it seem to always assume that’s what a materialist is (the extermist mythos) and these “materialists” are called “evil”. By the same token, when someone argues that we should agree that everyone’s life must comport in detail to the Holy Quran and all the “official” hadiths that support it, we are going to the other extreme. And most detractors of moralism assume this extreme when they criticize it (the other side of that extreme mythos). And a society in the Information Age will not tolerate a system like this for long, will be inherently unstable and the new organic power structures of society are now becoming the masses in totalum, not oligarchy.

It’s time to grow up and put the crack pipe down. The gig is up.

I would suggest that both extremes are mythical (inasmuch as neither is sustainable) and used by others to divide, conquer and outright confuse the public. As I stated before with the McDonald’s/Burger King and Democrat/Republican mythos people use this because human beings are easier to control when handed simple, binary choices. The minute you give them something inbetween, or more than just two choices, dissonance and rebellion ensues. It’s almost as if people need a guiding hand to “channel” them in a constructive, controlled and predictable direction to afford the management of society generally. However, I have a novel idea. I think times have changed drastically since this adage applied. I think that changes in the technological infrastructure of our world have made this old adage not entirely applicable. In this day and age deception, lies, and mass “control” are beginning to slip as a viable program for the organization of human society. Due mostly to the Information Age, this kind of scheme is rapidly breaking down and new ideas are needed.

So, my novel idea is this. Honesty. Why not part with these mythos and just admit and promote the reality that a healthy society works best when we are “materialist” to the extent that liberty without exception is the rule of law and “morality” checks us only when we manifestly harm each other? I say manifestly because if I don’t then we get caught up in a circular rabbit hole: if we allow “morality” to define harm we just end up with an extreme of “morality”. We have to draw a line somehow and say that unless it is objectively clear that harm has occurred we cannot make this claim as some kind of loophole to oppress.

For each of the fables and myths which you will know by the name assigned to them, “truth”, and for each opposing fable or myth the other half of your cousins of this good Earth believe, there is minted one counterfeit coin whereupon each side “truth” is delicately engraved.

It’s time to wake up and demand meaningful justice for everyone … everywhere

It’s time to bring meaningful rule of law to everyone … everywhere

The world needs economic dignity for everyone … everywhere

And the Earth cries for a righteous equality for everyone … everywhere

I think this dichotomous extreme of material and moral views has been promoted and pushed for centuries to confuse and weaken the public and its time for the light of illumination to shine on the world and free the human spirit.

- kk

The Hypocrisy of Democracy

Hi all,

Some of you may recall that the CFR made a proposal for a “Global Trust” quite similar, at least in spirit, to the Public Trust of General Federalism a few months ago. The CFR is now driving this proposal, Memorandum 26, once again on their website with another article on it. I couldn’t resist and had to respond. The article is entitled “A Global Trust for Rule of Law” by Mark P. Lagon, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights, and it can be found here.

The article begins:

The rule of law is critical for people to have a meaningful opportunity to thrive. Still, for billions of people around the world today, the rule of law exists on paper but not in practice.

Yep, and the United States is the “Shining City on a Hill” that exemplifies that hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is symptomatic of moral hazards. Please put that thought on the shelf as you read on to my discussion of moral hazards in what follows.

Even though a theme for the United Nations General Assembly High-Level Panel in fall 2012 is rule of law, various UN programs devoted to rule of law have not had a transformative impact.

Well, perhaps someone should clue them in on what that means before they deliberate on it too much.

Traditional intergovernmental institutions will never offer enough to achieve systemic change. To supplement them and achieve what they alone cannot, the United States should take the lead to forge a more nimble partnership with public, private, and nonprofit sectors and establish a Global Trust for Rule of Law (“Global Trust”). Similar to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (“Global Fund”), a diverse board of donor states, philanthropists, rule of law experts, and civil society representatives would run this Global Trust. Its purpose would be to build developing nations’ capacity to implement rule of law and unleash the potential of marginalized groups worldwide, promoting not only human dignity but, crucially, global economic growth.

The basic idea sounds great, but I’d only suggest that you need to know what rule of law is before you try to create an entity or network purposed to support it.

The Problem

“Rule of law” consists of procedures giving all people in a society meaningful access to justice, unimpeded by corruption or discrimination.

Well, that’s your opinion. Many thousands would disagree. “Rule of Law” is more fundamental than the things you are speaking of. When a society abides rule of law it simply means that the societal norms (usually expressed in statutory laws and the exercise of equity in law) are/is uniform and predictable. It doesn’t mean all that other fluffy stuff. If you want to talk about those fluffies you need a different term for that.

In fact, this is precisely how the United States has managed to avoid, avert and prevaricate on all matters dealing with genuine rule of law because, frankly, the United States is bankrupt when it comes to any semblance of it. How is this, you ask? Well, perhaps I might be alluding to any of the bulleted items below which represent a mere fraction of the ways in which the United States has betrayed rule of law? Could it be example item 1? Or perhaps it is 2? Could 6 be the example of rule of law you were thinking of?  Perhaps you were thinking of 14, or 15? The United States has no moral currency to spend on a Global Trust, imo. Yes, all things are relative and in several examples the U.S. could be considered a leader. And that’s scary:

1. Attorneys in the United States routinely gather privately and discuss cases, then decide on a “deal” they will present to the judge, making the hearing itself a show trial. While this is not supposed to happen, because the judge and attorneys all know the identity of each other, this becomes possible, and human nature demonstrates it is inevitable. This constitutes an end run around Rule of Law. General Federalism ends this practice by invoking double-blind standards – something never proposed before. Failure to institute double-blind standards is an act of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
2. Just a few years ago the United States experienced what became known as the mortgage crisis. Here is what really happened. Banks divided their mortgages into groups based on risk. For example, those most likely to default might be in group 1. Those least likely to default might be placed in the top group, 10. And the risk of default for each group would then increase from 1 to 10. Then, the investment gurus created an investment instrument which was itself composed of several other instruments. Rule of Law requires that when you create an investment vehicle like this you must report the default risk so that credit rating agencies can give the instrument a proper and accurate risk rating. So, a legal entity called MERS was created to buy the deeds for all the mortgages the banks carried, including all the deeds of risk levels 1 through 10 in our illustration. MERS then violated Rule of Law by severing the chain of ownership between the deed and the homeowner and instead re-titling it in the name of a third party investment firm. But the clever fraud here was that the reconnecting of the deed back to its rightful owner was not done before the investment instrument was sold to an investor. Rather, they placed all the deeds in what are called tranches created by the investment firms; basically a bunch of buckets in which to place and categorize the deeds by risk, in our illustration being 10. Normally, the tenth tranche would be the lowest risk bucket and would have the highest credit rating, thus making its market value higher than the higher risk buckets. But when they put the deeds into the buckets they just dumped all of them in, by illustration, bucket 10 and left all the others empty. This put 10 buckets worth of instruments in a single, highest-valued bucket, or tranche. Of course, the rating agencies rated all of them with their highest rating, “AAA”. Now, they could begin selling these deeds, which by this time were converted into investment instruments whose value was backed by the deeds, at a premium price. But that also meant they could sell very high risk deeds at a premium price also. Only once a mortgage actually defaulted did they then move the deed from tranche 10 back to tranche 9 or some other lower bucket. This circumvented the very meaning of speculation and risk as they were not operating with risk, as they were purporting to do, but were acting out of virtual certainty. Thus, once a mortgage defaulted it was quickly placed into a riskier tranche and the ownership trail of the deed was “reconnected” by ‘robo-signers’ (people who signed deeds in order to transfer them, which, done in that way was illegal anyway) back to the actual investment vehicle that got moved to the riskier tranche. This is blatant fraud and was never resolved by any legal authority. It was a multi-trillion dollar theft that was never prosecuted. Nor were the actions Rule of Law required to remedy this problem undertaken. It was a blatant violation of Rule of Law. This event in particular, shows how deeply corporate interests can and have influenced government to the point of suborning Rule of Law.  The entire affair involved approximately 48 million home mortgages. Western, neo-liberal “democracy” has clearly demonstrated an inability to prevent the suborning of Rule of Law by the oligarchy and any global governance scheme will have to have a mechanism that reliably prevents this.
3. Judges in the United States are an “Officer De Jure”, which is interpreted to mean that their Orders can violate the law (a friend at the ACLU told me this and I have seen it myself). Further, instead of using the principles of “equity in law” as they are supposed to, they take it to mean they can rule anything consistent with their personal opinion. That is not what equity in law means. Thus, Rule of Law is subverted. General Federalism provides remedy for this and requires Judges to state their logic and reasons in every ruling. Giving absurdly corrupting powers to Judges is an act of commission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural
4. Multilateralism exercised by numerous countries means that unelected officials are making decisions that affect their constituents in ways that their own fundamental laws intended to be made through legislation. This is not only a blatant subversion of Rule of Law but it is a complete suspension of it. Notice that this issue is structural
5. In the United States, the science of public relations is so honed that any candidate with sufficient funds can win an election and the very fact that voters hear so little of other candidates makes their efficacy in that office appear inadequate to the voter. When two candidates spend roughly equal amounts of money on a campaign, the result is a razor-thin election. If one follows the campaign money, it is clear that money, at least in the last thirty years, is what wins elections. Consequently, the faction of oligarchy now controls all elections. Thus elections are de facto no longer of equal suffrage and are rigged. As equal suffrage is a requirement made in the U.S. Constitution, this is a violation of Rule of Law. Constitutionally permitting the private funding of campaigns is an act of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural
6. It would under any other circumstances be a laughable fact that bribery and corruption are generally understood only in certain contexts even though their definition applies in contexts the general public, for some reason, seems to conveniently overlook. In other words, bribery and corruption goes on openly and blatantly on K street and the public never seems to notice it. What we are referring to is the idea of “special interests” and government lobbying. Of course this is blatant bribery and corruption, but the way in which those terms have been understood has been twisted and perverted to make it appear that only someone who is not a “reputable” politician could do something like that. Thus, the entire federal government of the United States is thoroughly corrupt as they take favors (or “emoluments”) from factions (campaign money) in exchange for favourable consideration in Congress of the faction’s perspective or agenda. It is blatantly obvious and is a wholesale rejection of Rule of Law. Yet, the United States lectures the world about “rule of law”. It is astounding. Constitutionally permitting the private funding of campaigns is an act of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural
7. Since the Patriot Act, the United States now can incarcerate anyone without a trial indefinitely. This is not ideological hyperbole but, as I have found in my research, literally correct. This is another wholesale suspension of Rule of Law. This is a matter of ingrained public policy.
8. Federal judges in the United States routinely (to the point of being almost a certain, guaranteed fact) dismiss cases bearing heavily on matters of the United States Constitution simply because it is policy to not hear such cases. This policy (yes, courts also issue “policies”, or standing rules, throughout the courts that other courts are obliged to obey. This is not to be confused with precedent or case law, but is an explicit policy set by senior courts) must be followed by all courts. For example, if someone’s 14^th Amendment rights are blatantly violated – say the custody of their natural child is completely revoked without service of process or a hearing beforehand, indeed, even without their knowledge at all – in an open and shut case for which even the opposing party agrees is true, and if it involves subject matter such as domestic relations; the courts will almost certainly dismiss it, even though they are required to hear it because it hinges on a clear federal matter (the Supreme Court has set case law – which is overridden by policy by the way – that if a hearing is held within thirty days after the revocation then it is not a violation of the 14^th Amendment. But I am personally aware of numerous cases where a hearing was not held for many months afterward). When a State fails to perfect any of the valid methods of service of process (whether by direct service through a law enforcement officer, a valid process server, or by a waiver procedure) and revokes a fundamental liberty right (such as one’s access to their natural child) this is cause for a hearing by a jury in federal court. The examples are endless, even affecting Jesse Ventura when he tried to obtain a federal jury in a politicized matter having to do with U.S. airport security practices. Federal courts have turned the art of finding ways to dismiss cases well before a jury can hear them into a masterpiece displaying an impressive level of sophistication and effect. It is obvious from the sheer volume of cases whose matters are highly politicized, and the manner in which they are routinely dismissed in favour of the more powerful political position at that time and place, that corruption is occurring in that communication with the judges outside Court and without the other party (ex parte) is occurring (speaking of volume, please also note that courts have since their earliest days steadfastly refused the collection of non-identifying statistical data on the outcome of cases, precisely because it will prove what we are saying here). And we shouldn’t be surprised at this since it is human nature to corrupt power. The only way to stop this is to enforce double-blind procedures in all courts, a key innovation made feasible in all its seeming complexity under General Federalism. And all of this matters, regardless of how much of a “technicality” we want to think of it as, because these technicalities go to the heart of Rule of Law. When following Rule of Law, every technicality is followed as that is the very essence of what Rule of Law means: You follow the rules. But lets not kid ourselves. The things we are talking about here could hardly be called technicalities. These are wholesale revocations of Rule of Law in which a wealthy, powerful individual can get any ruling they want. It’s a complete disaster and farce. This is why we call neo-liberal western democracy a lie. The constitutional elision of some form of jury representation in the appellate courts, lack of double-blind standards and a lack of requiring scientific rigor for probative force are all acts of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
