Tag Archives: global constitutionalism

checkerFloor03Welcome to the Greatest Game on Earth

With the Shenanigans of Edward Snowden and the controversy surrounding government surveillance, a topic of key concern has been raised to the fore and there seems to be immense confusion and frustration over it. The reason for this is that Orwellian strategists have been applying a clever tool of deception for centuries that only in the digital age is becoming reified, more transparent and more obvious to the public. And it’s time the public put an end to it. What am I talking about?

I’m talking about the nebulous concept of “forbidden knowledge” and how that amorphous notion has been used to conflate categories and classes of information to permit a clever form of effective censorship. The easiest way to explain this is by example. Suppose I receive a political commentary on the internet from a friend who passes it to me by email. Let us say it is critical of a powerful, despotic political leader. What some would like to be able to do is to be able to render that knowledge forbidden; that is, to be able to prosecute anyone who possesses that knowledge, imprison them and silence them. Or barring that, prosecute them with enough punishment so as to dissuade them from publishing or sharing it further. And let’s not kid ourselves, the true Holy Grail in this scheme is to be able to do this without the public realizing it. For if in an open, supposedly democratic society we can achieve this without public backlash, then all the better. It’s kind of obvious how this might be done in North Korea, but what about in the States? How could you censor opinion itself without public backlash? The answer is conflation.

Suppose I have a friend who has illegally obtained classified information from the NSA, then sent that information to me by email. Whether I paid for it or if it was given to me freely is irrelevant to the point I’m going to make. Now, suppose I then publish that information and give it wide distribution in the public domain. In this case, the State can prosecute both my friend and myself without much public backlash and without the appearance of betraying the precepts of an open society. But what I’d really like to do as an Orwellian strategist is to confuse the issue a bit. And here’s how I do that. Not only do I prosecute the person that illegally obtained the information, I make sure anyone repeating it (myself in this example) is also prosecuted. In the case of an NSA leak, no one gets particularly alarmed (many do, but we’ll fix this defect in the example shortly). And the result is that I can effectively censor information even when that information is leaked. I can shut it down and prevent its sharing in the public domain by the chilling effect this will create on anyone who dares repeat what they’ve heard. So, not only do I make the illegal theft of classified information illegal but I make the mere possession of classified information illegal. Well, what’s wrong with that, you ask? Nothing, in and of itself. The problem however, is that by framing the legalities this way it allows me to define classified information not just as classified, but as “forbidden knowledge”. In other words, rather than merely making the theft of such information illegal, I render that information illegal by virtue of it being “forbidden knowledge”. This is a big Orwellian step, because now I have defined information itself to be illegal. Now, I have an amorphous and nebulous term called “forbidden knowledge” which, by virtue of its nature, I can now add or take away various types of information from that category without the public noticing. All I need to do now is find a clever way to insert into that category opinions “I don’t like”. Can I really do that without the public noticing? Oh, yes, it isn’t that hard to do. But this example doesn’t really do the situation full justice, because it is not as easy in the case of classified government leaks to get the public to:

… not only accept this Orwellian criminalization of information itself, but to actively support it.

No, we need something that is universally reprehensible in order to do that. Because, you see, if we can choose something that is universally reprehensible we can use that to not only gain the public’s acquiescence in this crime, we can garner their active support. The idea here is to conflate different types of information with others. So, let’s change the example.

Suppose a friend of mine runs a female sex slave trade in which he manages the repeated, violent rape of abducted women, videotapes it, then sends me copies to publish on the internet. Let’s say he even murders a few women in the videos, just to make it truly reprehensible. In the Orwellian model, this information itself (the video data) is now illegal. It is “forbidden knowledge”. Will anyone object? Not likely. In fact, most will avidly support this conflation. If I hadn’t thought about it a little more, I would. But nevertheless, this allows the policy-makers to create law that establishes the existence of forbidden knowledge. Now all they need to do is substitute information willy-nilly, not in law, but in the enforcement of the “forbidden knowledge” law. If they’re clever, they can introduce some laws that help that a bit without the public really noticing. For an example of just how real and not so theoretical that idea is, think of “terrorism” and how this amorphous concept has been used to justify the excesses of the NSA, or the fact that police now routinely listen in to wireless communications of private residents without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, without a Court’s knowledge, as no warrant is required. They do it all over America right now. This is a real-world example of this “substitution” technique. For, you see, now everything is called “terrorism”. Jaywalking is terrorism as far as the police are concerned. The same thing happens when forbidden knowledge is an object of legal prosecution; where different kinds of knowledge become conflated.

