youtube: AMI's Zarlenga & Dennis Kucinich; re: private control vs public control of public money

youtube: AMI & Dennis Kucinich; also, private control vs public control of public money
youtube: AMI & Dennis Kucinich Here is the link to how Congressman
this is from an email by Zarlenga

Dennis Kucinich concluded his victory speech the evening of the election. He tells us about Stephen Zarlenga and how he (Congressman Kucinich) is now approaching monetary reform. Friends this is really dynamite! It is stunning! The monetary issue has not been so clearly understood and stated since Wright Patman was chairman of the House Banking committee decades ago. We know. See Dennis' conclusions (about 3 minutes) at:

www.youtube.com...

article by Zarlenga
The War of Private Vs Public Control of Society’s Money Power

A main arena of human struggle is over the monetary control of societies. It’s exercised through obscure theories where corrupt interests have misdefined the nature of money to seize control of the money power, dominating society and deforming humanity in the process.

The money system is society’s greatest dispenser of justice or injustice. A good one functions fairly, helping create values for life. A bad, unjust one obstructs the creation of values; gives special privileges to some and disadvantage to others causing unfair concentrations of wealth and power; leading to social strife and eventually warfare and a thousand unforeseen bad consequences – physical AND Spiritual.

Because great power is exercised through money, power-hungry elements from ancient times to the present pursued the political ambition to dominate through the Money Power. Their main weapon has been the manipulation of language and thought, where definitions serve as heavy artillery. Those benefiting from the corruption see that "professionals" are financed to promote their viewpoint with economic "theories."
...

Aristotle: "The most hated sort (of wealth getting), and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange but not to increase at interest. And this term interest (tokos), which means the birth of money from money is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring
resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth, this is the most unnatural." (1258b, POLITICS)
...

HOW PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKING STARTED IN AMERICA IN THREE STEPS

First Step: Our Constitutional Convention, considered two grand themes on humanity: First whether mankind could be self-governing. This American experiment is still in doubt because the Convention mishandled the other grand theme over the nature money.

They met from May to September 1787 but the money subject didn’t came up til August 16. Jefferson and Paine weren’t there. Franklin was too old to speak.

A curious book on money appeared, written anonymously by Calvinist clergyman John Witherspoon. The book attacked Government money and promoted Adam Smith’s primitive view that only gold and silver are money. It stonewalled our hard won colonial monetary experience.

The power for government to create money, long considered a necessary part of sovereignty was already in the articles of Confederation, but the Federalists fought to exclude this crucial power from the new government, arguing that it could not be trusted with it! Some of them intended to get hold of the power privately as had been done in England.
...
The Second Step was The Bond Theft:

The Constitution went into effect in late 1789. Hamilton’s first move as Secretary of the Treasury, was to assume $15 million of the state debts...an extremely unpopular act. WHY?

The worthless debt was held by the revolutionary soldiers, farmers, manufacturers and merchants who furnished its supplies. As Congress secretely passed the bill behind closed doors, the country was overrun by speculators, buying up the certificates for pennies on the dollar.

THIRD STEP: NEXT HAMILTON AND ASSOCIATES, having kept the monetary power out of government, moved to assume it themselves. Arguing that the Bank of North America was only a state bank, Hamilton suggested it come forward if it wanted to alter itself for the national purpose.

Thus the real question was whether it would be private banks or the government that would issue paper money. Will the immense power and profit of issuing currency go to the benefit of the whole nation, or to the private bankers? That’s always been the real monetary question in America.

Gold and silver served as a smoke-screen. What the bankers counted on were the legal considerations of the money. They knew that all that was needed to give their paper notes value, was for the government to accept them in payment for taxes. That, and not issuing too excessive a quantity. Under those conditions, the paper notes they printed out of thin air, would be a claim on any wealth existing in the society.

Just where did the money for first bank of the U.S. came from? Remember the bond theft?

The $10 million subscription for the banks’ shares, was oversubscribed within 2 hours. Only 1/10 of it was ever paid in gold. The rest was accepted in the form of bonds – the government bonds that Hamilton had turned from pennies on the dollar to full value. The money for the private bank actually came from the American people.

Even if the bank had "faithfully" stuck to gold and silver, the nation’s monetary power would still have been alienated to the east - to the European holders of those commodities. Same people we’d just fought the revolution against!

Thanks to Jefferson’s efforts, the bank was liquidated in 1811. Three quarters of it was found to be owned by English and Dutch.

So in the trickery used to start the bank, Would you blame the "government" or Hamilton’s crowd?

COMPARING THE RESULTS OF PRIVATE VERSUS PUBLIC CONTROL

A Science of money shows that issuing money belongs in the hands of the nation to be used for the common good. A Plutocracy counters with a mythology – the slur that government – the organized expression of our society can’t handle it. Centuries of propaganda raise the fear of inflation and abuse under government money, even though the record shows much greater monetary abuse by private systems. In this campaign they still advertise the 700 year old cases of monarchs "debasing" their coinage, but NEVER give the context that this period occurred after the collapse of European monetary order with the fall of Byzantium in 1204. Not mentioned is that much of the Kingly alterations were a necessary form of taxation, or that REPUBLICS fared much better than monarchies or that private bankers caused greater problems.