9. Courts in the United States have the power to issue two flavors of something called “contempt” of the Court. The two flavors are criminal and civil. Here, yet another back door to circumvent rule of law is structurally built-in because should a judge issue a contempt order, either civil or criminal, a person named therein to be arrested can be arrested without any stated cause, without any reading of rights and can thence be placed in jail until the person pays whatever fees the judge wishes to demand in the contempt Order. Notice that several rules of law we generally take for granted are being violated here. This is a tool of choice when dealing with any “normal” person who has a slam dunk legal case against an oligarch and who just won’t go away. By assessing attorney’s fees, expenses or other required remediation costs that are, of course, all trumped up, a judge can Order the paying of massive fines that no “normal” individual could possibly pay. This allows the judge to jail this person for many, many months. I cannot speak for every State of the United States but I can tell you that in the State of Georgia this is more than just routine. People sit in jails in Georgia for several months on account of an inability to pay a fine set by a judge. And they obviously cannot pay it if they are sitting in jail because, for one thing, they would pay it in order to get out, secondly, they cannot do anything in jail as far as paying anything or even coordinating the payment of fines and third, they cannot pay themselves (that’s the rule imposed), so someone else has to do it in their stead. We’re not talking about bail here. Speaking of which, these cases offer no bail option at all. Again, the purpose of this provision, like the Officer De Jure nonsense, is to give Judges the power to circumvent rule of law when oligarchy is in a bad way and a case is heavily stacked against them. General Federalism eliminates this moral hazard by requiring that no one can be jailed on the basis of any debt or fee by itself. The granting of legal powers that are excessive and resilient to accountability is an act of commission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
10. Absolute immunity of judges has been grossly abused, in many cases by State legislatures themselves. In the State of Georgia, the legislature there pulled a clever trick to circumvent rule of law: they passed a law that allowed Courts to hold hearings in which a person’s rights were revoked or disfurnished without telling that party that a hearing was being held (an ex parte ruling) – but unlike the Supreme Court’s ruling stated – said nothing about how long one could do this without a hearing with the affected party present. This meant that if the judge issued a ruling and did not hold a hearing within thirty days, he (or she) was in violation of the 14^th Amendment! But because of his or her absolute immunity, as the Supreme Court has sternly ruled in case law, you can do nothing about it. As we can see as we enumerate all these “secret” tricks it is clear that if the United States government wanted to go down the road of despotism it is already well equipped for it. General Federalism places limits on absolute immunity of judges (it does have a good reason for existence, but limitations can be placed that do not undermine its purpose). The granting of legal powers that are excessive and resilient to accountability is an act of commission in creating moral hazards.  Notice that this issue is structural.
11. What we see here, as we do in virtually every case in the United States, is a unique strategy for violating Rule of Law. In other places, especially non-western countries, violations of Rule of Law are more overt and open. But in the west trickery and deceit is the name of the game. This unique strategy so thoroughly perfected in the United States is to deliberately create moral hazards for actors in various roles, then use that to circumvent Rule of Law, either by blackmail or by simply relying on their human nature. In creating the moral hazard one does not, necessarily, have to violate Rule of Law themselves. This gives the appearance of a working system of Rule of Law while the true violation occurs behind closed doors in ways not easily observed by the public. It is deceitful and dishonest. Of all the characteristics of General Federalism, this disdain for deceit probably differentiates it from just about every other global governance movement more than any other single characteristic. Notice that this issue is structural.
12. Slavery is illegal in the United States by Constitutional Amendment. An example of how slavery works might go like this. If I decide to purchase one hundred slaves from some distant location overseas at a price of x per head there is a reason why I’m doing this. I’m doing this because I know that despite what I spend on the slaves, owning them and putting them to work on my plantation will generate far more money that what I spent purchasing them. Of course, that calculus involves some speculation on my part. First, I am speculating that only a small percentage of the slaves I purchase will fail to be productive (some may die, some may not be able to work because of health, etc.). And I know that some will fall into this category. But, if the price per head, x, is right, and the gains I know I’ll get by using even just the remaining healthy slaves is high enough, I know I will profit. So, I am speculating on the future economic performance of a group of 100 human beings. I cannot know for sure which ones will be productive and which ones will not, not by name, but all I need to know is what is the likely percentage of productive individuals in that larger group. So, the future economic performance of any one of the named slaves is speculative. If we switch lenses now we can see that the exact same definition exists with unsecured credit. In this scheme, I give a large sum of money, like I did when I bought slaves, to a purveyor of credit. This purveyor loans this money out to several people, say 100 people. But in doing so they sign an agreement that requires them to pay back my money, plus some amount of interest. I know that, if the interest is high enough, and if I can have a rough idea of how many of those 100 will fail to be productive (and thus fail to repay me), I can adjust that interest rate to insure that I profit from all the other debtors that repay me with interest. In this example, I am speculating on the future economic performance of a group of 100 human beings. However, by making it “voluntary” (a questionable claim we’ll make for the sake of discussion) and by obfuscating it in the world of abstract finance, I am concealing the fact that I have just circumvented Rule of Law by making an illegal activity legal, even though the law never changed. For if the gravamen for making slavery illegal is not that it constitutes speculation on the future economic performance of human beings, how else would you define it in a way that would capture all forms of slavery known at that time? Clearly, this speculation on human performance is the basis of slavery itself. So, slavery has been reintroduced and Rule of Law violated again. Notice that this issue is structural.
13. In the United States, the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure is the law of the land. However, as noted in previous examples, if you take such a case to the federal courts it will almost certainly be dismissed. And cases running rampant across the United States are frauds such as storming into private residences where a warrant, also by law of the land, is required before entry. Simply “having” the warrant, or the warrant being in “existence” at the time of the intrusion is a mockery of the meaning of the law. Without allowing the residents an opportunity to validate the authenticity of the action, the intruders are trespassing, plain and simple. But the Rule of Law protecting one from “unreasonable” invasions in which the resident has no knowledge of the required “oath or affirmation” (warrant) is circumvented by existing practice and the federal courts refusal to hear such cases. It is true that occasionally federal Courts will hear cases like this, but only when it is brought by oligarchy or its agents and only to placate growing public anger and sentiment. The vast majority of cases of this nature are dismissed out of hand. General Federalism puts an end to this moral hazard by simply denying the right to enter any place serving as a private abode at all. There are exceptions, but that is the gist of it. Notice that this issue is structural.
14. If any agent of government notifies or informs a Citizen that a given set of Rules of Law exist when they do not, or states that a given set of Rules of Law that do exist do not or if they simply misrepresent existing Rules of Law, then under General Federalism the agent would be considered to be violating Rule of Law. This is because, by dint of the agent’s authority as a lawful delegate of government, they compel the Citizen to behaviour outside the actual Rules of law. And if you cause someone to violate the law you are violating the law. Sadly, this happens on a routine basis every day in the United States, usually being perpetrated by law enforcement officers. Notice that this issue is structural.