So, what is the failing here? The failing is that we have been duped into the idea that information itself can be made illegal. This is toxic to Enlightenment because all information, from the most reprehensible to the most popular, is necessary to provide the perspective and input for fully informed debate. For one thing, we know something “reprehensible” has occurred in the first place when the information required to evidence it is legal to possess. Otherwise, we are barred from even knowing it exists. Think about that. If information itself is illegal, we must rely on someone else with the legal “privilege” to possess the forbidden knowledge to tell us it exists. How Orwellian is that? Rather, what we should do, but what some don’t want to do, is to render the actions that lead to forbidden knowledge illegal; then investigate and prosecute those cases. But, you see, the problem with this for the Orwellian types is that this means transparency because the governments can’t so easily get away with conflating types of information. Now, in a truly free society, if they prosecute the “information”, they really have to prosecute the actions that led to the information, not the information itself. So, they must investigate and prosecute the NSA leaker, the rapist/murderer and the terrorist. The problem with this for the Orwellian is that it renders what is being made illegal more transparent and obvious. Trying to make the act of writing a political commentary illegal would not garner public support and would rather garner opposition. To do so would inspire an Arab Spring of sorts. That’s not acceptable. The object of the Orwellian model is to oppress the subject without the subject realizing who has oppressed them.

Therefore, if the Orwellian can inflate a political commentary with rape, for example, through the nebulous mechanism of “forbidden knowledge”, it is much easier to dupe the public and remain hidden behind the scenes, pulling the strings of censorship whilst be unobserved as the toxin to Enlightenment. In a just and free society those that possess knowledge cannot be guilty of a crime because they did not do the deed. If you pay for a cable news channel and witness a live murder on television, this is not a crime. Murder is. If you read Snowden’s leaked documents that is not a crime. Stealing them is. Some crimes are so horrific that we tend to want to ascribe a criminal liability to anyone that so much as thinks about such a crime. But we do this at our own peril, and the Orwellian masters are counting on you. They are counting on you to help them make ignorance the only legal option. Think about that for a minute. Enlightenment and knowledge is the enemy, and it must be made illegal. So, the compass of forbidden knowledge must grow while you sleep and it must not be made obvious who exactly instilled this chilling effect on you. Think Illumination Everywhere and free humanity of this madness.

In a truly just and free society the question of whether or not a “deed” was committed in the first place is open to public scrutiny and visibility in that case. No one would call writing a political commentary a criminal deed, but they might think rape is. When google and their lobbyists go up against Congress on this issue, this is what they need to convey and explain. For if they do not, they will lose the argument to the forces of darkness and the hortatory of jingoistic double-talk.

– kk



Hi all,

The statistics look more and more ominous (for some) each passing year as the American public moves further from mainstream news and further into the alternative media. Americans are flocking in droves to the likes of alternative news sites on the internet and, in particular, to alternative news productions on youtube. Statistics confirm that comments sections in mainstream news website articles are more influential of public opinion than the articles themselves. It is as if there is some kind of wholesale rejection of mainstream thought. What is behind this trend? To explain this, a brief digression into political ideology is needed, but I’ll make it brief.

Prior to about the 14th Century western culture was dominated by a normative confirmation bias that pervaded human thought: religion was the normative confirmation bias that shaped and defined how we viewed and understood our world. Virtually nothing in people’s lives was unaffected by this lens. Whether it was science, society, family, politics or any other matter, religion framed how we understood everything. Even explaining the cosmos had to pass a normative confirmation bias test; for if whatever idea one advanced about the workings of the cosmos was incongruent with the religious lens, it was rejected. And within western religion there were differing “flavors”, different sects of religion which occupied the populace in endless debate over which one represented the real “truth”. But oddly, what seldom occurred to those living in this time was that religion itself might not be necessary. While there were atheists in that day and age for sure, for most people it was not widely known or understood that one could actually just not believe in religion (or “god”) itself, whether that meant continuing to believe in a god in your own way or not believing at all. To promote this idea widely could severely jeopardize one’s own self-preservation, so wherever the view was held, it was held in private and the very idea that religion itself was not needed to understand our world was not a widely discussed debate. Some scholarly elitists debated it as time went on, but this was mostly after the Enlightenment, and much more so beyond the 14th Century. But that brings us to the next point. The idea that we might explain our world without a need for religion didn’t suddenly appear overnight. It gained wider popularity in the general population gradually over time. This breakout into public discourse began during the Enlightenment and slowly expanded over the next two or three hundred years.

But what seems to have escaped the attention of the larger discourse was the fact that normative confirmation bias dies a hard death. To explain this, we should first try to characterize religion more generally in this context so as to provide a more objective way of identifying normative confirmation bias, whatever guise it may assume in different times and places. The key feature of religion vis-à-vis normative confirmation bias was the fact that religion provided a general theory by which the universe could be explained and one only needed to deduce specific conclusions from that theory to know how to interact with their world. It was, in a sense, a simplex way of thinking. But what the enlightenment taught us was that there was another way to understand our world, a duplex way of thinking. Instead of applying a general theory as a given, we could empirically observe the world around us to induce – vice fabricate of whole cloth – a theory of how our world works. Once such a theory is established, we could then deduce from that how to interact with our world. This was the birth of empirically driven reason. By observing our world in a series of “experiments” we could from those specific cases induce a general understanding of how the universe worked. Once established, knowing how to rationally interact with our world became a simple matter of deduction. Thanks to established theory, we then had a predictive tool to guide our actions. What this lesson should have taught us was that general theories not founded in empirical observation were the mother of normative confirmation bias. But alack, we did not learn this lesson. We merely rejected religion (to some degree of approximation) and failed to apply this same logic to everything else. And that is partly due to the fact that the tools of empirical observation were limited in the scope of subjects to which they could be applied. Anything that escaped our capacity to empirically characterize therefore, remained in place as a potential “mother” of normative confirmation bias.

