Bank Documents: Created From Thin Air

You MUST watch this and pass it on.

How To Brainwash A Nation

How To Brainwash A Nation

This amazing interview was done back in 1985 by G Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island, with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It's shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.

Moral Law, Moral Decay and Marijuana

We live in a country with over 300 million people having a variety of different worldviews.  There are various issues that divide public opinion.  For example, some people think that it should be legal to grow, sell and use marijuana.  Others are completely opposed to marijuana and believe that it should be illegal.  I am not writing this article to support or oppose either view.  Instead, I want to consider who has the right to make the decision about marijuana.

The first thing I want to do is to introduce a new term to go alongside of legal and illegal.  The new term is silent.  For an example of the concept of silent in law, we will look at the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances."

The phrase "Congress shall make no law" is a way of saying that the government shall be silent on the issue.  So the question is not simply should marijuana, for example, be legal or illegal, but we must also ask if it is something that the government should be silent about.  Our Constitution already requires the government to be silent on religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and all aspects of the citizen's method, approach and right to petition the government with regard to grievances.  There is a very glaring and obvious question that we must ask at this point.  If government law makes society better and government acts in our best interest, then why would we prevent government from making laws about these most important and precious rights?

Let us ask that question again.  If we call on government to address moral issues and to uphold a high moral standard and bind people to good behavior for their own best interest and in the best interest of society as a whole, then why would we not ask government to pass good laws about religion, speech, the press, free association and the methods whereby we speak to government when we think the government may (Imagine that…) have made an error?

Obviously, we do not trust government to do the right thing with regard to these exceptionally important issues.  Why would we trust government with anything else of value?

At this point I want to make a distinction between government and The State.  Because the following two issues are related, let’s also consider the distinction between the Institutional church and the Biblical church.  The way I would identify an Institutional church is by determining if the attributes and properties that most clearly define the church in question are its institutional attributes.

So here is our comparison:

The Institutional church is to the Biblical church what The State is to government.

In the Institutional church, the people serve the leaders and the leaders have power due to centralization.  In the Biblical church, the leaders serve the people and the leaders have limited influence due to decentralization. 

The State is characterized by at least the following properties.  It is always a monopoly of force organized for legal plunder and serves the purpose of enriching the few at the expense of the many.  Government, on the other hand, administers just law, based on natural law, and defends the life, liberty and property of the individual.

According to the Christian worldview there is no place for a theocracy today.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

It should be obvious at this point that we are currently ruled by The State, not by lawful government.  So now we have two questions.  First, there is the question of whether The State has the moral authority to pass moral law.  Second, there is the question of whether government that defends life, liberty and property would pass moral law.

Let’s deal with the second question first.  Let’s consider something that no one would think to outlaw, like spinach. 

Do I have the right to eat spinach?  I think we would all say yes.

Do I have the right to steal from you in order to buy spinach?  Do I have a right to steal your spinach?  Do I have a right to make you grow spinach for me?  Do I have a right to make you eat spinach?  Do I have a right to tell you what to do with your spinach? 

No.

Do I have the right to eat spinach, even if I am violently allergic to spinach?

Yes.

We can see from considering spinach that the real issue is not the spinach.  The issue is your rights and my rights.  Lawful government would defend our right to choose what to do with our property, beginning with our own body, provided we did not infringe on the rights of others.

So if lawful government should and would be silent on religion, speech, the press, voluntary association, the redress of grievances, and would defend our private property rights in all cases except when we infringe on someone else's property rights, then how could The Unlawful State have any basis for passing law that infringes on any of these rights?

Consider a brief history of The State since the US Constitution was ratified.

The State sanctioned cruel slavery, robbed the farmers, merchants and blacksmiths that supported the Revolutionary war, went to war against its own people, is responsible for the Trail of Tears, led in eugenics research, sterilized Americans who were considered to be unfit, was cited by Hitler as an example in handling "undesirable people" because of the way we handled the Indians, robbed the American people by debasing the currency, created the unlawful Federal Reserve System, passed the unlawful income tax, instituted conscription in the form of the draft, stole land, broke treaties, still slaughters babies around the globe through abortion, drove production off of our soil with GATT and NAFTA, has destroyed the family farm through market manipulation, subsidy, income tax, regulation, and inheritance tax, is destroying our right to grow our own food through Senate Bill 510, has destroyed the health care market through regulation, with the latest destructive blow being Obamacare.

Those are just for instance…

So even if it were the role of government to pass a law about spinach or marijuana, and it is not, The State is absolutely and totally devoid of the moral authority required to decide what moral law should be passed or to enforce that law.  The State is the most violent and egregious offender of natural law on the continent.

But The State does make law about these moral issues.  What is the result? 

Some say that moral law restrains immoral behavior.  Some say that as the laws have relaxed the problems in society have gotten worse.  However, I believe that we have our cause and effect mixed up.  In fact, it is the intervention of government in society through education and media which has degraded our culture, degraded the character of our people and degraded our morals.  The State gains its power by making the people dependent, simple-minded and docile.  The laws that we permit our rulers to make do not cause our morals to degrade.  Government intervention in education and the media, government propaganda, subsidizing bad behavior, and penalizing production all combine to degrade our morals.  It is our degraded morals that allow them to make perverse and destructive laws, which at the same time control the minutest detail of our behavior, while making perverse and destructive behaviors lawful.

In other words, a moral society would never permit The State to get away with trampling their rights, interfering with their production and stealing their property, all while at the same time making perverse behavior lawful.  Only after morals have been undermined will increasingly perverse and destructive laws be incrementally accepted.

