Meanwhile, at the Daily Bell……they may have a point about Ms. Brown and OWS
The Daily Bell remains a leading source of Libertarian spin for the conspiracy market. Recently they posted two articles. One rather brazen, the other rather worrying. They wrongly attack Lincoln, but how about their critique of Ms. Brown’s alignment with OWS?
They remain an interesting challenge. They never stop and why would they, they are well paid. More importantly, they are good at what they do. It’s useful to keep an eye on them, if only to know in what direction the spin is developing. And, good disinformation can be quite instructive.
Interestingly, as pointed out independently by two allies, lately they are featured often at Alex Jones’s. This is surprising to my mind, as it seems that Alex Jones may be end of life as a propagandist since David Taylor is on his case. With the heavy intellectual investment made in the Daily Bell it is surprising they would risk damaging this asset by associating it with him. On the other hand: the MSM still exists, so perhaps the expectation of Jones’s demise is premature.
Well, according to the elves Lincoln was a Money Power agent!
The elves are obviously right when saying the Civil War had nothing to do with Emancipation. Only the ultra naive would suggest otherwise, nowadays. Which does not mean the notion is not still widespread, of course.
They are also right to call Lincoln a ruthless statist. He was. He wrought havoc on the nation and most certainly did not feel bound by many rules of either a humanitarian or constitutional nature.
The questions are: did he have much choice, and does this make him a Money Power agent?
The fact is that the Money Power managed to entice the Southerners to rebel.This to the Daily Bell was no reason to go to war. The elves as extremist libertarians despise Nation almost as much as the State itself. Just another collectivist item, probably.
Had Lincoln let the South walk away, the Union would have been left divided and therefore very vulnerable to outside interference and outright control. The North would have remained a Great Power as it was industrializing, but the South probably not and the North would eventually have faced real competition on its own continent, as the South would have been subverted by competing Great Powers from Europe.
The Daily Bell makes the point that Lincoln fought the war and this is what the Money Power wanted: “The power elite has NEVER started a war, or not for the past 300 years or so, without controlling BOTH sides of the conflict…..Why on Earth are we to believe that Lincoln − above all − was somehow immune to this formula? Most likely he was not…….It really doesn’t matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti-Greenbacks. First of all, Greenbackerism doesn’t work in the long run. Governments always print too much money when they have the chance and thus debase the currency.”
It’s a fair point, although not necessarily true. However, ‘it really doesn’t matter whether Lincoln was pro- or anti Greenback’?
As usually they ignore interest. Rothschild offered Gold based credit at 30%. This is what Lincoln refused. Hence the Greenback, hence his premature death. What, from the Money Power’s perspective, is the point of creating war if the Nation is not left indebted afterwards?
Here’s a famous quote everybody should know (thanks for the reminder Memehunter):
“If this mischievous financial policy (the Greenback), which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.” — Times of London
First, Lincoln was a statist. I agree that once we get rid of the Money Power we should not forget to devolve as much power from the Fed Govt as possible, because otherwise it will ruthlessly fill the power vacuum that the Money Power’s demise would leave behind.
As can be read below, I have been further educated on Lincoln. It seems likely he was either an outright Money Power agent, or a useful idiot.
Secondly, for the time being the Money Power Spin Masters at the Daily Bell cannot come up with a narrative co-opting interest free money. This does not mean they never will find a formula, but for the time being they cannot.
It’s strange they would try to damage the ‘Lincoln Cult’ while ignoring the main reason he’s admired: his refusal to become Rothschild’s Interest Slave.
Public Banking and Occupy Wall Street
Here is a far more serious issue. In an article criticizing both OWS and Public Banking, The Daily Bell makes the following point:
“We’ve already charted the backing of Occupy Wall Street – which is apparently partially provided by George Soros, from a funding standpoint. This has been widely reported. The OWS movement is surely one that seeks to reclaim the state on behalf of “the people.”
The public banking movement seeks to reclaim commercial banking and lending for “the people.” The convergence of these two movements in Philadelphia is hardly coincidental, in our view.”
This is indeed a fair point.
In the past I have endorsed Ellen Brown’s Public Banking and I still believe it’s a viable and promising approach.
But the risk of co-optation is quite real. There are a few major problems, which, combined, could become quite risky.
The main problems are these:
1. Public Banking is not interest free
Now, I’ve ignored this in the past, because I reckoned the interest would at least not end up with the Money Power. But still, I don’t like it. In the first place, even at a low 3%, a $100k mortgage would easily cost $50k interest over 30 years. That still is an outrageous amount of money for pushing a few buttons and managing a risk free, asset backed loan like a mortgage.
There is also the problem that any interest on the money supply is bound to lead to forced growth of the money supply (or forced bankruptcy). Both Mike Montagne and Marc Gauvin have tried to explain this to Ms. Brown, but she doesn’t accept it. Probably because she wants to spend and not lend the interest back into circulation. I’m not sure that would solve the problem. Gauvin is sure it will not.
The simple fact is: interest is a bad way of pricing credit. Public Banking can do easily without interest. Public Banking with interest is much more easy for the Money Power to co-opt.
2. Public Banking could pave the way for nationalization of the banks
This is yet another grave risk: people will say, if Public Banking is so wonderful, then why not nationalize them all? Well, because they are sitting on multi-trillion black holes that they call their balance sheets and they would just love to dump those on the Commonwealth.
Nationalization of banks can be a viable option, but only under very specific conditions, as worked out here.
Public Banking could be used as an excuse for the Plutocracy to saddle the taxpayer with immense liabilities. This risk is growing with OWS involvement, since these people expect far too much from Government interference (see next point).
Also, Ms. Brown is far more sanguine about the State as Banker than I am. Certainly it is much better to have the State do it than a private cartel, but still it is far from ideal. As a stopgap I’m all with her, but when going along with OWS, it will end up as a more permanent approach.
3. OWS does look for unreal ‘statist’ solutions.
The Daily Bell is quite right about that.
I never believed in OWS for a very simple reason: what is to be expected from people who go complaining, sign petitions and actually take to the streets while voting for Obama (or whatever other idiot) shopping at Wal Mart and parking their money at Bank of America?
The Money Power cannot exist without our cooperation. It does not care about demonstrations. It worries about non-compliance, boycott and real alternative solutions.
Ms. Brown is indeed aligning herself with people who do not understand that they are a major part of the problem. The Money Power has co-opted OWS and is quite willing to facilitate the ‘solutions’ OWS is promoting, which basically come down to redistributing wealth from the fairly rich to the many. But most certainly not from the ultra rich to the many. And it is the ultra rich that are the problem, not your average millionaires. The problem is not with the people with the $200k salaries, but with the people with the multi billion, even multi trillion asset positions.
OWS is attacking the wrong people with the wrong solutions based on the wrong analysis, while not ending their own complicity with the System. They can therefore not be considered real opposition and it is amazing that Brown is giving away her promising approach so easily.
It’s not all bad, they learned a lot while camping together, but they still have a long way to go before they can be considered a real force.
I’m worried Public Banking is giving away too much, too soon. It is better than OWS and OWS needs Public Banking far more than the other way around. In the hands of OWS Public Banking can easily become a liability.
Public Banking is being co-opted by and through this movement and Ms. Brown’s enemies at the Daily Bell are happily and unfortunately probably correctly pointing this out.
As things stand now, Ms. Brown’s Public Banking is ending up on one side of yet another Money Power dialectic, facing the Austrians on the other side. This is not where she should want to find herself. Interest free currency, if handled correctly, cannot be controlled with a dialectic.
Interest bearing Public Banks in the hands of a State that is completely subverted by the Money Power is perhaps not the Adversary’s best case scenario, it is most definitely not a real threat to it either.
The fact that Public Banking is being manoeuvred into this situation is worrying and a clear sign something is going terribly wrong with it.
I just hope and pray the elves are wrong. But I’m not holding my breath.