As the years wore on, our capacity to empirically measure previously vague and inscrutable matters such as sociology improved. While this capacity to empirically measure our sociological world, our understanding of how to manage society based on an understanding of that sociology remained fixed: we continued to base decisions on the management of human society on theories derived whole cloth which were independent of those measures. To be sure, most of these theories had considerable thought put into them, but that is not the same thing as an empirically driven understanding in which a theory is induced from specific experimental observation. But this wealth of intellect and thought in those theories was no different in form to those same theories applied in the religious context which we came to know as theology. Neither of them were theories born of empirical observation. Thus, to the surprise of many today, just as it was a surprise to the adherents prior to the 14th Century, neither religion nor political ideology is necessary to understand our world. Today, our capacity to empirically measure social indicators and effects is robust but our mental paradigm is still stuck in the past on theories of political ideology which were either devised hundreds of years ago or have antecedents in the same. We can trace most western political ideology today to the Enlightenment to such philosophers as Aristotle and Plato. Certainly, more has been added since, but the basic methodology hasn’t changed. What we see today in political ideology is a mélange of ideas from various philosophers of the past, ideas that were born whole cloth long before the empirical ability to measure sociological factors existed. In the same way that religion fueled ignorance and superstition, political ideology relegates our understanding of how to manage society to a simplex method devoid of any true empirical foundation. Of course, we can argue semantics and call this view itself political ideology. But there is a fundamental distinction here that renders that view suspicious: this new understanding of how to manage society is a duplex method based on a direct appeal to empirical observation of society upon which law and economics should operate. In this enlightened view we attempt to inform our understanding of law and economics on means and methods consistent with the scientific method. It will not be complete for sure, since our capacity to measure sociological features of our universe are limited, but the change is a paradigm shift.

Small, weak steps in this direction have been evidenced by academics who attempt to understand the effects of policy on society but the universal failing in all of them is the mere fact that political ideology as a thought paradigm exists and is pervasive (normative) in the same way that religion was before the 14th Century. Thus any academic, for example, who tries to empirically observe the universe in a world dominated by religious thought will encounter the same normative confirmation bias and the results will reflect that bias. They will “see” their data through the lens of religion and will inexorably apply a religious world-view to it. That’s why it is called “normative”. Thus, what humanity needs is a Reformation of thought, a Reformation of Enlightenment that removes this confusion so that those living today can realize, first and foremost, that political ideology isn’t needed to understand how to manage human society. As it stands today, most cannot even see that obvious fact and falsely believe that political ideology is somehow a necessary construct. But as we saw with religion, this is not true and is believed only because the “thought system” of political ideology is normative in the present. This means that the very basis of governance, the systems of government that exist today, need reform and the best way to do that is to do what adherents did to reform religion: the role of the priest class must be diminished. In the same way, the role of the political class in our systems of government must be diminished. This can be done by increasing direct public participation in governance. While direct democracies do not work, we need not accept the ad reductio absurdum for progress. What we need is a system in which an elected political class determines public policy by consultation and participation of the public directly, in much the same way that Western Courts rely on juries and judges to operate together to render verdicts. In Western Courts, judges render juries competent, but juries provide the “conscience” of the Court. Judges provide uniform (hopefully) jury instructions and other rules of operation by which the jury operates. The jury provides the conscience of peers. In a similar way, statute and public policy should be created. This is, indeed, the future of neo-liberal western democracy. I’ve spoken of this in other contexts where I mention how technological agency is making this Reformation all the more urgent, but this article explains more of the background to this reasoning and the “why” behind what is happening.

So, what does all this have to do with the death of mainstream journalism? What the death of mainstream journalism is revealing is that technological agency (in this case the information age) is forcing this Reformation upon us and we need to be informed as to the “why” behind it so that we can make wise choices to guide this Reformation, lest the “Reformation” lead to chaos. The only way to control this Reformation being forced upon us is to increase direct public participation in governance, and we must do it as quickly as possible. Unlike the 14th Century, today time cycles move quickly and we don’t have two hundred years to sort this out.

Finally, I can prescribe my opinion on what mainstream journalism can do to save itself from irrelevance and destruction. In the past, with the normative confirmation bias of political ideology holding sway, journalists attempted to report on the “who, what, when, why and where”, the five W’s. But because of normative confirmation bias they tended to try to “go a little deeper” and report the “true” news by identifying the 5 W’s of a given story, which I’ll call an event, in order to discover the “true” event narrative. This meant that some if not a lot of effort was spent in trying to discount or “disprove” any other competing event narrative. In other words, each story had any number of event narratives which could be applied to it and journalists attempted to “discern” which narrative was the “true” narrative. But the reality is that, in stories that inherently involve subjective matter it isn’t possible to always do this. Only by applying a confirmation bias could the “true” narrative be “found”. One exception to this, in a pure sense, would be matters of pure scientific fact. But rarely does a story involve only pure scientific fact. In almost all stories reported, there is some element of subjectivity either in the core of the story or in the details surrounding it, even when a core scientific fact can be established. In other words, seldom if ever do scientific facts stand alone as the only issue at hand in a story. As an example, we can take anthropogenic climate change as a case study in which a core scientific fact can presumably be established by a journalist. But the story of anthropogenic climate change involves more than just that core scientific fact. In other words, there are competing narratives of “truth”, each with its own set of the 5 Ws. In this case, the “what” is the veracity of the scientific consensus. What journalist do today is they try to validate one of these narratives by applying normalized confirmation bias; usually political ideology, and thereby reject competing narratives, usually by not reporting on them at all, or incompletely. The role of a reporter is to report on all the narratives by providing a complete accounting of the 5 Ws of each narrative, rather than trying promote one narrative or the other. There is no need to do this. There is no need for political ideology, or any other form of normative confirmation bias. The obvious objection to this is that it is an idealized way of understanding reporting since we know that a “true” narrative, at least sometimes, does exist. At least a true “what” exists.