In 1346 Parliament tried to gain control over money but was refused. In 1414 Parliament tried to get veto power on money but was again refused.
Andrew Dickson White’s essay, Fiat Money Inflation in France, a classic attack on government:

"(The) world has failed to learn the lesson of the Assignats. Perhaps the study of the other great inflations - of John Law’s experiments with credit in France …; of the history of our own Continental currency …; of the Greenbacks of our Civil War; of the great German inflation that culminated in 1923 - would help to underscore and impress that lesson. Must we, from this appalling and repeated record, draw once more the despairing conclusion that the only thing man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history?"

lets take a look - First THE CONTINENTAL CURRENCY of the American Revolution. $200 million were authorized and $200 million issued. They functioned well until General Howe made New York City the center for British counterfeiting. Brits counterfeited billions of our Continentals.
...

WELL SURELY GERMANY’S 1923 HYPERINFLATION condemns government money!!

Sorry - But in fact that occurred under a privately owned and privately controlled Reichsbank. Furthermore the hyperinflation began the very month that all German governmental influence on the bank was removed and placed in private hands at the insistence of the occupation forces. Furthermore Hjalmar Schacht tells us in his 1967 book The Magic of
Money, that this private Reichsbank actually facilitated the hyperinflation by financing the speculators short sales of the mark. He didn’t mention these things in his 1928 book on the subject.Do you see the pattern that emerges from these monetary fiascos? Can you see that the Austrian School, to say the least - is not accurately relating the facts on these episodes?

AND THE AMERICAN GREENBACKS?
Again this case doesn’t stand scrutiny. $450 million were authorized and $450 million were printed. Counterfeiters couldn’t duplicate the Greenbacks. Every Greenback was eventually exchangeable one for one with gold coin. The Greenbacks were our best money system to date.

AMI’s PROPOSED REFORMS

First: Nationalize the Federal Reserve System. Reconstitute it in the US Treasury, to evolve into a fourth branch of government. Only the government would create money. What would such government money look like? Coin Vs Paper Money.

SECOND: Remove the privilege which banks presently have to create money. ...This would be neither inflationary or deflationary. It would make real, what was thought to be the money supply. UNDERSTAND This is very different from simply demanding 100% reserves, which would wreck the economy.

THIRD: institute programs for automatic, constitutionally determined government money creation, starting with the 2 trillion $ which the Civil Engineers need to bring our infrastructure up to acceptable levels. From there we go forward carefully determining how to best run the monetary system.

[edit on 12-11-2008 by counterterrorist]

Thank you very much for posting this, counterterrorist.

Dennis Kucinich sounds almost identical to Ron Paul, in his rant.

What I want to know right now, Dennis Kucinish being what I would consider an honest politician (maybe an oxymoron, I don't know)..... How does Kucinich feel about Obama and his policies?

That would answer my question right there, as to how I feel about him, them both being of the Democratic party and all.

Still it remains, he is getting the word out, on what he considers a big problem.

Originally posted by LostNemesis
Dennis Kucinich sounds almost identical to Ron Paul, in his rant.
...
That would answer my question right there, as to how I feel about him, them both being of the Democratic party and all.

Still it remains, he is getting the word out, on what he considers a big problem.

I know, that's quite an accomplishment for those two fellows to get even a little airtime from the corporate media ...totally impossible, yet, they've done it.

I do not think advocating the two-party system of Republicans vs Democrats and vice versa is really an enlightened approach.

For two reasons: the two rival entities in the world today are (the privately owned central banks) versus (the rest of humanity).

If mankind is indeed destined to war, then humanity should certainly destroy the private owners of the central banks, post haste.

However, as a reply to one of my posts stated the other day, certainly as soon as the current villians are displanced, others will as soon replace them.

I don't think that is necessarily the case. After all, Castro and Russia successfully threw the U.S. mafia and colonists and oil speculators (such as Zapata and the other oil-less Bush oil companies, out of Cuba successfully, and sent doctors out to help just as Mao Tse Tung did in expelling the same U.S. mafia, colonists and oil speculators out of Communist China -- even while the Rockefellors and Fed/City of London private banking shareholders of the central banks, financed communism in Russia and Naziism in Germany.

Therefore, to a discerning fellow such as yourself, who would you think most constitute a worthy opponent to peace and justice -- the republican guard , oops, that was Bush/SaddamHussein's party, or the Christian Democrats, oops, that was the political party of racist South Africa.

Let me restate that, do you think the republicans or the democrats are a bigger threat to prosperity than the private bankers who own the central banks?

After all, neither the republicans nor the democrats are asking for bailouts ...just the private owners of the central banks, you see?



[edit on 14-11-2008 by counterterrorist]