15. Advertising in the United States has clearly crossed the line into blatant fraud and virtually every American can easily see that fact. For example, when a software company collects your financial information to sign up for software as a service, then tricks the unwitting computer user to respond to an advertisement for a different product or service in which it isn’t clear to the buyer (which is what matters) that it is in fact an ad or that they’ve consented to a purchase, and the advertiser charges them for that purchase using the financial information already collected, it is clear and blatant fraud. Once again, because the Courts are structured with so many “ejection seats” to get them out of cases like this, they can either rule in favor of oligarchy or just dismiss the case entirely. Seldom will one ever get to an actual jury. General Federalism includes a specific Constitutional provision to stop this practice. The constitutional elision of principles of justice in economics is an act of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
16. One of the areas most rife with corruption in the Courts of the United States is the area of domestic relations. Here, the federal government pays States a proportionate amount of money for the amount of child support they order. In other words, the States are getting kickbacks from the federal government to order child support. The problem however, is that this compels judges, the same people making determinations of child custody, to give almost all custody rights to just one parent, not divide it equally. The overwhelming consensus in the psychological profession is that joint, down the middle custody of children is by far in their better interests. This kickback came about as a result of special interests lobbying for it and created a moral hazard for judges when making determinations of child custody. Judges simply revoke almost all custody from whichever parent the constituent community will least be in uproar about. And there is the final cause of this moral hazard: judges in most districts and circuits are elected directly by the residents of that area. But the same problem of special interests comes into play and judges are put in office by those with the deepest campaign pockets; the oligarchy. And that is why judges always use these tricks and “escape hatches” to circumvent Rule of Law and please their masters. General Federalism forbids this practice by having Judges nominated by equal suffrage and a candidate then appointed from that selection. The Failures to protect individual liberties are acts of both commission and omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
17. Both State and federal Statute in the United States is a bloated tome of years of legislation piled on top of itself. The inevitable result of this is that, eventually, blatant contradictions and internal inconsistencies in the law appear. It is a verifiable fact that about 25,000 new laws are passed in the United States every year. It is truly astonishing to find that in most bodies of Statute, to include United States Code, for every law found one can find another law somewhere else in that corpus that blatantly contradicts it. This again creates a moral hazard by allowing Judges to simply pick whichever law they prefer in any given case and apply it, even if they are bothering to read the law in the first place (usually they just rule on their personal opinion). This is another wholesale corruption of Rule of Law. General Federalism addresses this by requiring Courts to identify contradictory, internally inconsistent and/or redundant law, declare all of them unconstitutional where codified together as such and only then reach a ruling in the case presenting. And they must do this in every case heard, virtually guaranteeing that contradictory law doesn’t live long in Statute. Failure to constitutionally require Courts to rule on such inconsistencies in every hearing held is an act of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
18. The United States Congress has passed laws over the years requiring that, in certain politically sensitive cases, original jurisdiction in federal courts shall not begin where it is supposed to and always has before, with the lowest federal Court, the District Court, but rather shall first be heard in the federal Circuit Courts … where no jury is present. This is what happened in the example given of Jesse Ventura. General Federalism ends this practice by first, explicitly denying the government any right to place barriers to anyone seeking to have their case heard by jury and second, by Constitutionally framing the Courts such that all Courts, including appellate Courts, have juries. In western law, an appellate Court is only supposed to evaluate the question of whether or not the lower Court erred in its ruling. It is a decidedly procedural analysis and is the reason why juries were not required. Appellate Courts do not try fact, which speaks directly to merit. They thus don’t really try a case on its merits either. They are simply making a determination of whether or not the lower Court made some procedural mistake. Under General Federalism, the role of the appellate Courts is both to be an arbiter of procedure as well as a limited trier of fact. However, the restriction on trying fact is that the appellate Courts are not empowered to hear or collect new facts unless a lower procedural error prevented its entry there. Thus, under General Federalism appellate courts hear matters of procedure without a jury then under limited conditions hear matters of the merits of that same case with the jury, and the jury’s decision is final. The denial of juror involvement on any level in the appellate system is an act of omission in creating moral hazards. Notice that this issue is structural.
19. General Federalism holds that the ultimate expression of Rule of Law is to acknowledge in deed that its powers are derived of a population of people who, at the end of the day and as an Individual, had no choice but to consent to the social contract put before them. And therefore, it is a perversion of Rule of Law to then assert any right to “punish”, for punishments sake, an Individual who for whatever reason, declines to abide that social contract. This concept is a bit abstract but when you think about it, the logic is inescapable. If you believe in Rule of Law you cannot simultaneously believe that a provision of the social contract as a rule of laws authorizing punishment can constitute a valid rule for someone who declined to accept it in the first place. It is internally inconsistent and only serves to suborn all Rule of Law. Punishment is a strongly positive action authorized by a social contract. Rule of Law suggests that the minimal act against a dissenter necessary to maintain the social contract amongst the remaining ones that abide is the correct approach. Therefore, under General Federalism, punishment by the state is forbidden and the only act one can take for someone who violates Rule of Law is to physically separate them from your own society. As they had no choice but to accept your social contract, this should be done humanely as they are in your care and your responsibility. So, jails in which people are locked out of their cells all day every day in a commons room with steel chairs and tables, concrete floors and no other place to sit and no activity in which they can engage are deliberate forms of punishment. Under General Federalism, one who violates Rule of Law hazards their right to freedom of movement and association and can be separated from the general population for any length of time. But they cannot be punished for the sake of punishment. It is broadly true that condoning punishment, which is violence, is an act of commission in creating moral hazards.
20. The sheer volume of legislation that inevitably brews in a system in which the general public’s direct participation in the creation of public policy itself, which we’ve shown is in fact a ruse and a kind of baiting to gain the public’s acquiescence to rule by faction, also tends to result in a massive and colossal corpus of Statute which, by being internally inconsistent and redundant, also tends to breed moral hazards. For example, though it varies amongst the States of the United States, for example, some of those States have produced not only a massive tome of State code, they have created Code that is obviously designed to please faction by offering extreme, outlandishly excessive punishments for the most minor offenses while simultaneously also providing an out of proportion punishment orders of magnitude less severe. This is necessary to placate the factions that got members of their legislature elected by enacting laws with the ridiculous punishments the factions sought, but providing an ejection seat for judges to avoid creating mass public anger and revolt over draconian and abusive laws. This gives judges hearing cases involving these Statutes far too much discretion, a moral hazard, and serves to intimidate the public by misleading them as to what de facto Rule of Law will be applied if they commit such an offense. This, by itself, undermines Rule of Law. But it speaks to a much more serious and deeper problem: a body of Statute with extreme variation in the allowed consequences for conviction results, inherently, in a system that is highly unpredictable to the public. Unpredictable Courts, in yet another way, will then generate and promote moral hazards up to and including moral hazards within the general population: consider what happens in a case in which a person is being treated highly unfairly or has a powerful political opponent that wants to bring him or her harm. Then simply appearing for a court appearance over a simple misdemeanour offense might compel them to violate Rule of Law and deliberately refuse to appear in Court. This happens to go on in the United States on a routine basis, especially in States where these vast differences in allowed punishments exist. In many States, the law may allow for a punishment ranging from 24 hours in jail to two years in jail for the same simple misdemeanour offense. This is a huge moral hazard and makes the Court’s behaviour highly unpredictable to anyone outside that system not familiar with its workings. Notice that this issue is structural.