And it is this dissonance between the ideal and the practical that is the cause of the decline of mainstream journalism.

Let me explain. In the information age the consumer has the option of patronizing those outlets that comport with their own confirmation bias. Therefore, in an unrestricted society of free speech the consumer will simply ignore any “mainstream” outlet that “chooses” an event narrative inconsistent with their own confirmation bias. Ultimately, this will result in the evaporation and disappearance of any mainstream outlet since all surviving outlets will be outlets of personalized confirmation bias, choosing event narratives for each story according to the presumed confirmation bias of their consumer. The effect of this is ignorance and superstition, to put it bluntly. This is the result of genuine choice for the consumer. Thus, the only way for a mainstream outlet to avoid self-destruction is if they take the ideal tact; that is, they must report on all conceivable event narratives for each story in complete form, providing the 5 Ws for each. By virtue of the fact that they are mainstream, most consumers will stop there because, in the midst of that report, they will apply their own confirmation bias to choose their own event narrative from those provided.

The advantage is that the mainstream outlets are still seen as valuable by the consumer because, if the narrative that comports with one’s own confirmation bias is presented, the consumer does not associate the other narratives with the mainstream outlet itself. Otherwise, in the presence of choice, the consumer will simply flee and ignore the mainstream outlet (and find it untrustworthy).

In order to ensure this outcome, mainstream outlets must provide all the 5 Ws of each conceivable narrative in factual depth on each W with opinion avoided as much as possible. Unless and until normalized confirmation bias is expunged from human society, this is the best one can do. But in terms of the bottom line of mainstream outlets and their advertising revenue, this is a total coup. Almost all consumers will consume the mainstream news at least when first learning of a story, and the majority of traffic will be satisfied with that report. But how do I know this? Empirical observation. The rapid growth of alternative news on youtube demonstrates my point. The most popular alternative outlets are, surprise, factually shallow and mostly cheerleaders of a particular political ideology. This is because they are specialized toward a particular confirmation bias and must be shallow to garner wide consumption. The factual depth they provide is adequate for most consumers and comparable to what is offered in the mainstream outlets now (at least for the one narrative each presents). If the mainstream outlets spent more time on factual depth and broader narrative reporting, they could report in the same space they always have by removing the opinion and rather transparent attempts to dance around inconvenient narratives. One of the key ways the mainstream outlets expose this dancing is how most mainstream stories obviously are leaving out details (sometimes by increasing verbiage!) because the stories make little sense without them. It has the motif of a meme or sound bite and the consumer senses something is missing. This same thing was sensed by citizens of the Soviet Union for 70 years. And that’s another reason why people in the West today go to alternative outlets.

But won’t bias always exist? Of course it will, to include many forms of bias beyond simple confirmation bias. The distinction made here is in how I am, for the purposes of this discussion, defining normalized and episodic bias. A bias (or bigotry) is normalized when the recognized authorities of that culture promote that bias by action or inaction. A bias is episodic when an individual bears it.

The key change created by the Protestant Reformation was that the role of clergy was diminished. Over time this had the effect of reducing the normative confirmation bias that existed in western culture due to religion, ultimately rendering it episodic vice normalized. The same thing will happen to the normative confirmation bias created by political ideology once the role of the political class is diminished. For the activist, the best strategy here is to promote greater participation of the public in governance in the manner described here rather than getting into the weeds of the rationale that accompanies it. The reason for that is that the very same normative confirmation bias of political ideology will work against the goal. But the notion of greater public participation in governance is an idea ripe in our time and should be nurtured.

– kk

P.S. For more info on what we mean by reducing the role of the political class and how direct democracy can be made feasible, see the intro (click) to General Federalism.

The following is a thought experiment and it should be taken seriously, but not as an inevitability either. Nature can upset these rates of viral diffusion in any number of ways and there are too many variables to know if this estimate is valid.

If the number of infected persons should exceed 100,000, then it is unlikely that any international effort will have sufficient resources to make any mathematically non-negligible difference in the rate of diffusion of the virus. At that time, the only means of stopping the diffusion of the virus will by external quarantine.

