Mission Creep: How the Police State Acclimates Us to Being Modern-Day Slaves
“In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ― Hannah Arendt, On Violence
Like the proverbial boiling frogs, the government has been gradually acclimating us to the specter of a police state for years now: Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.
This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.
You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that only a militarized government can alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.
It’s happening already.
Yet we’re not just being acclimated to the trappings of a police state. We’re also being bullied into silence and subservience in the face of outright injustice and heavy-handed political correctness, while simultaneously being groomed into accepting government tyranny, corruption and bureaucratic ineptitude as societal norms.
What exactly is going on?
Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.
Certainly, it’s not leading to more freedom.
This draconian exercise in how to divide, conquer and subdue a nation is succeeding.
It must be said: the various protests from both the Right and the Left in recent years have not helped. Inadvertently or intentionally, these protests have politicized what should never have been politicized: police brutality and the government’s ongoing assaults on our freedoms.
We may be worse off now than we were before.
Suddenly, no one seems to be talking about any of the egregious governmental abuses that are still wreaking havoc on our freedoms: police shootings of unarmed individuals, invasive surveillance, roadside blood draws, roadside strip searches, SWAT team raids gone awry, the military industrial complex’s costly wars, pork barrel spending, pre-crime laws, civil asset forfeiture, fusion centers, militarization, armed drones, smart policing carried out by AI robots, courts that march in lockstep with the police state, schools that function as indoctrination centers, bureaucrats that keep the Deep State in power.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?
You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.
This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-endowed people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.
It works the same way every time.
The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence, illegal immigration, and so-called domestic extremism have been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.
Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized.
Strangely enough, in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government headed up by their particular brand of political savior can solve the problems that plague us.
We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests.
Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.
The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.
Nor does it seem to matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore. Indeed, the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to milk “we the people” of our hard-earned money (by way of taxes, fines and fees) and remain in control and in power.
Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically. (The characteristics of a psychopath include a “lack of remorse and empathy, a sense of grandiosity, superficial charm, conning and manipulative behavior, and refusal to take responsibility for one’s actions, among others.”)
When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”
So where does that leave us?
Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.
Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.
We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what it has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).
This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.
We are walking a dangerous path right now.
No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people.
Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, the 2024 presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system.
Anyone who believes that this election will bring about any real change in how the American government does business is either incredibly naïve, woefully out-of-touch, or oblivious to the fact that as an in-depth Princeton University study shows, we now live in an oligarchy that is “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.”
Be warned, however: the Establishment—the Deep State and its corporate partners that really run the show, pull the strings and dictate the policies, no matter who occupies the Oval Office—is not going to allow anyone to take office who will unravel their power structures. Those who have attempted to do so in the past have been effectively put out of commission.
Voting sustains the illusion that we have a democratic republic, but it is merely a dictatorship in disguise, or what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately refer to as an “economic élite domination.”
In such an environment, the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dictate national policy. As the Princeton University oligarchy study indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. As such, the citizenry has little if any impact on the policies of government.
We have been saddled with a two-party system and fooled into believing that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats, when in fact, the two parties are exactly the same. As one commentator noted, both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty.
We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government run by a corporate elite, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.
The powers-that-be want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day. They want us to believe that we have no right to complain about the state of the nation unless we’ve cast our vote one way or the other. They want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own.
What they don’t want us talking about is the fact that the government is corrupt, the system is rigged, the politicians don’t represent us, the electoral college is a joke, most of the candidates are frauds, and we as a nation are repeating the mistakes of history—namely, allowing a totalitarian state to reign over us.
“We the people” have a decision to make: do we simply participate in the collapse of the American republic as it degenerates toward a totalitarian regime, or do we take a stand and reject the pathetic excuse for government that is being fobbed off on us?
Never forget, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
Joe Biden’s Reverse Robin Hood Student Debt Cancellation
The Biden administration recently announced that it is canceling another $7.7 billion in student debt, and this will bring the total amount of student debt it has forgiven to over $160 billion since 2021.