It is needed not only for people to enjoy basic liberties, but most important to fully tap their capabilities to flourish economically. Consider how much more of an economic miracle India could be if disadvantaged castes enjoyed full access to justice, instead of facing discrimination and even bonded labor. So too would Arab nations be more economically dynamic (and stable)—on a broader foundation than fossil fuel resources—if they did not discriminate against women as workers and entrepreneurs.

“Moreover, establishing a trustworthy, predictable legal context is a magnet for increased foreign investment. For all these reasons, rule of law will galvanize a society’s economic growth.”

It’s good to hear that the author is finally seeing things clearly. What is puzzling is why the author contradicts himself by starting off with this … overly broad definition … of rule of law, then narrows it back down to what he surely knows is the correct definition. Wait … “overly broad definitions” … where have we heard that from before?

Numerous laws and treaties have been adopted guaranteeing rights. Yet developing countries need international help to implement rule of law.

From who? The United States? Are you kidding me?

The world’s preeminent “human rights” institutions do not focus on rule of law. The UN Human Rights Council has only a limited capacity-building mandate, the International Criminal Court (ICC) focuses on accountability after atrocities have been committed, and the European Court of Human Rights does not address the absence of fundamental legal or law enforcement institutions within states. Over forty UN entities working in 110 nations on programs dedicated to rule of law in the past twenty years have not yielded systemic change. Nor have those of the World Bank and other international financial institutions acting alone. Because private sector and civil society assets will never be fully integrated into efforts of traditional institutions beholden to member states and their lowest-common-denominator agendas, a quantum leap in rule of law requires mobilizing other important partners.

Sadly, all of these institutions are victims of the public myth of neo-liberal democracy, so none of them are truly qualified. So, we agree, I’d just add that I don’t think the United States is particularly well-suited for the job either.

Time for a Global Trust

No, it’s time for the United States to get its own house in order first, because we cannot lead the world in our current state.

I could go on and continue to engage the author’s points that follow, but really only a summary is needed since he is merely describing how this scheme would work. The problem, however, is structural and fundamental and no institution or even society that has raped all manner of rule of law in the last thirty-plus years can possibly lead such a proposal. Thus, in principle, I don’t disagree with the author and I am encouraged that someone does seem to appreciate the fact that new ideas are in fact needed. What worries me however, is the lack of ambition and boldness of vision; the continued attempts to repackage a broken system and just apply it another way.

In fact, instead of responding to a set of suggestions that are moot in any case, I’ll just offer a sprinkle of reasons whey bold, new ideas are not just needed but aboslutely necessary before we go on any more “adventures” around the globe:

1. Unambiguous, empirical data shows that everything tried has failed. “Democracy” doesn’t work at the national level, much less at the global level. To be clear, neo-liberal western democracies always fail and history has proven this. This does not mean, however, that representative government is a failed option. It is the particular neo-liberal construction that is the problem and we will explain that shortly.
2. Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. When it comes to durability, the wests’ much lauded neo-liberal, western “democracy” is an abject failure. If we were to track all “democracies” that appeared on the global scene since 1960 we’d find the following characteristics:
   1. Of about 120 attempts at democratization half failed by 2010. This constitutes a 50% failure rate per 50 year duration. Given this half-life, essentially all would fail within 300 years. This is a disastrous durability figure that will not suffice for global governance. Keep in mind that the probability of any one democracy making it to the maximum duration of 300 years is exceedingly small. Based on these figures, ceteris paribus, it is more likely than not that a world government formulated as a democracy would fail within 50 years. There are two major problems with this. First, it is obviously too short a duration. Second, a global government cannot fail, for to do so would truly be disastrous, to an extent not equaled at a national level. A successful global government would have to be considerably more sophisticated in this regard.
   2. Those that fail tend to experience rapid economic growth up to their devolution and overall economic hardship does not appear to be a factor. Normally in a free market economy rapid advances in wealth lead to rapid increases in the accretion of power, not just in government, but in society generally. And if that economic advance is too fast, the accretion is exaggerated because the natural process of wealth disaggregating slightly after such an advance does not have time to act. In other words, the ratio of the aggregation of economic power to the disaggregation of economic power, call it ϭ, increases abruptly.
   3. Having said that, income inequality is correlated with the probability of State failure. This would be expected for high values of ϭ.
   4. Accretion of economic power along ethnic lines is correlated with a higher probability of State failure. This also makes sense since ethnic tension would only exacerbate the power accretion.
   5. Economic reforms (trade liberalization and privatization) within the jurisdiction are negatively correlated with the probability of State failure. This follows naturally from the above, since reforms serve to suppress ϭ.
   6. There does not appear to be a correlation between the strength of a State’s Executive authority and the probability of State failure. As far as my own research is concerned, this is the only structural artifact for which data exists. Unfortunately, without complementary structural data we can’t infer much from this.
   7. And finally, what is perhaps the most damning finding for “democracy” is the fact that the degree to which a government is dysfunctional and unable to effectively provide its services is correlated with the probability of State failure. In other words, “democracy” simply collapses in on itself. Whether by corruption, inefficiency, fraud or whatever else, democracies are prone to fail to fulfill their raison d’etre.
   8. The economic realities of ϭ and the correlations above suggest that surges in the accretion of power lead to State failure in “democracies”. But this is exactly what any detractor of “democracy” would expect: the greatest weakness of democracy, according to detractors through history, has been its vulnerability to sudden increases in power accretion within a society. Stare Decesis, this belies a foundational weakness of “democracies” wherein they are especially vulnerable to usurpation, not solely from within the government, but from outside. That is, “democracy” is an abject failure because in its more common form at least, it is a breeding ground of the popular faction Madison and Hamilton warned us about. This isn’t rocket science.
   9. Having said that, the purist could argue that General Federalism does in fact admit of representation in the exercise of legal and economic power because of the ease with which the constituency can revoke those powers, by force if necessary: those that exercise power are influenced (or threatened) by the constituency through the attribute of deterministic annulment.
   10. In summary, it is clear that neo-liberal western “democracy” is not an option for durable, just global governance. But perhaps more worrisome for the call to global governance is how to disabuse westerners of this public myth about “democracy” and “rule of law” that they virtually worship like a god … who doesn’t exist.  Westerners possess neither democracy nor Rule of Law precisely because it doesn’t work under the institutions they’ve created and this is a very good reason for radically new ideas. A good way to start this conversation might be to ask, “which do you value most, the ability to directly participate in governance or that the government that governs is, in your opinion and experience, just?” and “do you prefer to participate in your wife’s life or death surgery or would you rather let a qualified doctor do that instead?” As you can see, the answer should be obvious. The public mythos of direct participation in the execution of governing needs to be debunked publicly.
3. Due to key structural weaknesses of Madisonian Federalism which I don’t have the space to get into there, the United States has created a vast, “open door policy” in whcih to allow the most powerful oligarchs to dip their hands into the machinery of govenrment and fully corrupt and suborn it. This same “open door policy” that has allowed excessive influence of faction has led to the passage of laws, in modern times as a matter of course, that provide for an excessive and overly broad range of punishment to be applied in their violation. On the one extreme the punishment is draconian and severe and on the other it is more measured and reasonable. This is because faction has lobbied for these draconian, extreme and reactionary laws which, if actually enforced at that extreme, would be destabilizing due to their impact on the population. If enforced at such extremes, population revolts and mass loss of elections of politicians would almost certainly ensue given the severity of these maximum allowed punishments. Therefore, the laws are written to allow the Courts to impose punishments at the other, much more moderate extreme. And this more moderate punishment is the usual punishment the Courts apply. In this way, faction is satisfied and gets the extreme and severe punishment they desire – at least on paper – while politicians are able to pass laws that don’t, by their severe and draconian enforcement, cause them to lose elections in the future. The result of this is a body of statute full of laws that result in a highly unpredictable exercise of power. This is directly counter to the definition of “rule of law” we mentioned previously. By definition, the system is operating well outside Rule of Law; and it is due entirely to the corrosive influence of faction. Very typical examples of this wildly varying range of punishments include the range of punishment provided for what in most States in the United States is referred to as driving under the influence of drugs. One very vocal and publicly visible faction in this debate were the family members of people killed in vehicular accidents involving alcohol. The issue of driving while intoxicated has been a subject of intense lobbying by faction, not just for the obvious safety issues involved, but for all sorts of varied, unjustifiable reasons and has led to laws in some States that allow punishments for first-time offenders that can range from only 24 hours of incarceration to up to two years of incarceration; the exact punishment determined only by the Court. Adding to the unpredictability of the outcome is the fact that the manner in which intoxication can be defined is blurred and rendered ambiguous by the overly broad definition it is given. A