Will we see that number? If we assume that the total number of infected is three times the estimated amount, as some close to the ground have stated, and the reported figure is 5347 as of 18 September, then the likely more accurate count is 3*5347=16041 persons as of 18 September. Therefore, 100,000 infected persons is notionally reached on the x’th doubling:

105 = 16041*2x

Solving for x and multiplying by the observed doubling time we get:

[log2 (105) – log2 (16041)] * 3 = 7.92 weeks

Defeating this trend with 3000 military personnel and several tons of equipment is improbable in that time. In fact, making any appreciable difference in this rate is improbable when we consider the fact that it will take at least 30 days for this effort to fully stand up. If we cannot defeat this function in this time, then the point in time that the probability of containing the virus is maximum is when that point is reached; that is, in 7.92 weeks. USG should be prepared for that time, which is about 18 November.

Here’s why.

At this time USG should (and must if it is to succeed as pointed out) shift to a quarantine solution. At this time, the total number of infected is 100,000. While this may be too many to contain the virus within the population, it is small enough to contain it within the borders of the three affected countries, assuming steps are taken to do so. But simply putting troops on the border may not be enough. A no-fly zone will be required and all arteries of passage outside these countries must be involuntarily (but temporarily) evacuated with a radius of not less than 15 miles from the point where the artery intersects the border (the actual distance would vary depending on the size of the passage and the topology). Refugees should be sent to either Liberia, Sierra Leone or Guinea. And authorities will have to “guard” this area and allow no entry. This is the only solution in the absence of a vaccine. USG should begin now to collaborate with all neighboring countries to give U.S. military personnel access to these “choke points”. USN must enforce a no-sail zone off the coasts of Liberia and Sierra Leone on 18 November.

U.S. military forces, if the numbers exceed 3,000, should be issued all chemical, biological and radiological gear (and I do mean ALL three types) to all personnel. Other nations that supply military personnel should do likewise. Prioritization of vaccination, wherever available, should be ranked thusly:

1. Military personnel and health professionals in the hot zone

2. Gibraltar, Sinai and Panama (my concern is that governments will continue to underestimate the scale of human migratory flow, and how this will cause a wave of successive virus infection flow along migration paths, which will converge on these “ambush sites”; in the sense that these sites, if treated wisely, could serve as points to “ambush” the virus).

3. Populations at the periphery of the hot zone

4. The hot zone

5. The global population, en masse.

If the number of infected increases the probability of containment will fall. When the number of infected in the affected countries reaches 1 million, containment will likely fail in any case. 1 million infected will be reached on:

[log2 (106) – log2 (16041)] * 3 about 4.5 months, or January 15.

At that time, should that occur, USG should apply the same tactic at Gibraltar and the Sinai and the no-fly and no-sail zone should be extended to the continent of Africa. If a vaccine is available, a mass and heavy vaccination of the population in the areas of Gibraltar and Sinai should be performed in a buffer area extending about 100 miles on either side of this boundary. The vaccine should be made available to any person seeking it, regardless of origin and indeed, it should be mandatory (if a refugee arrives in a heavily vaccinated area they are less likely to attempt to continue their exodus). If a vaccine is not available in that quantity, the same area should be evacuated. In either case, the area will require U.S. troops to deny passage to all persons. They should also deny entry into the vaccinated zone. Once this is accomplished, and all available assets should be employed to do so, similar checkpoints should be established at successive national borders from the outbreak. Obviously, if sufficient quantities of a vaccine remain, they should be administered at those locations and to the population generally.

USG should begin collaboration with Spain, Morocco, Israel and Egypt now. As a precautionary measure, USG should do the same with Panama and begin plans to set up a similar boundary in Panama. Plans to establish a buffer in Panama from Atlantic to Pacific by evacuation should begin now. If the efforts to contain the outbreak on the continent fail the virus will have run its course by:

[log2 (109) – log2 (16041)] * 3 about 12 months, or about September 15, 2015.

Resulting in the loss of very roughly 500 million human lives.

If containment to the African continent fails, the virus will run its course and preferentially impact countries that are not well developed or which have large, poor populations. In that case, the virus will run its course in roughly:

[log2 (7*109) – log2 (16041)] * 3 about 14 months, or about November 15, 2015.

Resulting in the loss of very roughly 2.5 billion human lives.

If the (by then) pandemic escapes the African continent, China and especially India are at grave risk because of their large, poor populations confined to a single legal jurisdiction. China will likely not allow foreign assistance on a large scale, though India might. The problem that is being overlooked here is that once the virus has a large pool of infected the ability to contain it drops sharply. In reality, I expect the 2.5 billion figure to be higher. We can expect geopolitical destabilization to occur in this case, with war and conflict becoming a salient feature. The worst case scenario, though not a likely one, is for some authorities such as those in China to use a “snake and nape” tactic. I would caution any such nation (think Pakistan and China) that use of nuclear weapons will only exacerbate the problem as the radiological effect will be as bad or worse than the virus itself. The problem here is trying to guess what a developing nation will do when desperate.

There is no way to know how this function will behave in the future and its doubling rate may change, resulting in large differences in these estimates. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the observed doubling rate is the best information we have for projecting the diffusion of the virus. Another reason to be somewhat skeptical of our starting numbers is the fact that we don’t know if the doubling time is an artifact of the reporting fidelity or a true representation of the rate of diffusion of the virus. However, it is probably imprudent to assume the former.

