Replies

Fed bill explicitly sought to grant monopoly powers over the banking industry to a cartel in order to bail oit rich guys when the markets dip. This was no secret.

Based on how public school, college and press propaganda have hidden it to the point where most either don't know or don't care, I'd say it's virtually a secret.

Why couldn’t the people prevent its passage

Proper research would reveal how it was passed. Remember, the press controls public opinion. If you and I stage a coup in a banana republic, take over its press so we control the press and propagandize the people, then we support and oppose politicians until we control its legislative body, when we cause a law to be passed, like say requiring that everyone register their guns, would you say that a) we bear no guilt of forcing this law on the people and b) the people are guilty of being uninvolved and that's why the law passed ?

should we save the economy by injecting capital into a mom and pop store in Bumwad, Mississippi, or US Stee.

Well, if we start at the beginning... why is the U.S. government "injecting" (through outright grant, debt financing or equity finanancing (huh?)) money into the private sector ? Where does the government ultimately have to get every one of its dollars from ? Taxes. Why is it using money it took from me in tax to lend to U.S. Steel ? Is not U.S. Steel a profitable enterprise ? If yes, then it can raise its own capital, float its own bonds - they can be 75 year bonds if necessary. Answer, because the banker wants the taxpayer on the hook because they can collect money at the point of a gun, where U.S. Steel can't. The government can always simply take the loss on U.S. Steel, passing it along to the taxpayer.

If the government spent less than it takes in, it would build a cash reserves. It would never need to borrow. If it needed extra money to fight a war, it could simply create the money and spend it on war goods, which would have the exact same economic effect with regard to the spending. The spending on so-called social programs could still be a problem - it's up to Congress to not do that spending. But what we have is lenders who want the government to borrow, so they selectively support and oppose politicians behind the scenes until they get a group that will do their bidding - government spending. And then the spending will drive borrowing from the lenders.

So I ask, firstly, why do conspiracy theorist expend so much energy digging up what’s hidden? Not that it’s fruitless, but it can lead to a lot of unfounded speculation

Without identifying the root of the problem, the symptoms of the problem will continue and the lender's plans will come to fruition.

Eisenhower secretly being a communist is a more seductive argument than Eisenhower’s policies benefitting communism by accident.

Here's a question regarding the Eisenhower era: what about the influence of Allen Dulles, first civilian head of the CIA. Where did he come from ? He was with the Council on Foreign relations at its founding. Where did he spend the 1920's and 1930's ? I'm poking around a little, but it does not look good. It's the preponderance of people all tying back to international bankers that does not look good, to say the least.

This "monopolist establishment" is pictured as "big capital" in the U.S., which is taught to us as being "right wing", "conservative", etc. So there is no need for the establishment to hide the connection between big capital the Republican or conservative "brand". That is the "brand" that this "establishment" uses when it wants to have "capitalism" bashed in the public mind. The Rockefeller-types are the last ones I would ever imagine would be anything but capitalist.

The other brand is the left, the Democratic party, communism, etc. That's the brand where the "monopolist establishment" up until recently was able to largely hide its connections it from the public. See, the "monopolist establishment", i.e., international bankers, can then set up these two political parties as the main actors in the political theatre that the public sees. Nowadays the public can more easily get at the information that "big capital" supports Democrats even more than Republicans. But if you'll watch the "big capital"-controlled media (notice I did not say Democrat) you'll see that the media continues pushing the myth, 24x7, in both news and entertainment, that Democrats are not supported by "big capital". Somehow the propaganda machine, schools and universties keep that idea going - the big, evil, rich guy - and come election time the masses come out to vote against him.

Meanwhile, for the few people out there who see what they think is a "communist" or Democrat-controlled media, they come out and vote Republican, not realizing that the international bankers have such influence in that party that they control its nomination process as well.

So either vote is a vote for international bankers, it's just which flavor do you like, conservative or liberal.

See, if you're a bona fide conservative (according to the myth), you must be of course be supportive of old-time big capital institutions like Wall Street firms, the Federal Reserve, and all the various economists and leaders of business.

Left and right can fight each other all day and at the end of the day the Treasury keeps borrowing from international bankers. The bankers seize every opportunity to have governments borrow from their syndicate. We actually think their syndicate is our "financial system".