person under the “influence” of prescription medication not contraindicated for driving and taken at the prescribed doses could, if the Court chooses to interpret it as such, be considered a drug of illegal “influence”. This sloppy, broadening of definitions of terms has been applied with ubiquity throughout statutes both in State and federal code. The examples are too numerous to list here, but the Patriot Act, for example, has led to definitions of the term “terrorism” that are so broad as to no longer have any meaning. And indeed, the provisions of the Patriot Act, quite predictably, are now being used in cases that manifestly have nothing at all to do with anything that could be construed as terrorism, such as run-of-the-mill prostitution and vagrancy in which even law enforcement admits has nothing to do with terrorism. Like the driving under the influence laws, this means that the application of state power is grossly unpredictable and an offender, even if in reality completely innocent of the crime the law appears to be drafted to address, has no idea what punishment to expect. And we should point out that the definition of Rule of Law as being a standard in which power is applied in a predictable pattern implicitly requires – if it is to make any sense at all – that this predictable pattern be clearly discernible not just to professional attorneys but to virtually any, reasonable lay person. And this consequent unpredictability of intoxication laws is especially true in small, provincial Courts where an offender might be an unpopular figure, such as an atheist, homosexual or other rejected minority who cannot be sure how extreme a Judge is going to rule in their particular case. While it may seem remarkable that Judges would be swayed by this, example after example shows that this is indeed the case and anyone in any kind of minority or unpopular category will be faced with a particularly unpredictable, possibly draconian outcome. Since they are a minority, any outcry of the public for excessive and draconian punishment will not likely materialize. They will simply be quietly sent to jail and forgotten. So, these laws can be both applied in an excessively broad manner and the punishments exacted for them can be excessively broad. And we note the pattern evidenced here which we shall see in so many examples of how laws of this nature produce this two-headed Hydra called moral hazards, in this case for Judges, who can be enabled and empowered to apply process to one individual in a manner completely inconsistent with the process normally considered due any similarly situated individual. Though the highest Court in the United States, the Supreme Court, has repeatedly and clearly ruled in case law for decades that all persons are entitled to the same legal process anyone else so similarly situated is due, this ruling is routinely ignored in the enforcement of these insanely broad laws consisting of equally insanely broad definitions of terms. Indeed, even U.S. officials are beginning to misrepresent the meaning of this long history of case law by suggesting that “due process” is not the same thing as “judicial process”; implying that even those that do not receive any kind of judicial process may still be afforded a “due process” if it involves, for example, the buzz phrase “national security”. Of course, this is blatantly false as case law clearly states that all persons are entitled to the due process any similarly situated individual would normally receive. By simply leaving off the last part of the more well-known condensed form of the Supreme Court’s language of the “due process” phrase, these officials, such as Eric Holder, a U.S. Attorney General, can make these outlandish statements sound reasonable to a lay public. This explanation was used by Holder and others to justify the killing of U.S. citizens by the United States government without any form of judicial process whatsoever, something, by the way, also demonstrating the wildly extreme and broad range of punishments provided for anyone merely involved in the equally overly broad offense of “terrorism”. It is clear from this pattern of grossly unpredictable statute in and of itself that Rule of Law in the United States cannot possibly, by definition, exist. General Federalists suggest that this almost certainly will be viewed by future observers as criminal behaviour; essentially and with no undue embellishment amounting to crimes against humanity. Thus, a new idea is needed and another, more creative way to ensure public participation and representation is obviously required and simply repackaging this same problem, uncured and untreated, of western, neo-liberal democracy cannot work, especially at a global level. And to be clear, the origin of this problem, like so many other violations of Rule of Law, and if studied closely by someone familiar with the legal profession, can be clearly traced to the corrosive influence of faction and the open door policy of allowing direct participation in the creation of public policy. Persons familiar with the profession know for a fact, not by theory or ideological belief, but by fact born of direct experience in witnessing it, that this break in Rule of Law comes directly from the corrosive influence of faction.
4. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) the crescendo of Ravel’s Bolero reached its apogee when the U.S. Supreme Court Justices decided that corporations could donate to political campaigns just like natural persons; meaning they could do so anonymously. This means that an unknown entity could come into a Congressional district from the other side of the country and destroy a candidate in the media who was in fact quite popular there. Why in the world would the Justices do this, which amounted to allowing corporations to control elections completely? Because they have been corrupted by moral hazards. In the movie, Patriocracy, a U.S. Congress person stated that they have to plead so thoroughly to special interests that by the time they get to Washington they have absolutely no discretion: their stance on public policy has already be set in stone by the commitments they had to make in order to (A) get the campaign financing needed and (B) not invoke the wrath of special interest anti-campaign spending if they betrayed their masters and actually did what their constituents wanted them to do. But this sentiment has been echoed many, many times before by politicians. It couldn’t be any clearer that the American experiment has failed since it is blatantly impossible for any true representative governance to occur. If politicians are entirely beholden to special interests, which are by definition a factional opinion, then they cannot represent their constituents. This is a cold, hard fact. And the irony of the situation is that the very claim that an “open door policy” to allow public input into governance is somehow “democratic” is precisely what has made it not only undemocratic but not even representative. The American experiment is riddled with this dichotomy and it is screaming out what General Federalism says about the difference between executing the social contract versus delegating and revoking the political power to execute the social contract. There are now over 200 years of experience in the American experiment to make this point crystal clear. The saddest part of Patriocracy was watching what we’ve seen in this country for decades: People complain about the dysfunction of the American system but never once are the obvious and pervasive structural problems hinted at, much less discussed. The same band-aid “solutions” discussed in 1960 are repackaged and repeated in 2013. In over an hour of drivel about how to “fix” a system with solutions repeated since 1950 that isn’t just broken but mal-designed and structurally unsound, Patriocracy never once mentions the deeper structural issues involved. They’ve been talking about fiscal irresponsibility for decades. They’ve been talking about Congress’ inability to “get along” for decades. They’ve been talking about special interests for decades. They’ve been talking about Social Security for decades. They’ve been talking about the illegal, clandestine activity of the CIA for decades. Nothing has changed. It’s insanity. It’s structural.