USG and NIH should place GSK on a war footing now, by the manner of imminent domain or national security if necessary. This should be extended to any other private competency as well, if identified. The likelihood of this virus taking a good hold in any industrialized, wealthy nation is very low, but these events could have cataclysmic economic consequences on the entire world nonetheless.

This entire analysis assumes that no mutation rendering transmission airborne occurs. All suggestions provided are made on the premise of minimizing loss of human life.

– kk

Hi all,

I’ve added more detail to the framework which attempts to outline the framework with its necessary provisions for implementation in a slightly more tangible form. The ideas derive of what is known as “general federalism”, but those tenets are limited as much as possible at this high level.

Perhaps the most important first step in a top-down re-evaluation of global governance should begin by identifying the sine qua non of the global or regional environment necessary for a successful and durable global rule of law to exist. And most of that will hinge on normative beliefs, customs and practices within a given society. This is almost, but not identically, akin to stating that a cultural environment conducive to global rule of law must exist first. And, as it stands, I will argue, this is in fact the key impediment to effective multi-lateralism. Humanity must grow up, change and dispense with beliefs and behaviors that, while they may have an antecedent in our biological and social past, can no longer enjoy scientific support for their continued usefulness.

One of humanity’s greatest foibles is our tendency to inject emotion into intellectual inquiry, and the tendency this has to marginalize and exclude reason. Many today blame this on religion or some other boogey man. Certainly, religion provides a feeding ground for uncontrolled emotion. But the truth is that a more fundamental and universal cause presents itself as misplaced emotion. All of the points outlined below deal directly with this issue and provide a way for humanity to address serious, global issues rationally. It represents an executive summary of what this author has been working on for several years now and a full treatment and justification can be found in later works to be shared.

The most fundamental changes needed can be summarized below:

Matter and Energy; an evolutionary step in our understanding of economic theory such that we delineate the most fundamental factors affecting economies. The most fundamental foundation of an economy lies in how we manage matter and energy. Economic “theory” merely rides on top of this fundamental, limiting fact. For any beings of technological agency, consumption of matter and energy is likely the gravest long-term threat to survival. Yes, this is a universal claim. Today we call this sustainability, but sustainability at such a fundamental level as what we are describing here finds a nexus in economic prosperity as well. They are the same thing; most people just don’t realize it yet. The prevailing myth in our time has us believe that it is a one-way street: prosperity depends on sustainability. The truth is that both depend on each other. So, wherever there is technological agency, consumption of matter and energy will increase with time. Therefore, long-term planning should focus on increasing access to matter and energy. Currently, this is sharply limited because we do not have the means to create an actuarially sound space transportation infrastructure. This author’s primary area of interest and effort lies in work that will grossly antiquate all existing space flight technology and make this an economic reality. We will see more about this in the next 2 to 4 years as this author matures his current work, now being done outside of the public radar. It will be known later in the form of a non-profit named the Organization for Space Enterprise. The reason why space is the focus is lengthy, but our current approach of trying to hold fast to an existing form of matter (such as petroleum) or to transition to a new form of matter (periodic elements used in solar panels, for example) is not scalable. It will ultimately destroy humanity (by a gradual starvation of matter and energy) and the only long-term solution is to source matter and energy in quantities vastly larger than what is available on Earth alone. Because of the time frames involved, this effort must begin now.  This will require nimble, systemic change in the underpinnings of the free market. A clever solution is an optimization that “does no damage” to the existing system but affords more directed use of matter and energy, and this author has a proposal. Whatever this author does, USG would be well-advised to invest heavily in the development of the means and methods (not all of which involves new technologies) required to render space flight economically viable and actuarially sound.

  1. Systemic change, at the level of fundamental law, must be constructed to provide both representation and participation in decisions regarding how matter and energy, at its initial source, will be tasked within a free market.
  2. This change cannot undermine the principles of free market economics because it must “do no harm” to systems of demonstrated past performance. Therefore, the scope of this input should be limited to the incentives the public en masse is willing to provide to the private sector to encourage the survey, extraction and refinement of matter and energy on Earth and elsewhere. And such incentive should be constrained by fundamental law only to matter and energy at its source (survey, extraction and refinement; SER) with any additional powers explicitly denied. This I’ve denominated the “Public Trust” which establishes all matter and energy as public property legally owned by an irrevocable trust. This element is advised but not essential. The key concern is that no government entity should be legally entitled to ownership of matter and energy used by the private sector. The public owns it collectively by legal Trust, but the private sector is legally entitled to use it. Ownership does not transfer from private to public for existing matter and energy, but new finds are absorbed into public ownership with legal protections for private entities that seek to utilize and market it.
  3. Considerations of sustainability in this scheme should be addressed separately in Statute by direct representation and participation. The fundamental factors of merit should be codified as a balance of immediate prosperity and long-term impact (on nature and its impact on future accessibility to matter and energy).
  4. The Courts of a general federation should operate only where a party’s inference in a Court of the Federation shall not augment less the evidence submitted in support bears substantial probative force by the manner of procedures consistent with the scientific method.