In the end, what we have are laws that control producers and protect non-producers in their destructive and perverse behaviors.  If government were silent about behaviors and protected private property rights, then producers would be free to help who they wanted to help and those who engaged in destructive and perverse behavior would have to stand on their own two feet.  If the moralist is truly correct about what is good and what is bad, those who engage in unfruitful behavior will go down the path of the prodigal son.

When The State begins making moral law, the end result is subsidy of bad behavior and penalties on production, which leads to violence and ultimately the collapse of the society.

If marijuana and spinach were treated the same, then the profit motive would be the same for both.  There would be the same number of people slaughtered in gang warfare over marijuana as there are today over spinach.  If you want a simple proof, look at the passage of the 18th and 21st amendment and the history of violence between the dates of their passage.

If a person were to steal to support their marijuana consumption, they would have to steal less if the price for marijuana was simply the cost of production plus whatever profit the market would bear.  That means there will be less crime as a result of marijuana consumption.  Not to mention the fact that a person could freely grow their own spinach and marijuana.

Summary

So here is what we have discovered. 

Lawful government would defend our life, liberty and property. 

The State is a monopoly of force designed to control people and steal our property and production through the guise of legal plunder.

The corruption of our character and morals as a society is the result of government intervention, not the result of bad law.  Destructive and perverse law that controls the producer and forces him to subsidize bad behavior is only permitted in a society that is sufficiently corrupt to tolerate the next incrementally bad law.

When The State has the gall to pass moral law, the result is violence, death, chaos, moral decay and destruction of property.

We can easily see why this would be the outcome if we understand the moral depravity and evil nature of The State, whose power comes from force, coercion and theft.  There is no way an immoral overlord would have any reason, authority or moral foundation to pass moral laws that are genuinely good for the society.  The State always and only does those things which will increase its power and reward its minions.

If we truly want a moral society we must defend private property rights and punish stealing even when The State is the thief.  We must permit producers to keep their own production, thereby rewarding production, investment and efficiency.  Production leads to abundance which leads to prosperity.  Those who are engaged in behaviors that are unfruitful and destructive will no longer be rewarded with the fruits stolen from the producers.

The State is unfit to write or enforce moral law because it owes its entire existence to violations of natural law and all of its power comes from a mixture of force, deception, theft and propaganda.  When we understand the nature of The State we no longer have to wonder why moral law harms more people and destroys more property than the behavior that is being outlawed ever could.

Production and The Prodigal Son

I recently taught a series of Sunday school lessons on the parable of the Prodigal Son, which is found in Luke chapter 15. The Sunday school material I used began by observing how deeply ingrained the parable of the Prodigal Son is in our Spiritual and literary traditions. It was noted that Shakespeare used plot points from the parable of the Prodigal Son in the Merchant of Venice and in Henry IV. Country music singer Hank Williams recorded a song called the Prodigal Son comparing the Prodigal's homecoming to the joys of heaven. The world's great Art museums contain many works featuring scenes from the Prodigal Son's experience. Of course we recognize terms like a wayward child being referred to as a prodigal son or daughter and we hear people talk about killing the fattened calf or riotous living. So the stories and the ideas of the prodigal son are very familiar in our traditions, culture and language.

In addition one can argue that this parable is the most richly detailed and personal of all the parables of Jesus. It is safe to say that everyone can relate to at least one of the three characters in the parable at sometime in their life.

Because of the details in this parable, many people seek complex symbolism, layers of meaning or hidden lessons which bend the rules of interpretation. We want to be very careful to focus on the plain meaning of Scripture and not invent our own meaning for the parable.

Our goal then, is to read the parable and observe the details that provide the framework for the story, so that we can understand the plain meaning of the passage. As I began to prepare my Sunday school lesson, a new facet of the details of the story came into my view. I noticed that there were many terms which were directly related to production. So class began with the study of how production fits into the parable. Our first task was to agree on a definition of production.

Production: Labor and resources combined to provide for needs and wants.

It was easy for us to recognize and agree that production is some form of gain or increase. Next we went through a series of questions to see if production was reasonable to consider in studying our Bible lesson. First we asked "Since people eat food and use things, do people depend on production?" The answer is obviously yes. Next we asked "Does our dependence on production influence our decisions?" Again the obvious answer is yes, with a good example being that we often go to work because we want to have food, clothing and shelter. Next we asked "Does our dependence on production challenge our morals?" Again the obvious answer was yes. Then we asked "As Christians, does our dependence on production challenge our obedience?" Again the clear answer was yes. Finally we asked "Who made us dependent on production?" As Christians we believe that God is our Creator, which means that God made us dependent on production.

So let's think about what we just observed. People eat food and use things which means that people depend on production. Our dependence on production influences our decisions, challenges our morals, challenges our obedience - all because God made things that way. (For those who do not believe that there is a creator, please explain how nothing and no one produced everything. I enjoy that debate.) There is no question that thinking about production while studying Scripture is a good idea.

There are more than 50 terms in the parable of the prodigal son which are related to production. In the passage which is pasted below you will see various terms in bold. These are terms related to production. For example the term give is meaningless unless there is something to give. The term share is meaningless unless there is something to divide. The term estate obviously refers to the property of the father. The term everything refers to all of the property belonging to the son. Journey is a term indirectly related to production because in order to take a journey one must have the resources to do so. Think of your vacation. Loose living is a term related to production, as we see in the parable when his resources are gone. Then we have the term enough bread. Bread is clearly related to production and enough communicates a quantity of production. Further down we see the terms music and dancing. Music flows from an instrument which would've been produced from profits which belonged to a producer. He was willing to use these profits to create a musical instrument because his more immediate needs of food shelter and clothing had been met. And of course dancing is something that typically involves music and is something that occurs among people who are in good spirits with full stomachs. We could go on and on looking at the terms, but we have sufficiently illustrated the reason that various terms are considered to be related to production.