Listen to me now hear me later … the Final World Order is coming whether we want it or not and failure to address these issues will likely be viewed by future observers as criminal negligence.

The amount of seed money needed to get the effort up and running would be relatively modest—perhaps as low as $140 million (the amount given to the State Department’s bilateral “democracy fund” last year). Based on the experience of the Global Fund—with which donors have repeatedly employed a wait-and-see-what-the-United-States-gives strategy—a significant initial pledge by the United States would be critical in leveraging other resources.

This money would be more than enough to support a convention and a series of studies on how to fix this mess, which would be the best use of that money by far, imo. Before you dismiss this as “impossible”, please read our ideas, for one. I’m sure there are other bold ideas out there as well. You can get the relevant documents here and
here. You can also view a reading and explanation of one of those documents, World Government and General Federalism here.

Given the difficult budgetary environment and skepticism of foreign aid in the United States and Europe, will legislatures support this initiative?

I hope not.

There may be greater flexibility for developed countries to provide seed money than conventional wisdom suggests. Since the financial crisis, U.S. pledges to the Global Fund have actually increased. Likewise, in March 2012, cash-strapped Japan offered $340 million to the Global Fund, its largest donation ever. To be sure, the White House will need to persuade Congress that an investment in the Global Trust would have an enormous multiplier effect in prosperity, pluralism, and peace, compared to dollars spent elsewhere. And it would.

Conclusion

Weak rule of law in the developing world deprives countless people of legal rights and, hence, an opportunity to thrive economically. A Global Trust for Rule of Law could begin to close the gap between rights that exist on paper and those that can actually be enjoyed. Drawing on the Global Fund and UNDEF as models of best practices and effective partnerships, a Global Trust, autonomous of any one state or the UN, would cultivate rule of law capacity-building projects in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and other developing regions by supporting deserving proposals from states and civil societies. It would quickly become a nimble catalyst to build trust in access to justice and economic opportunity in those societies. So too would it inexorably accelerate global economic growth. Investing in such a trust would be a high-value bargain.

The author and I are in the same basic camp and my point is not to be facetious, but I am trying to drive home a point that is being, in my opinion, entirely overlooked in a way that could have disastrous results. I am afraid that the conventional view of the greatest minds we have on this subject, if I can be that bold to say this, is that they exist in a straight jacket of excessive normative thinking in terms of law and economics and cannot see the forest for the trees. They simply cannot see the vast canyon that actually exists where rule of law is supposed to be. I hope this will change in time, and the sooner the better.

Thanks again for the great article and the new ideas proffered,

-      kk

Mosaic representing both the judicial and legislative aspects of law. The woman on the throne holds a sword to chastise the guilty and a palm branch to reward the meritorious. Glory surrounds her head, and the aegis of Minerva signifies the armor of righteousness and wisdom.