Social Justice; the evolutionary step in our normative understanding of social justice. We need to transform the public understanding of social justice to inhere the more that social justice should be blind to personality and demographic and should rather focus on behaviors of merit and those that lack merit. The old saying that violence begets violence likewise extends to the notion that emotional extremism begets emotional extremism. Almost all notions of social justice today rely on emotional domination of the issues and feed off of ancient and barbaric fears that do nothing but generate a vicious cycle of repeated but varying “causes” through history. The result is that throughout history we see a pattern of social justice never materializing generally throughout society, with one cause giving rise to another in multi-regional and multi-temporal cycle that has been going on for at least 1000 years. This is difficult to see in our immediate present because these patterns take considerable time to cycle and may occur in disparate geographies. At the base of this cycle we see the exclusion of reason in discourse on account of the emotion so naturally abundant in matters of social justice. While emotion has a legitimate place and time, if humanity is to prosper, we must learn how to separate emotion from issues requiring reason to solve. Due to vested interests in the current norm of emotionally-driven understandings of social justice, this is a grave threat to the future of humanity. This will require nimble, systemic change advanced mostly through cultural efforts.

  1. It should be established as a matter of fundamental law that any and all sumptuary law that cannot sustain scientific scrutiny shall not be law or equity within the jurisdiction of the Federation.
  2. It should be established that any Statute or equity in the Federation which shall be reasonably expected to influence a matter of social justice, however broad, shall be applied to all human behavior uniformly and predictably to all persons without regard to personality or demographic, less it shall not stand as law or equity in the Federation. This provision would extend to enforcement as well. Ironically, this issue is solved by simply restating a key premise of rule of law itself: uniformity and predictability.

The Political Class and public distrust: Lack of participation and therefore some semblance of control, whether a good thing or not, evokes fear. Fear undermines trust. The solution is to find a reduction of the scope and scale of the political class such that representation and participation of the public is dramatically enhanced. Direct democracies simply do not work, therefore, a totally novel and new understanding of how to merge a political class with a more direct form of participation is urgently needed. This author has a proposal. The future of neo-liberal idealism is the evolution beyond representation alone and more into the area of direct participation. A clever means of rendering that participation competent via a political class is key to this solution involving an Assembly (analogous to a jury) and a Federation Civil Corps of citizens. As organic power decentralizes via technological agency, the duty to participate will quickly transform from nuisance to demand. The key is not to view this as an elimination of the political class, but as a “force multiplier” of the same, permitting the political class to take on a more focused role centering on providing competence to govern. Additional mechanisms within the participatory role of the public are needed to dilute incompetence and enhance representation. This will require nimble, systemic change.

  1. The analogy given here to western law and courts is somewhat sloppy. In the case of an Assembly, their role is the consideration of statute, not equity. Equity should belong solely to the courts of the Federation.
  2. Competence is provided by a panel of elected officials (a political class) analogous to a panel of judges with the privilege of writing statute, making first motion to vote and other provisions too lengthy to get into here.
  3. Statute is “algorithm friendly” allowing votes of very large numbers of persons randomly called to duty by a double-blind process to occur in seconds.
  4. Negotiation, resolution and consultation for making statute is performed by a Federation Civil Corps, consisting of lawyers, economists and other experts. It shall be a strictly merit-based system. Their duty is to inform and educate the Assembly and provide communication and consultation capacity between the elected officials and the Assembly.
  5. Assemblies are called every 12 months, consisting of a unique selection of Citizens of the Federation at large. It could be either voluntary or a lawful duty (I suggest that it be a lawful duty).
  6. Numbers of Assembly members are sufficient to allow representation of one-tenth of all Citizens of the Federation once every 100 years.

Organic power structure: Organic power structures in any society of technological agency will tend to decentralize over time and organic power in the future will more likely exist as a force of change coming from the populace in mass. The very meaning of “organic power structure” is shifting beneath our feet, and victory will go to those that see it. It is important to warn future generations that this is a consequence of technological change itself and not an objective or goal. We must prepare for this, and it is a key reason for the need to re-frame our normative understanding of social justice (but it must be done for all matters of social justice in order to ensure that a durable norm is the product). Class differences cannot be resolved if justice for one means injustice for another, regardless of the relative differences. This author has a solution that will ensure justice for all, which includes a mechanism that does not rely on schemes of income redistribution or the denial of social reward already accrued through lawful and legitimate means. This transition will occur over many generations no matter what is done, but this author’s solution provides a structured way to do this without injustice and general social collapse; and under a durable framework of governance. The key finding here is that organic power is evolving into something never seen before: organic power has throughout all of human history derived of relatively large differences in wealth but is now, for the first time, evidencing a pattern of change toward balance of power derived of wealth and power derived of technological agency. To remain durable, a responsible government must take these forces of influence into account. This will require nimble, systemic change:

  1. This historical evolution is accommodated in full by the process outlined regarding participatory governance.
  2. It should be a matter of substantive fundamental law that no person may be dispossessed of property without due process of law, which fundamental law should inform as not ponderable by any court of the Federation less imminent domain for the greater good is well established and fair market value compensation is afforded.
  3. It should be a matter of substantive fundamental law that the right to private property shall not be infringed.
  4. It should be a matter of substantive fundamental law that the right to seek redress for violations of substantive fundamental law shall not be infringed; however, lobbying of the Federation by any entity for any other reason shall be unlawful. This is a key provision of durability and an accounting for a new kind of organic power and should not be overlooked.