Luke 15:11-32 And He said, “A man had two sons. “The younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of the estate that falls to me.’ So he divided his wealth between them. “And not many days later, the younger son gathered everything together and went on a journey into a distant country, and there he squandered his estate with loose living. “Now when he had spent everything, a severe famine occurred in that country, and he began to be impoverished. “So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. “And he would have gladly filled his stomach with the pods that the swine were eating, and no one was giving anything to him. “But when he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have more than enough bread, but I am dying here with hunger! ‘I will get up and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men.” ’ “So he got up and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion for him, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. “And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet; and bring the fattened calf, kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ And they began to celebrate. “Now his older son was in the field, and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. “And he summoned one of the servants and began inquiring what these things could be. “And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has received him back safe and sound.’ “But he became angry and was not willing to go in; and his father came out and began pleading with him. “But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ “And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. ‘But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’ ” NASB95

As written above, I noticed that there were several terms related to production in the story of the prodigal son. After I went through the passage marking the terms that were related to production, it became clear that if these terms were removed there would be no story. So now we have this richly detailed parable which influences our traditions and culture and art, and which is meaningful to nearly every person in some way at some point in their life, and we find that if we remove terms related to production the story falls apart. To be very clear, I'm not saying that the truth of the story is lost, because truth exists apart from the story and apart from the framework used to tell the story. However, this parable relies heavily on the concepts of production to convey certain truth.

Our country today is sometimes called a welfare state, which means that there is a significant portion of our population that depends on welfare for food shelter and clothing. If the story of the prodigal son were told today in our country, it would go a little bit differently. After the younger son had squandered his wealth on loose living, he would've gone to the welfare office and signed up for his welfare check and food stamps. This would have kept him from "coming to his senses", thinking about the condition of the hired help on his father's estate, recognizing the error of his ways, repenting of his bad choices and bad attitude, confessing these to his father and ultimately being received back into the family.

The parable of the prodigal son tells us things about God the Father, about Jesus as Savior, about Christians as prodigal sons and daughters and about the religious people like the scribes and the Pharisees who approach God based on their works and confidence in themselves. This parable also tells us something about how God's natural order and natural law is used to draw people to truth.

A Christian is supposed to be led by the Spirit, not by the flesh. According to the Christian worldview, an unsaved person is led by the flesh rather than by the spirit.

A person who understands spiritual truth will filter the desires of his flesh through spiritual understanding. If a person who is led by the flesh is going to learn spiritual truth, his flesh sometimes has a role in leading him there. The parable of the prodigal son is an excellent example of how a hungry belly will bring a person to his senses. Therefore whether the flesh leads the spirit or the spirit leads the flesh, it is important that the flesh and the spirit move in the same direction and work together. With that thought in mind let's consider what happens if the flesh and the spirit go in different directions.

Based on my Christian worldview I believe that the God of the Bible is the creator of the universe and everything in it. I also believe that God is the ultimate producer, even going beyond production to the act of creation. I also believe that man is created in the image of God and, because God is a producer by nature, we also are producers by nature. However not everyone produces. So the question is, if people are by nature producers but are not always productive, how does a person feel when they are not productive? I agree that there are many people who are lazy and unproductive and have no desire to change, but what is going on inside? Consider the drug addict who is destroying his body. He is choosing temporary pleasure over the immediate and long-term health of his body. Likewise, people will choose to be lazy and unproductive even at the expense of the immediate and long-term effect on their spirit or the inner man.

When a person lives in such a way that he squanders the property that he has and does not work to replace it, he faces poverty and hunger. Poverty and hunger led the prodigal son back to his senses. If the prodigal son had been given just a little food and clothing and enough shelter to survive, chances are he would not have come to his senses, repented, confessed and been reconciled to his family. His inner man would've become corrupt and undergone decay, rather than healing.

Therefore if a Christian really loves other people he will never do anything to support the physical man in a way that will ultimately harm the spiritual man. Let's consider the passages from Scripture that will guide us in best serving the physical and the spiritual man.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.

Proverbs 16:25-26 There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. 26 The appetite of laborers works for them; their hunger drives them on.

I want to consider one other point the parable. When the young son returned, his father hugged him around the neck and commanded his servants to bring a robe, a ring, and sandals for his young son. Each of these gifts has a significant meaning, but we are going to focus on the ring right now. In those days, that ring would have been a signet ring which gave the possessor a right called usufruct. Usufruct is a Latin term that literally means "use of the fruits" and it describes the legal right to use someone else's property at no cost, while reaping the fruits as though the property were your own. We can see that the young son lost his right to any further inheritance, but while his father was alive he was able to use a portion of his father's property in order to produce and begin building sufficient wealth to take care of his own future family. Scripture records that God told the children of Israel that the land was His and they were tenants. With a little thought we can see the similarity between the Garden of Eden as the father's estate and Adam and Eve being evicted, but given the right to use God's property to satisfy their needs and some of their wants.

In summary, we find that the parable of the prodigal son is heavily dependent on terms related to production. We observed that our decisions are influenced by our dependence on production and that our morals and obedience are challenged by our dependence on production. We also see the God made us dependent on production and that God's natural order will cause a hungry man to lead his inner man toward right-thinking, restoration and productive life. An empty belly can get the attention of a stubborn will when no amount of persuasion will work. This means that if we support a hungry man who is unwilling to work, we have set in motion an internal decay that cannot be halted or reversed, except if we get out of the way and let the physical man once again be subject to the natural order and his dependence on production.

If we subsidize bad behavior, we will get more of it. If we penalize production, we will get less of it. Bad behavior is destructive and unfruitful. People depend on production. Following is a chart that I've shared in other places which compares and contrasts the biblical social model and the social model we use today in our country. Compare the chart to what we have discovered about the prodigal son.

It's Not About Healthcare

Obama finally got his way in the passage of a bill that has been decades in the making. Healthcare seems to be all that pops up on the news these days, but the debate was raging long before President Obama took office.

First came Hoover and FDR. Then the 1964 Democrat controlled Congress brought with it Medicare and Medicaid. These now have over 104 million combined beneficiaries. Former President Nixon supported a plan that required employers to provide a minimum level of insurance to employees. Healthcare as employee compensation to get around wage controls, set the stage for an unaccountable four-party health insurance market. In 1976, President Jimmy Carter called for a "comprehensive national health insurance system with universal and mandatory coverage" as a part of his campaign platform. Sound familiar?

For decades, our government has tried repeatedly to impose universal healthcare on citizens of the United States. ObamaCare is the socialized healthcare plan of the century, repackaged. It is not a new idea, and as history has proven, it is not a road America wants to go down. It will only bring more trouble, poverty and steady decline to our nation.

So, what is the healthcare debate really about? To understand the purpose of "healthcare", we must understand the principles of liberty and production - both vital parts of human society. People depend on production. Think about the things you use throughout the day: clothes, coffee, cars, or a microwave. Someone had to produce each item. Stop. Think. What would your day be like if you didn't have these things?

Each American is in some way dependent on the labor and property of another person - a producer. We all need the other guy to produce efficiently so the things we use will be abundant and cheap.

It makes sense then, that in order for individuals to prosper, someone must produce food, shelter, clothes, and all the other things we use. It also logically follows that people produce more good things when they are not hindered by force and confiscation of their profits, property and tools.

If you produce something using your own time and property, you don't want to give it up unless you get something that is useful in exchange. It really is that simple.

In other words, the strength of an individual or a nation is dependent on the quantity and quality of useful things it produces. If we want food, clothes, housing, cars, trucks or video games, we have to either produce those exact things or produce something to exchange with the producer of those things.

Are we producing anymore? Agricultural and industrial capacity in the United States is nearly destroyed. According to estimations by the United States Department of Labor, over 650,000 more manufacturing jobs will be gone by 2018. Farming and agriculture jobs are also expected to decline by 80,000.

How did this happen? Agriculture and industry made us strong and prosperous. For some reason, someone has been allowed to drive the farmer off his land and the manufacturer out of his factory. Most of them didn't want to leave. They were forced out.

We must understand that anything that interferes with the United States' ability to produce makes us poorer and weaker as a nation. Wealth redistribution, unwise regulation, burdens of litigation, constant inflation, barriers to voluntary association and barriers to voluntary exchange all reduce how much we are able to produce.

Eventually, this decline will leave us in poverty and helplessness as a nation.

Our retirements are devastated. Many people have been forced to delay or exit retirement altogether. Families are struggling against growing college tuition rates. Teachers all over northeast Georgia are taking more unpaid furlough days. This decline must be stopped.

To give our children any honest hope, we absolutely must learn to think in larger terms. The success and strength of Georgia will rise or fall with the success and strength of America. We must understand that the state has to stand up for the rights and property of our citizens in aggressive, proactive ways.

Our central government has been up to no good more often than not, since the founding of our nation. For example, according to Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton who was Washington's Treasury Secretary, swindled the people through conniving payment of federal and state war debts. His plan had the following two goals: To confuse the people and corrupt the legislature.

Jefferson concluded: "And with grief and shame it must be acknowledged that his machine was not without effect ; that even in this, the birth of our government, some members were found sordid enough to bend their duty to their interests, and to look after personal rather than public good."

The federal government is always looking for new ways to steal our property. Our ignorance of money and production is the strength of these tyrants.

Productivity retained in the hands of the producer is the solution.

So when we hear talk about the benefits of "Healthcare," "Cap and Trade," "Global Warming," "Bailouts" or other government actions, there is really only one question:

Will this government action help us produce more of the good things we use everyday in Georgia, leading to abundance, prosperity and strength?

Statistics, math, logic, history, current events, human nature, and even the Bible, all emphatically say... "No."

Blessings,

Shane Coley

When the economy turns around...

I hear politicians talk about "when the economy turns around", but these comments are based on simple-minded and naive "wishes".

So what will restore prosperity? What will "turn the economy around"?

We must understand that producers exchange with other producers.

As a nation, we have wrongly taught our people that labor is dishonorable.

We have exported our jobs. We have lost generational knowledge in agriculture. We have lost trade skills in industry. We have severely damaged the freedoms that foster small business entrepreneurs.

The time is coming when we can no longer exchange worthless paper for what other nations produce.

Why would a person give you their brand new oil, silver, wheat or lawnmower in exchange for a piece of worthless paper? Our dollar is quickly being recognized for what it is: a worthless piece of paper.

Prosperity follows production.

If you want to see the economy turn around then you must fight for production to be reestablished in our land. This is not optional. It must happen.

Men, we must defend our own production and our private property the same way we defend our wife and children.

We take care of our families by using things that are produced.

Productivity retained in the hands of the producer is the solution.

Its your property. Fight for it. Nothing else will do.

Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire

Liberty is enjoyed by those who control the profit from property and labor. If someone else controls your profit, then they also possess and enjoy your liberty. Your profit is that which you earn by producing more than you consume.

Capitalism employs the checks and balances of scarcity, labor and property to allocate resources and social authority to the most efficient producers and organizers of production.

Capitalism does not exist in a system that confiscates profit from producers, to reallocate to capable non-producers and those benefiting from favored business license. Such a system is socialist, which is marketed as capitalism to the masses, in order to march quietly toward a totalitarian system of government.

Costless money transfers production, labor, property and life savings from the working people into the hands of a privileged class. This theft must end if we are to have a future hope of liberty and justice for all. There is a solution. Learn it, speak it and pursue it with all passion and great haste. -- Shane Coley

Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire

Gangster government

Gangster government.

No Oversight of the Federal Reserve

No Oversight of the Federal Reserve.

John Maynard Keynes

Following is an excellent compilation of quotes about Keynes prepared by Dr. David Noebel of Summit Ministries and posted on the Worldview Times website. Dr. Noebel begins with a recent quote by Larry Summers from the Charlie Rose show and then follows with a series of quotes about Keynes. Keynes and those around him clearly desire the destruction of the capitalist system, the family and all other forms of personal liberty and private property.

Note that Larry Summers is a "top" Obama "economic" "advisor"

- Shane

Worldview Times - John Maynard Keynes

John Maynard Keynes
(1883-1946)

Prepared by David A. Noebel
Summit Ministries

Posted on the Rush Limbaugh website, February 19, 2009.

Charlie Rose: "What idea, what person has most Influenced your thinking on how to deal with this mess?"

Larry Summers: "Keynes. Keynes and those that followed him." February 18, 2009.

1. "Veritas [foundation] feels that without doubt the following study will prove that the Keynesian 'system'-if it can be called a system-is the primary economics system being taught in Harvard. Veritas also feels that "Keynesian economics' is a misnomer. It is not economics. It is a leftwing political theory." Zygmund Dobbs, Research Director, Keynes at Harvard. New York, NY: Veritas Foundation, 1963. 2.

2. "Even Whittaker Chambers … admitted: 'The simple fact is that when I took up my little sling and aimed at Communism, I also hit something else. What I hit was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades.'" Ibid. 3

3. "Keynesism is so-called after John Maynard Keynes, British economist (1883-1946). His teachings are today considered an ideological base for British and American Socialists." Ibid. 8

4. "No matter what phase of left-wing infiltration we study, be it in government, in information media, in foundations, in labor unions, or whether we deal with Keynesian socialism, neo-Marxian socialism or with Bolshevik communism, the tracks lead inevitably to Harvard University." Ibid. 8

5. "There are three main trends of socialist thought in the Western world. They are: the communist soviet brand; social democratic neo-Marxism; and Keynesian theories which are actually an extension of the [British] Fabian movement. Curiously, Keynesism proved to be adaptable to the Fascists as well as the Socialist world." Ibid. 10

6. "The socialist lectures conditioned the young minds to hate capitalism as an outmoded and cruel system; the second phase was to despise and distrust individual capitalists as exploiters and reactionaries who oppose social improvements; and thirdly the fledgling radical is hooked by clever 'scientific examples' and formulae which prove to him that the present social order is predestined to collapse and socialism is foreordained to take its place." Ibid. 13

7. "Almost the entire membership identified as belonging to the first Ware cell (Soviet spy ring-ed.) came out of the Harvard Law School: Alger Hiss, Nathan Witt, Lee Pressman, John Abt and Henry H. Collins Jr. Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were teachers (Economics teachers-ed.) as well as students at Harvard." Ibid. 14

8. "Today [British] Fabians use the teachings of John Maynard Keynes as their catechism of political economy. The American Fabians have slavishly installed Keynesism as the new faith, both in the Universities and in Government bureaucracy. To lay bare and dissect these premeditated deceptions is the true task of the political science of our day." Ibid. 40

9. "Hugh tax-free Foundations, such as the Ford, Carnegie and Guggenheim Foundations, backed by billions of dollars, became the nesting places of Keynesism." Ibid. 41

10. "At the age of 20 (1903) Keynes became a member of a Fabian group at Cambridge which was headed by G. L. Dickinson, a prominent Fabian Socialist. As an undergraduate, Keynes, imitating his father, expressed strong opposition to the principle of private enterprise (Laissez-Faire)." Ibid. 43

11. "This was in line with the general attitude of the Fabian Society, which favored government run by the Civil Service and not a government responsive to the electorate." Ibid. 44

12. "It was during this period (1913) that Keynes adopted the concept of eliminating gold as a standard of the monetary system of the nations of the world. His notion of a managed currency (that he sold F. D. Roosevelt on twenty years later) was an old socialist catch-call, espoused by the Fabians since the turn of the century. It is a fundamental concept of State-Socialism." Ibid. 44, 45

13. "Keynes did not keep his Socialist convictions to himself in those days. His opposition to the private enterprise system was well known to London society. Clarence W. Barron, then publisher of the Wall Street Journal, while in London in 1918, made the following observation: 'Saw Professor Keynes of the British Treasury…Lady Cunard says Keynes is a kind of Socialist and my judgment is that he is a Socialist of the type that does not believe in the family.'" Ibid. 45

14. "Singing the Red Flag, the highborn sons of the British upper-class lay on the carpeted floor spinning out socialist schemes in homosexual intermissions…The attitude in such gatherings was anti-establishmentarian. To them the older generation was horribly out of date; even superfluous. The capitalist system was declared obsolete, and revolution was proclaimed as the only solution. Christianity was pronounced an enemy force, and the worst sort of depravities were eulogized as 'that love which passes all Christian understanding.' Chief of this ring of homosexual revolutionaries was John Maynard Keynes…Keynes was characterized by his male sweetheart, Lytton Strachey, as 'A liberal and a sodomite, an atheist and a statistician.' His particular depravity was the sexual abuse of little boys." Zygmund Dobbs, "Sugar Keynes." See Goggle "John Maynard Keynes: Lavender & Bolshevik." Or http://members.tripod.com/~BioLeft/keynes.htm For further information on Keynes' homosexual behavior note A. L. Rowse, Homosexuals in History. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1977,271f. Also, Mark Skousen, The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2001, 325

15. "In this same work [The End of Laissez-Faire] Keynes showed an early bias (1924) against savings and investments as economic virtues. From virtues he transformed them into evils…Fabian Socialists have long considered those who saved and invested as a stumbling block against the march of Socialism." Keynes at Harvard, 49

16. "Keynes concept of controlling society extends beyond political and economic matters. He even advocates social control of the number of children per family." Ibid. 49

17. "Keynes is a Socialist that does not believe in the family. Naturally, in order to control the birth rate the State must break up the family as an independent and free unit." Ibid. 50


18. "Margaret Cole, English Fabian revolutionary, has stated: 'We Socialists used Keynes and the U.S.S.R. as touchstones." Ibid. 60

19. "The entire Keynesian apparatus is based upon the principle of control and regulation by government…capitalism should now be regulated and controlled by a central authority…One of the central themes in Keynes' system is a condemnation of the principle of 'savings.' …Here is [Keynes] General Theory in a nutshell, with its trans valuation of all values. The great virtue is Consumption, extravagance, improvidence [not providing for the future]. The great vice is saving, thrift and 'financial prudence.'" Ibid. 63

20. "The concept of eliminating savings is not an economic one but a political one. If there are no savings there is no private money for investment. Without private investors the government must provide investment capital. If the government provides for investment it has the power to dictate the conduct and processes of those who need investment capital…All this is demagogy and claptrap. It differs from the Marxist brand only in technical detail." Ibid. 64,65

21. "Another major prop of Keynes' theory is Mrs. Joan Robinson …What Keynesians do not say is that this lady is considered in international communist circles as one of the world's outstanding Marxists. Mrs. Robinson has widely publicized the fact that the difference between Marx and Keynes are only verbal. She later wrote: 'The time, therefore, seems ripe to bridge the verbal gulf.'" Ibid. 68

22. "Keynesian leftists…are confident that a great national debt and continuing inflation plus enormous internal and foreign commitments assure the continuance of Keynesian operations for generations to come regardless who is in power." Ibid. 77

23. "Stuart Chase, representing the Fabian socialists in the United States proposed Keynes as the socialist ideal long before Keynes wrote the General Theory in 1936. Chase outlined the Keynesian principle of abandoning the gold standard in 1932…Chase called his book A New Deal. It was written in 1931 and published in 1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt borrowed this socialist slogan as a label for his administration." Ibid. 78,79

24. "Curiously, the authorities used by Chase in his book the Economy of Abundance (1934) were G.D.H. Cole, J.A. Hobson, Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, J. M. Keynes, John Strachey and H.G. Wells, all spawned by the British Fabian Society." Ibid. 79

25. "An analysis of Keynesism in the United States is incomplete without a discussion of the role of Harry Dexter White while Assistant to the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Harry White was considered by Keynes as the 'central figure' in Keynesian manipulations in the United States. White played a major part in organizing Keynes' pet project-the International Monetary Fund. In the interim Harry Dexter White was exposed as an active Soviet spy…To this day, Keynesians see nothing wrong in White's Soviet role…This eulogy of Harry Dexter White was printed three years after he was exposed as a Soviet spy-typical of the attitude of Fabian socialist elements toward the whole coterie of spies and Fifth Amendment communists in the United States." Ibid. 83

26. "The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Ibid. 87

27. "The Keynesian formula fits all totalitarianisms. Juan Peron's dictatorship in Argentina used the Keynesian technique as authority in economic and political matters…Nehru traces the beginning of his interest in socialism to his Cambridge days when the Fabianism of Shaw and the Webbs attracted him…The Nazis did admire the Keynesian theme whereby the government has authority over the whole economic life of the nation…Sir Oswald Mosley, current Fascist leader was a leader of the Fabian Society at a time (1930) when Keynes' ideas were already the officially accepted Fabian line." Ibid. 89, 90

28. "Shortly before his death Schumpeter concluded that the basic leftist ideologies are based not on science but on a vision." Ibid. 96

29. "At the end of his life Keynes wrote: 'We were not aware that civilization was a thin and precarious crust erected by the personality and will of a very few [actually by a governing class] and only maintained by rules and conventions. It did not occur to us to respect the extraordinary accomplishment of our predecessors in the ordering of life or the elaborate framework that they had devised to protect this order. We completely misunderstood human nature, including our own.'" A. L. Rowse, Homosexuals in History. 277

30. "By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but confiscate arbitrarily: and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some…the process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." John Maynard Keynes, Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920)

Prepared by David A. Noebel, May 18, 2009
Summit Ministries, Manitou Springs, CO 80829

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Dictator

Are you ready for a New Constitution? Well its coming, if not now then soon, unless citizens of the several states find a way to stop it.

This Phyllis Schlafly article should be widely read. There are people and organizations who maintain and pursue a goal to overturn the USA as a free and sovereign nation. Considering where we stand today as a nation, a constitutional convention would provide the perfect working platform to swiftly destroy our current form of government.

By the way, "USA" refers to the United STATES of America, not a single central government with the label "USA". The reference is to a group of sovereign states who agreed to maintain a central, federal government which was to be subservient to the states and the people. We lost that long ago.

The primary tool used to destroy us, which we stupidly handed over, was our productivity, transferred through the process of inflation. Our labor has funded our enemies; the enemies of freedom; the enemies of the United States.

What have we done?

Br'er Rabbit

The stories of Br'er Rabbit are said to trace back to Cherokee Indian myths. The stories illustrate types of behavior we observe in people.

In one story Br'er Fox has captured Br'er Rabbit with a Tar Baby as a trap.

The Tar Baby is a doll covered in sticky tar that Br'er Rabbit gets tangled up with. When Br'er Fox comes out of hiding to gloat over his capture of Br'er Rabbit, he begins thinking of the things he can do to Br'er Rabbit. The stories include a variety of different possibilities ranging from hanging the poor old rabbit to roasting him for dinner.

Now we get to the point of the story which interests us.

Caught in the tar trap, Br'er Rabbit says "You can roast me, hang me, skin me, do anything at all, but PLEASE don't throw me in the briar patch!"

Well the fox wants to do the worst thing he possibly can to this wily, aggravating old rabbit, so Br'er Fox throws Br'er Rabbit right into the briar patch. And then silence...

But soon Br'er Rabbit is seen sitting up the hill on a log, cleaning the sticky tar out of his fur and smiling.

"I was born and bred in the briar patch!" said the sly old rabbit.

Briar Patch and Government Regulation

We have a tendency to think of Government Regulation as being bad for big business because we believe regulations keep them in check. We are told regulations punish big business when they operate "unfairly".

Br'er Rabbit and Big Business

Br'er Rabbit was "bred and born; born and bred" in the briar patch.

The briar patch provided a home and protection to the rabbit and his ancestors.

Regulation provides a home and protection to Big Business and its ancestors.

Br'er Fox, do anything to Br'er Rabbit, but PLEASE don't throw me in the briar patch!

Br'er Citizen, do anything to Br'er Business, but PLEASE don't Regulate me!

Greed and Control

Remember that for large corporations, Regulation is CHEAPER and more PROFITABLE than Competition.

Regulation is a tool used by those at the top of the economic system to reward favored corporations and punish troublesome corporations.

Small business and the consumers pay the price for these elite games. Consumers are rewarded with higher prices and lower quality services. Small business finds increasingly large barriers to entry in the marketplace.

In the end, regulation protects and benefits large corporations and powerful people, while harming citizens. Both consumers and small business are harmed by the very regulation that benefits big business; which is exactly opposite to what we are told.

Regulation to big business is like Br'er Rabbit in the Briar Patch!

They love it!!!

It is their home.

It provides them the protection to which they owe their very existence.

What else have we lost?

Today is Thanksgiving Day and I have the great privilege and pleasure of being in South Georgia with family. I am thankful for many things that are easy to be thankful for. I try to be thankful in all things, in accordance with the teaching of my Christian faith.

During the critical coffee cup selection process this morning I found a cup decorated with a Norman Rockwell image. The scene is of a father and son with fishing gear standing in front of the door to a business. Dad is hanging a sign that says "GONE on BUSINESS"; and one can cipher "will return tomorrow". Dad is happy to hang the sign and go, while the son peeks around a corner in delight as they "sneak off" to fish.

Andy Griffeth comes to mind. And then I remember talk of the days when neighbors would regularly, commonly, often visit on Sunday or raise a barn together. People had time for other things in life than work and a "schedule".

But today, one of my dearest young friends, barely in her twenties, tells me she would be lost without her Blackberry calendar.

What changed?

As I recall from memory, in 1910 about 70% of all business expansion was self-funded. In those days the monetary system allowed a business to save for its own expansion.

After 1913 this steadily became impossible. A business could not compete without debt funded expansion. Cheap credit made debt cheaper than savings for expansion. In fact, if one saved, inflation would destroy one's wealth faster than any interest that was earned and your competitor would use debt to encroach on your market share while you saved...

Someone will say; "so invest in the stock market for better returns..."

But the stock market is a scam, unless one takes the view that having "wealth on paper" is the same as having real property. As we have seen clearly (once again) in the past few weeks, "wealth on paper" can disappear in a flash.

Even if the economy were healthy, what would happen if everyone decided to "cash out" on the same day? The whole system would collapse and most people would get pennies on their dollar (which is only worth about two pennies to begin with) if they were lucky.

Meaning in this context

Because business and individuals have been put in a position in which spending is believed to be cheaper than saving, and because saving provides negligible returns, we have become a debtor society. Remember Bernanke stated plainly that a determined government could, in effect, force people to spend rather than save by forcing higher inflation through government deficit spending:

We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

Ben Bernanke, “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here” Remarks before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C., 21 November 2002

To the point

Not only does our monetary system cause a literal and actual wealth transfer through the process of inflation, it also reconfigures the use and application of factors of production. In other words, what is "valuable" in a system which relies on ever increasing levels of debt, is different than what is "valuable" in a sound money system.

We will leave illustrating the cause and effect for another day and go straight to the claim.

In our false prosperity economy there is no time for the typical US citizen to slow down and enjoy friends, family and fishing.

Someone may think of golf or video games or our entertainment flooded society. Perhaps even leisure time and vacations.

However, the picture is not complete unless we think about how burned out we feel when we vacate. Who is paying for the leisure and the entertainment? What is not paid for in its place? What about the tenuous (at best) condition of our "savings" and "investments" and "retirement"?

As a nation, is our leisure usually cash or credit?

In other words what is the real cost of the "leisure" we consume?

How leisurely is what we do for entertainment? Is our entertainment typically edifying or destructive? Do kids go and consume entertainment when they would be better off and more healthy to have productive chores to do? Or to spend time with friends and a fishing pole?

We have lost our quality time. We have lost simple things, simple times, time for family, fishing, and growing old within a community. We have lost the opportunity to really enjoy each other and the world around us. We have lost relationships and friendships.

As a nation, we have debt instead of savings. Our "retirement" and "wealth" are at the mercy of a system that will fail.

We have little real wealth. What we seem to own requires our continuing participation in the system or we lose "our" property; for example, we must pay property taxes or the government will confiscate our property. Based on law and regulation, the government is the senior controlling partner in anything we own.

If we rest, we lose.

What else have we lost?

The Federal Reserve System and our complicit government has stolen our property and has stolen our quality time with family and friends.

What is the goal?

The greatest temporal challenge we face as a nation is our monetary system.

Destruction and Robbery

We labor under a monetary system which is designed to destroy.

Lenin plainly stated that the system we now operate under would end in our destruction as a free society. The Five Guys Analogy illustrates that the process of inflation causes a wealth transfer. Keynes, speaking about Lenin as well as Keynes own views, stated the following:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some… Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes, 1919

Our nation is being robbed. You are being robbed, or you are robbing others. There is no middle ground. We must understand this as a nation. It is true.

The Printer and the Producer

In terms of money, consider this very simple illustration. We will remove all the middle men and rules in order to have a clear picture of what is happening to us.

Imagine you own a house, which you worked hard all your life to pay for. Let's say it cost $100,000.

Now imagine that you are going to sell that house. There are two buyers who are interested in purchasing your home. One offers you paper money and the other offers you gold.

The paper money is identical to the dollars you use every day, but was printed in the garage of the first buyer the same morning he came over to make an offer.

The gold was mined from the ground and refined by the second buyer. The gold came from property the second buyer worked for and the mining and processing was done using labor and equipment he owned or leased.

To which one will you feel better about handing over your house keys?

Would you sell to the producer or the printer?

If you sell to the printer you are exchanging your labor and productivity for an illusion of value.

If you sell to the producer, you are exchanging labor for labor, productivity for productivity.

Further analysis will follow in another post to illustrate how fractional and fiat money provides for transfer of property into the hands of persons who have no right to the property.

Crisis Pregnancy and Planned Parenthood

Suppose you have a desire to protect unborn children. Maybe you hold the view that those female fetuses, young ladies who are a few days old, also have a right to life. Maybe they should have a choice. The fifth amendment states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Our first property rights are for our own person. It seems that abortion would be illegal based on the fifth amendment, if for no other reason. Surely an unborn baby has broken no law worthy of death.

In any case, suppose you hold the view that abortion is wrong, as I do. If that is the case, then you want to work to protect the unborn.

The current environment we operate under is as follows:

Local Crisis Pregnancy Centers are under-funded and staffed by volunteers. They are strictly limited with regard to presenting the pro-life position in schools.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood is provided with millions of dollars each year by the government, in order to promote the practice of abortion. They have open doors in the schools. In some places school officials can assist young girls with an abortion without parental notification. Their cause is promoted in the media and by the government.

Best Protection

The most effective action we can take is to cut off their funding and keep our own productivity. In this way the crisis pregnancy centers are strengthened, the propaganda is dramatically decreased and Planned Parenthood will have to raise money based on merit, rather than coercion of the people by government.

So... What is the goal?

Ideally we want to abolish the federal reserve and return to a sound money system. However, that is an enormous obstacle to overcome.

Here is what we can do now: We can tell the truth. We can educate our citizens. We can help people understand what government has done to our money.

Once we do that, let's see what follows. Maybe people will object to being robbed and demand real change.

Inflation & Moral Decay

Another destructive aspect of Inflationary monetary systems is the overall effect on morality. This will in no way be a thorough treatment or even a substantial review. The intent is simply to raise the point.

Consider this Bernanke quote for reference:

We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.

Ben Bernanke, “Deflation: Making Sure ‘It’ Doesn’t Happen Here” Remarks before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C., 21 November 2002

First note that the Federal Reserve actions are linked to "a determined government".

Next we see that this determined government, acting through the Fed, "can always generate higher spending". In other words, the government can use the inflationary monetary system to, in effect, force citizens to spend, rather than save.

Keynesians claim that the key to economic vitality is spending, while Austrian economists contend that the key is savings. Since one would be hard pressed to produce widgets with no production tools and production tools are capital intensive, it makes sense that before a low cost, high quality, efficiently produced good can be made available for purchase, someone had to save enough to build the widgit factory.

In addition, savings is not the destruction of money, it is the deferral of spending. The money simply is held for future purchases. In addition, savings in a sound money economy lowers interest and enables the production of consumption goods in the future.

Enough of that. Effect on morality is the question we are considering.

If a determined government forces consumers to spend (as their only defense to rising prices caused by the government inflating the money supply), then consumers can only buy cheap goods or go in debt to buy before prices rise. In either case, a "consumption economy" is created. The market churns out large volumes of cheap goods that are replaced every few years. Durable goods are not very durable any more.

The virtues of saving and planning are replaced by the vices of irresponsible spending and debt.

This fosters an instant gratification mentality. Because no one looks forward in time considering what can be bought in the future, planning and frugality become a mockery. Because we are trained not to look forward, we certainly lose any grounds for looking back to discover and maintain tradition.

Consider the present conditions in the US. Households and businesses are in deep debt. The family is under assault. Integrity seems to be in decline. Instant fixes to every problem are on the shelf. Morality and frugality are mocked.

Inflation transfers wealth and productivity into the hands of the propagandist. The declining dollar trains people to seek instant gratification and live in perpetual debt. That is more than an unhealthy combination; it is a recipe for disaster.