The reason for this aggressive push on the topic of student debt, according to some political analysts, is that in the three years Joe Biden has been in office, he has failed to do enough in regard to this issue. As expected, this has left some of his constituency—primarily the college-educated sectors—wanting, and this is especially true considering that leading up to his victory in 2020, forgiving at least $10,000 of student debt per borrower was one of his main campaign promises.
Of course, President Biden is not solely to blame for this “lackluster” performance on student debt forgiveness. He not only had to battle a Republican majority in the House in regard to this issue but also has had to battle the legal system.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court dealt what was, at the time, thought to be a lethal blow to the Biden administration’s debt forgiveness efforts by ruling that they were “unconstitutional.” Furthermore, just this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans overturned a prior judge’s decision that allowed students who felt as if they had been “misled” by their universities to seek debt forgiveness—an angle that the Biden administration had been looking to take advantage of.
Considering that Biden has still continued to forgive student debt to the tune of nearly $200 billion—despite the ruling of those two aforementioned courts, and the Republicans for that matter—it makes sense why his college-educated constituents continue to hold him responsible. He can do it and has sort of done it, so why can’t he do more?
Now, whether or not this dissatisfaction from within that prominent wing of his base poses a real electoral threat or not is up for debate, but a far more pressing question is how this affects the electorate as a whole. Put another way, if one wishes to win an election in the United States—and Joe Biden clearly does—it requires casting a much wider net than, say, lifelong partisans. In fact, it is very unlikely that any candidate, no matter their charisma or popular policies, will win much of anything in the current political landscape if they can’t get at least some of the always-elusive swing vote.
So, does forgiving student debt help Joe Biden do this?
Put plainly, if Joe Biden loses the presidential election in November, this issue—which when compared to things like immigration and the economy seems somewhat unimportant—may actually be one of the main reasons why. The justification for that statement is that student debt forgiveness rewards college-educated voters, who generally vote Democrat anyway, at the expense of non-college-educated voters, which is who the Biden administration should be focused on.
To elaborate, Joe Biden was applauded by left-wing outlets in 2020 for securing 37 percent of the historically important white, non-college-educated vote. This was because before that election, the Democrats had been in a downward spiral when it came to this demographic, and 37 percent was, much to their joy, higher than expected. However, even though Biden was praised for sticking his finger in the proverbial dike in regard to this voting bloc, the Left still conceded that things were too close for comfort. In fact, that same outlet cited above stated that “if he [Biden] had won, say, 34 percent of them [white, non-college-educated voters] instead of the 37 percent he did win, he very well might not be president right now.”
This is why those numbers matter.
As of April 2024, Joe Biden is currently polling at not 37 percent, not 34 percent, but rather a mere 33 percent with white, non-college-educated voters. In addition to this, according to further polling conducted by the Pew Research Center, his opposition, Donald Trump, has doubled his support among black voters from 2020 (12 percent) and has also nearly broken even when it comes to Hispanic voters (44 percent). Therefore, given that these last two are some of the Democrats’ most reliable voting blocs—at least since the mid-twentieth century, that is—it is quite reasonable to conclude that Joe Biden is in a far weaker spot this election than he was four years ago.
However, what does race have to do with this, and are all of these numbers because of Biden’s student debt forgiveness?
At the end of the day, whether you are a “woke lefty” or a “based right-winger,” two statistical realities exist. The first is that Americans live in a majority white country, and subsequently, the white vote has more influence over US elections than any other voting bloc. The second is that black and brown Americans per capita are statistically underrepresented when it comes to possessing four-year degrees. When you put these two realities together, toss in a little student loan forgiveness, and then cross-reference that with recent polling data, what you have is quite the interesting electoral portrait.
Given Biden’s historically bad economy, the fact that inflation is high, and that the Biden administration just spent $95 billion on foreign wars—even though the national debt is a staggering $34 trillion and growing—it makes sense why his student debt forgiveness programs are not garnering support. In lay terms, with these programs, Biden is, essentially, taking money from people (non-college-educated voters) struggling with a demonstrably bad economy who may or may not vote for him and then giving that money to people who not only outearn that first group, but who are also already likely to vote Democrat anyway. In a way, it is like he is trying to be some kind of reverse Marxist Robin Hood, but instead of being beloved by the people, he is instead beloved by the nobles, even though the people are actually the ones who can keep him in office. Anyway, enough on that.
At first glance, it makes sense why the Biden administration would think that these debt forgiveness programs are a good idea. After all, it is a fact that the Democrats do perform disproportionately well among the college-educated demographic, regardless of race or gender. However, when one factors in all of the other things that make a successful election bid, it appears that these forgiveness efforts are actually missing the mark.
Of course, a direct line of causality cannot be drawn between these programs and the declining support for the Biden administration among non-college-educated voters, which, again, include a disproportionate amount of black and brown voters. However, one would be hard-pressed to claim that after all the information covered here, there is not at least some correlation. Now whether that correlation is strong enough that this issue will end up having a measurable effect on the 2024 election is yet to be seen. Nonetheless, it seems that, for now, Biden’s time may be better spent letting people keep their money instead of trying to redistribute it, in Marxist fashion, to an already-secure sector of his base.
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
China Fails to Secure Stockpile of Canadian Rare Earth Minerals
China’s recent attempt to secure a rare earth minerals stockpile ended in failure when a competitor stepped in to snag the deal.
Vital Metals, a mining firm based in Australia, announced Monday that minerals collected from its Saskatchewan-based Nechalacho Project will remain within Canadian borders.
“We were presented with a case of elevated interest for Canada,” Vital’s managing director Geordie Mark told The Northern Miner, later adding: “This agreement highlights the strategic value and importance of the Nechalacho rare earths project and the prioritization of a rare earths value chain in Canada.”
According to Vital, the Nechalacho site in northern Canada could hold more than 200 million tons of rare earth elements (REEs), which are used in green energy production and weapons manufacturing. Right now, China dominates the industry despite its comparatively small natural stock, clinching 75% of the global market with only 35% of the global REE reserves.
“China was only able to establish such dominance over the REE industry in part because of lax environmental regulations,” said Harvard Independent Review’s Jaya Nayar. “Low cost, high pollution methods enabled China to outpace competitors and create a stronghold in the international REE market.”
That’s because rare earths can indeed produce green energy—but only after generating 2,000 times their weight in catastrophically toxic waste. Many Western nations refuse to accept this tradeoff inside their own borders, imposing heavy regulations on domestic REE producers that keep exporters like China competitive despite high asking prices.
What’s pushing Canada to allow REE mining and reap the profits, despite environmental risks?
The answer lies within the Canadian critical minerals list, which includes REEs and 33 other elements/elemental groups deemed strategically and economically significant. A recent expansion of the list added high-purity iron, phosphorus, and silicon, which—like REEs and 20 other elements on the list—are key components of the green energy transition. This update, plus the last-minute swoop to protect REE supplies, gives a glimpse into the role “green” policy will play and foreshadows increasing pressure on component supply chains. If other countries follow Canada’s example, prices of related metals on that critical list—including cobalt, platinum group metals, REEs, silicon, and copper—could see significant boosts. That’s a bet Canada is placing early by securing its access to REEs while cutting China out of the deal.
The recent Canadian purchase from Vital is also part of a larger economic and political salvo led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who told reporters there will be no reconciliation between Canada and China following accusations of election meddling. On the mining stage, Canada is marketing itself as a direct competitor to China, flaunting its enormous mineral reserves as an alternative source for wary European countries afraid to rely on Chinese producers. China’s dominance won’t be shaken by missing a single deal with the Australian firm, though the move certainly sends a message calculated to exacerbate already strained relations between China and the West.
As if its challenge weren’t clear enough, Canada recently joined the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines to conduct military exercises in the South China Sea. Tensions between the four countries are on the rise, and economics is the prime battlefield. With REEs as a strategic focus and green energy policies on the Western docket, nations may put pressure on each other by sanctioning or otherwise straining metals supply chains—a move strategists on both sides will surely consider. With two of the world’s largest holders of rare earths reserves vying for stockpiles, the pressure on consumer countries to pick sides is growing, and this new symptom of conflict in the metals market will likely boost REE and related metal prices as countries stock up while supplies last.
It’s not just rare earths that will see gains. Silver, though not deemed “critical,” is a component of electric vehicles and other “green” technologies that governments (and private investors) will likely snap up in anticipation of tighter supply. Stress on metals supply chains is part of gold’s lifeblood, suggesting higher prices for this metal as well.
Good news for investors looking to shoot straight for the heart: REE prices bottomed out last year, indicating they’re due for revival and primed for a low buy.
“I’ve seen forward-looking studies that … don’t even factor in demand from defense sectors that push [the global annual turnover for REEs] well over a trillion dollars by the time we reach 2050,” said Melissa Sanderson, a consultant at American Rare Earths. “It’s a good, strong market now, and it’s one that appears to have healthy legs under it.”
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
Sick! Dem Rep. Jayapal & Joy Reid Cackle At Illegal Alien Raping NYC Teen
During a recent MSNBC segment, anchor Joy Reid and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) both laughed out loud while talking about a thirteen-year-old girl being molested by an illegal alien.
The illegal immigrant from Ecuador was taken into custody by the NYPD on Monday where he confessed to raping a 13-year-old girl in a park at knifepoint in broad daylight and filming the attack.
In a news segment downplaying the very real impact of illegal immigration on Americans, Reid and Jayapal called the increased attention to the matter “fearmongering.”
Watch as Rep. Jaypal (D) and Joy Reid chuckle and call the r*pe of a 13-year-old girl by an illegal “fear-mongering.”
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 20, 2024
What part about the r*pe of a minor is “fear-mongering” and funny to you @PramilaJayapal @JoyAnnReid?? pic.twitter.com/Q2mDcwlI4d
Next, Reid highlighted “one of the reasons people” are becoming more fearful of the millions of people from across the world illegally entering America.
The MSNBC host showed three different screenshots of news outlets covering Joe Biden’s recent executive order giving at least 500,000 illegals protection from being deported.
CNN and MSNBC banners Reid showed highlighted Biden announcing protections for “undocumented” spouses of U.S. citizens while the Fox News banner stated, “Migrant Arrested For Raping 13-Year-Old NYC Girl.”
Immediately after reading the Fox banner out loud, Jayapal blurted out a huge laugh with Reid responding, “Yes!”
“So, I think that’s part of the problem… fearmongering,” Reid added.
Jayapal agreed, “Exactly.”
The disturbing interaction is a good example of how the Democrat are willing to place their political aspirations ahead of the safety of American citizens.
The State’s Best-Kept Secret
Money is never an object when you have a legal counterfeiting racket at the center of the economy, yet counterfeiting, provided it has monopoly power and conducted by the “best and the brightest,” is virtually unchallenged as necessary for economic growth.
How did this fraud come about? First, some basics:
- We are all under State rule, meaning under the rule of a monopoly of force that most people cherish in principle as a necessary precondition for civilization, however that might be defined. Monopoly, meaning “single seller,” meaning no competition allowed, is regarded as wrong by most people. Yet it is saluted worldwide when it arrives in the form of a State.
What is it that the State alleges to sell? Protection. As the story goes, the Constitution protects us from our protector:
- States extract their funding by force, called taxation. Since WWII the US has put personal income taxes on a periodic payment plan called withholding. It’s easier, and less subject to revolt, to pay taxes when the money you earn never reaches your hands and instead goes directly into government coffers.
- State rulers, being relatively small in number, need allies, and it acquires these by dispensing favors or issuing often tacit threats. Both kinds lock in the recipient’s obedience, and the State in effect grows. Corporate media becomes the primary disseminator of State propaganda.
- As they expand, States need more funding than they dare collect with taxes, so they legalize a counterfeiting operation and call it a central bank. The American public was told a central bank was needed to eliminate those embarrassing Panics of the 19th century and the one in 1907. So we got one. Today it’s usually called the Fed.
Payoff was almost immediate as it helped finance US entry into Europe’s Great War, on the grounds that there was nothing like massive slaughter of all life forms to ensure lasting peace. Civilian and military casualties were driven to astronomical levels by central bank funding of governments. It takes lots of “money” to kill at that level, “money” no longer being gold but fiat bills that can be produced virtually without limit.
“Panic” was also abandoned as a word to make way for all the calamities the Fed has created since its inception, though only a small band of economists lay the blame on Fed counterfeiting. Incredibly, for the Great Depression, the Fed accepts blame for not counterfeiting enough.
Fed allies called court economists justify the counterfeiting as necessary for a growing economy. How the economy grew in the days before the counterfeiting is not a question they’re eager to address. Nor do they call it counterfeiting, of course; the preferred phrase is “monetary policy.”
The counterfeiter is engaged in the exchange of nothing for something. But how did this come to be a highly-profitable policy for government and done so in a manner that not “one man in a million” knows or even cares about? Murray Rothbard provides a compelling narrative in What Has Government Done to Our Money?:
For government to use counterfeiting to add to its revenue, many lengthy steps must be travelled down the road away from the free market. Government could not simply invade a functioning free market and print its own paper tickets. Done so abruptly, few people would accept the government’s money. . .
Until a few centuries ago, there were no banks, and therefore the government could not use the banking engine for massive inflation as it can today. What could it do when only gold and silver circulated?
The first step, taken firmly by every sizable government, was to seize an absolute monopoly of the minting business. That was the indispensable means of getting control of the coinage supply. . . .
Having acquired the mintage monopoly, governments fostered the use of the name of the monetary unit, doing their best to separate the name from its true base in the underlying weight of the coin. This, too, was a highly important step, for it liberated each government from the necessity of abiding by the common money of the world market. Instead of using grains or grams of gold or silver, each State fostered its own national name in the supposed interests of monetary patriotism: dollars, marks, francs, and the like [emphasis mine]. The shift made possible the preeminent means of governmental counterfeiting of coin: debasement. . ..
Sometimes, the government committed simple fraud, secretly diluting gold with a base alloy, making shortweight coins. More characteristically, the mint melted and recoined all the coins of the realm, giving the subjects back the same number of “pounds” or “marks,” but of a lighter weight. The leftover ounces of gold or silver were pocketed by the King and used to pay his expenses. . ..
The switch from weights of gold to patriotic names drew monetary power away from owners of money. But since it was patriotic, few complained, and fewer still understood the implications:
Once such a label replaces the recognized world units of weight, it becomes much easier for governments to manipulate the money unit and give it an apparent life of its own ….
With the name of the country’s currency now prominent in accounting instead of its actual weight, contracts began to pledge payment in certain amounts of “money.” Legal tender laws dictated what that “money” could be [e.g., dollars, francs] . . ..
Money substitutes become money
Governmental control of money could only become absolute, and its counterfeiting unchallenged, as money-substitutes came into prominence in recent centuries. The advent of paper money and bank deposits, an economic boon when backed fully by gold or silver, provided the open sesame for government’s road to power over money, and thereby over the entire economic system.
Banks are required to redeem their sworn liabilities on demand. Yet with the practice of fractional-reserve banking, no bank can fulfill its liabilities.
Panics arose when the public caught on and started pulling their money out of banks. If only we had an elastic currency that could be stretched to satisfy demanding clients, bankers complained. Gold or silver were grossly deficient for this purpose. Thus, in 1910 big bankers got together with a government official at Jekyll Island, Georgia and concocted a scheme that could provide emergency credit to troubled banks. Not every bank, but at least the biggest ones. The scheme was a central bank, though it wasn’t called that, and all that was needed to perfect it was to get rid of actual money — the gold — and declare the money substitutes — the paper receipts known as dollars — as the new money.
Honesty would dictate imprinting the Jolly Roger instead of Washington’s face, but no one wanted to be honest.
The Triumph of Monetary Fraud
The new money would be under exclusive control of a closed society known as the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) that would, from time to time, decide how much of it to create or destroy. Their decision-making is called monetary policy. We must always remember, FOMC monetary policy is hard stuff.
Yet, one of the most astute insights into monetary theory came from Milton Friedman, no friend of gold, who wrote:
If a domestic money consists of a commodity, a pure gold standard or cowrie bead standard, the principles of monetary policy are very simple. There aren’t any. The commodity money takes care of itself. (Quoted in Salerno)
Imagine that. If we had a free market-determined money like gold, we would be in charge of our economic lives and not the counterfeiters on the FOMC.
Monetary economists outside the Austrian school believe that economic bliss is price stability. Small price rises they call inflation are okay, but a general price decline, called deflation, is the stuff of nightmares. The price declines of the late 19th century, one of the most prosperous periods in human history, is a puzzle they have yet to solve. Yet lower prices are the natural outcome of an unfettered market. So are the price declines/high profits in high tech since the introduction of the integrated circuit in the 1960s.
Conclusion
The Fed’s biggest ally is the ignorance of the general public. They don’t know about the Fed and have no interest in learning about it. As a presidential candidate Ron Paul educated the public in the destructiveness of the federal reserve but the public has gone back to sleep. Or to the extent that it hasn’t they’re concerned about how the Fed will do its duty and fight the inflation we’re dealing with today. The creator of inflation is called on to become its avenger.
The best way to stop the ravages we experience is to undo their source. A government with its legal monopoly power removed could never get away with creating a monstrosity like the federal reserve. Call it anarchy if you like, but such a government is what we’ve known for a long time, an unrestrained free market.
MUST WATCH: Dr. David Martin Interview — U.S. Gov. Is Coordinating A Depopulation Program Against The World
Ridiculous: Character’s Tumor ‘Caused by Racism’ in NBC Hospital Drama
A now-defunct NBC hospital drama series shows a doctor claiming a young patient’s benign tumor was caused by racism, in an example of woke programming being force fed to Americans by leftist corporate networks.
In an episode of “New Amsterdam” that aired in 2020, a doctor discovers a 13-year-old’s tumor was caused by high cortisol levels, and ridiculously suggests the stress hormone is linked to the patient being targeted with racism.
One scene going viral on social media features the doctor telling the boy’s mom he believes the boy developed the tumor as a result of racism making him feel “threatened” and “disenfranchised.”
Very special episode: you’ll never guess what caused this teenage boy’s tumor to grow pic.twitter.com/KoOk8ULmSe
— Kerwin Fjøl (@zermatist) June 19, 2024
Elsewhere in the show, the doctor tells the patient he’s the victim of “microaggressions,” and says “racism is so deeply ingrained in our society that people myself included we often don’t realize that we’re perpetuating it,” regurgitating the left’s “racism everywhere” fantasies.
The show aired just months before the death of George Floyd, priming the pump for the Black Lives Matter movement’s “summer of love” that trashed US cities later that year.
Fortunately, the woke slop got canceled in 2022 due to declining viewership and poor ratings, once again proving the wisdom of the adage: “go woke, go broke.”