Implementation: A General Federation must be extremely flexible over time such that it can begin as a non-profit, then promote to accession by a nation-state. Then over time it must include other nation-states limited in pace to inclusion of states only where the norms cited herein are sufficiently strong to support it. An alliance of states that do not possess these norms will not be durable or effective and is the primary reason why multilateralism has failed. Currently, the only candidates that exist are the United States, Israel, Germany and the UK, and those states will require much preparatory work in nurturing a healthy set of norms as listed here before that can happen. Currently, the United States is number one on the runway, despite its relatively poor advancement in matters of social justice. Additional mechanisms have been devised to also allow scaled accession of developing nations. But it should not be forgotten that while normative practices are necessary, codification in explicit rule of law must come alongside it. Schemes that deny the central necessity of codified, transparent rule of law gathered by consensus will fail. This is the second cause of the failure of multilateralism. Disaggregated states and other schemes that pretend to operate “from the back door” are not durable in time. We don’t need more politicians or technocrats as they are not a solution to the problem, they are in the near future likely to be the problem. And that is because, wherever the scope of the political class expands, the fear increases. In a future world of ever advancing technological agency failure to better balance competence with participation will be disastrous. The public must be enlisted to fulfill this balance and give agency a voice. To be clear, this identifies the much larger, longer-term threat which it encompasses (but includes much more) we today call terrorism, the canonical, most extreme example of this failure mode.

  1. This can be achieved in fundamental law by the inclusion of a provision for a “National Codicil”, too lengthy to describe here.
  2. A National Codicil reduces burdens on member states to allow sunshine provisions for the ramping up of certain Federation sovereignties over a renewable period of fifty years.
  3. It should begin with the United States as its sole member such that the normative values of that institution may be inhered sufficiently before it accedes to a cosmopolitan or pluralistic stage. It does not require any change to U.S. relations with other organizations such as the UN or NATO. That the U.S. be the first state is crucial. The U.S. could begin this process solely pro forma with essentially no commitment to change U.S. policy at the outset, but its long-term effect on inhering these values worldwide would be enormous. It would be the first, tangible example of the idealistic values of global-ready, neo-liberal western democracy and would quickly have countries begging to join. This would put USG in the driver’s seat as far as ensuring those values are present beforehand. It would also give USG a chance to introduce this to the U.S. public and give them, and supporters of the cause, time to digest it and increase support for it. It would also give USG an opportunity to experiment with and tweak the Assembly concept. The answer to global governance is simple, we just need to DO it.

Who can implement this: Such an effort can only be achieved if spearheaded by the leadership of a nation most “advanced” in these norms and whose relative economic power can sustain it. The United States still isn’t there, but it is humanity’s best hope. It’s time to get novel and advance the state of affairs in the management of human society. The clock is ticking. Listen to me now, hear me later.

  1. The system propounded is a Hamiltonian, federal system; that is, wherever statute is enacted for the one State, then for all uniformly. It is a system of subsidiarity. It is a system with a strong executive and which regards economics as within the compass of the social contract. It is a system consisting of four distinct branches; legal, economic, executive and judicial. It is a system contrived to balance the powers of those branches, and to balance the interests of the greater good and the individual. It is a system whereby equity is solely applied to inform the rule of law by the color of the instance, not violate it. The executive and judicial powers are filled by a political class. The legal and economic powers are filled by a political class and their respective Assemblies. Supreme Justices are appointed by the political class for life.

The future will involve many quick pivots as asynchronous events seem to drive us in all directions at once. Multilateralism demands the kind of decisive action only a durable force can provide. A strong federal executive and its lot, constrained by the idealistic, normative values that tame it, is where it’s at. This has been evidenced most recently in the crisis with ISIL and Ebola. One week it was ISIL, the next week it was Ebola. No one invented that. It’s our future, get used to it.

A final, related note is the question of where is Russia, PRC, DPRK et al when Ebola threatens millions of human lives? Yes, they are offering assistance, but no one has acted as assertively as the United States. This is a time-tested pattern. From Fort Sumter to Leyte Gulf, from Ia Drang to Somalia, America has repeatedly shed blood for a greater good. Now, 3000 servicemembers are about to risk their lives once again and thousands of tons of hardware move into harm’s way. It tells us that idealistic normative values coupled with clever fundamental law are the forces of idealism and assertiveness humanity needs. The lack of response elsewhere is not because of a lack of ability. Russia has a fine navy. PRC has a massive army. Criticize the United States if you wish (and there is a time and place for that), but it is a cheap shot that merely jeopardizes humanity’s future. It’s time to get real.

– kk

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 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.

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 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, 7th 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, 16th 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 – 5th great grandfather), United States of America, 20th 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, 25th 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.leon_Czolgosz
    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).dbThomas_Front_PageThrough 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 6th 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.Lee Harvey Oswald
  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”.john_J_McCloy
  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. larry_Patton_McDonald_About_Criminal_Monetary_Policy
    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 …


– 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 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

%d bloggers like this: