This is a great miniseries and may be worth featuring along side hidden secrets of money.
THE UNITED STATES OF ADDICTION
Serialized Article — Part 1
How did George Washington get paid the first time? It wasn't with coins. The mint did not open until 1792. Washington's presidency began in 1789. The answer is that George Washington got paid the same way all US presidents have been paid: with bankers' fingers in his pockets, skimming money from the entire country through one huge banking scam.
That huge banking scam did not start in 1913 with the Federal Reserve. It did not start in 1863 with the National Banking Act. It did not even start in 1791 with the first Bank of the United States, the country's first central bank. It started on Alexander Hamilton's third day in office in 1789 when he had the country borrow funny money from a fake bank in which Hamilton owned shares. He then paid George Washington and other US creditors and employees of the government with that funny money.
Hamilton did not invent the scam himself. He copied it from the Bank of England system set up in 1694. But Hamilton fixed its one big flaw, the flaw that caused the Bank of England to default in 1696 when its funny money was exposed as a sham. Hamilton found a way to prevent a default from happening. Otherwise, the two scams are identical.
If George Washington had known the truth about his early paychecks, there would be a sequel to the hatchet story where what gets chopped to bits is a Treasury Secretary rather than a cherry tree. Thanks to Alexander Hamilton, George Washington got paid with paper IOUs, banknotes issued by the so-called Bank of New York in which Hamilton owned shares.
What prevented exposure of those banknotes as paper Chuck-E-Cheese tokens worth 35 cents on the dollar was the first bailout in United States history. In that bailout, Hamilton converted the Chuck-E-Cheese tokens into full US dollars and then had the United States pay his fake bank interest on the full US dollars rather than the fake bank paying the United States for every dollar-denominated paper Chuck-E-Cheese token that Alexander Hamilton upgraded into a full legal US dollar.
The United States paid the Bank of New York 6 cents. We transformed dumpsters full of its junk paper IOUs into full money and we paid the bank. This is crystal clear from the official record, as you are about to see.
If you understand this scam and, in particular, how Hamilton fixed the flaw with the Bank of England system, you will understand the scam that is modern central banking throughout the West, which is hands down the biggest scam in the history of the world.
By way of that background, welcome to Best Evidence. My name is John Titus. This video marks this channel's return to the War for Bankracy series after a very long break corresponding to a sea change in my thinking about how and when the cabal of globalist criminals that is currently running the US came into power.
How and when did they take sovereignty and divest the people of agency, taking the power from we the people? Like a lot of other people, I believed it was by a coup d'état at some point in American history. Originally in this episode I was going to argue that the coup took place during the global financial crisis. Other people of course have pointed to other events in US history as marking a coup. The JFK assassination is a big one. The creation of the Fed in 1913 is one. 9/11 is a biggie. And originally episode 4 was going to pile on to that list and say, “No, no, it was the global financial crisis.”
But the more I researched and really the more I analyzed, the more I understood that the coup theory does not really work. Not because there has not been a sovereign power transfer. For sure there has been a sovereign power transfer. We the people have not been the real sovereign in the US for a very long time. I do not think very many thinking people would argue that point.
The coup theory fails because a coup d'état is a criminal act. It is pretty much the worst crime on the books. Whereas the sovereign power transfer that took place in the US did so through legal channels. There was nothing criminal or illegal about it. And it was not at some point in US history. It was within two days of Alexander Hamilton taking office on September 11th, 1789.
THE UNITED STATES OF ADDICTION
Serialized Article — Part 2
That's when, two days later, he handed the keys to the nation's sovereignty, which is the power over national credit, over to private bankers. He did that, like I said, by copying and improving the Bank of England system set up in 1694.
Now, in episode two, we saw that the establishment of the Bank of England was a pivotal event in world history because that is what propelled the private power over national credit past the military to become the number one sovereign power in sovereign nations. Remember Machiavelli said in the early 1520s that the military was the greatest power, but by the early 1800s, Thomas Jefferson said, “No, banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies.” That is really not so much a difference of opinion as it is a difference of era. Machiavelli simply did not live to see the Bank of England created in 1694. And that is when standing armies yielded to banking institutions as top dog.
And one very important reason for that was that in the Bank of England system and in the systems that follow it, power over national credit was not just private. It was anonymous. And that latter feature is what enables people, private individuals, to wield enormous power over a nation with no democratic safeguards, no restraints, and no transparency at all. You do not even know who they are. With the military, at least you know the names of the top brass.
In this episode, I am going to walk through that scam again, but this time I am going to use the US as an example and show you how Hamilton perfected the scam by eliminating the biggest risk faced by the bankers. I am also going to talk about another feature of the private credit system which ensures that the power wielded by bankers is permanent and that is the fact that the private power over national credit behaves exactly like an addiction. It replicates an addiction perfectly, where the country is the addict, the private bankers are the drug dealers, and the private credit, the money, what we think of as money, is the drug.
Actually, I am going to show you that the private power over national credit is worse than a drug addiction. I will get to that. But make no mistake about it, private credit addiction went into the veins of the US, into its money supply, at birth. And it is the apex ancestor of every addiction that came after it.
In so far as a coup d'état is concerned though there was not one. When Alexander Hamilton perfected the Bank of England system of addiction here in the US he did not do anything illegal and he was never challenged. He might have been near the limits of his discretion as US Treasury Secretary but no one ever challenged him. Not Congress, not the president, not the courts. So private credit addiction has raged in this country for 250 years. The public debt is now $40 trillion. The interest payment is absolutely out of control. And now the drug dealer's got to harvest the addict's organs because siphoning blood out of our veins is no longer enough. In financial terms, the debtor can't service the interest payment anymore, not the real interest payment at any rate. So the creditor has got to start pocketing collateral. And we are experiencing that in real time right now.
That is a short form of US history. Private credit addiction was created in 1789 in order to feed parasites. It got worse for 250 years and now the parasites are bleeding the nation dry before they move on to their next host or whoever that might be. But there was never a coup. If you want to take over a country, a coup is actually dangerous because it exposes you to prison, exposes you to death. It is a hanging offense. The much smarter play is to get the nation addicted to your credit and then control the credit. That is what is going on. Doing it that way gives you the upside of a coup d'état, gives you sovereign control without the downside, the risk of prosecution, jail or death. That is because the private power over national credit is a voluntary and legal transfer of power from the nation to private individuals.
The trick, of course, is getting the nation to hand over its power like that, which in the US was done by way of an inside job, as you are going to see in this video. It was not some outside enemy, in other words, who jabbed a needle of private credit addiction into the nation's arm. It was her first United States Treasury Secretary. And no one said peep. So even if it was of dubious constitutionality, what Hamilton did, and I think it was questionable at a minimum, it was not illegal and thus there was never a coup in the US.
That is a major reversal for me and for this channel because for over 10 years I have been saying there was a coup at some point, that at some point in US history a gang of criminals took over, took control of the US. And my number one piece of evidence on that score was and is to this day extremely solid, very solid, never challenged. And that is a decision made at the highest levels of government not to prosecute any executive at any global too-big-to-fail bank even when the banks admitted their crimes. That decision, as I have shown repeatedly on this channel, was ultimately made by the banks themselves by installing attorneys at the Department of Justice who refused to investigate crimes by banks. That outcome is absolutely shocking because it reveals that private bankers enjoy sovereign immunity far beyond what the United States president has under the Constitution.
Remember Nixon had to answer a subpoena. That is what got him out of office. He was subject to investigation but not the global too-big-to-fail banks. And what that reveals, the fact that they are not being investigated, is that the sovereign power under the Constitution, we the people, is not really the sovereign power in the US. I still stand by that. In fact, I did two long videos on that very point. One was The Veneer of Justice in the Kingdom of Crime in 2016 and then All the Plenary's Men in 2017. This video in a lot of ways is a prequel to those, but those said there was a coup and that is wrong. Otherwise, those videos stand as is. They are other good videos. However, it does not follow from the loss of sovereignty that a coup is what caused the loss of that sovereignty. That is where those videos go wrong.
In reality, our loss of sovereignty starts with a bank in which Alexander Hamilton owned shares and which is absolutely remarkable for its absence from so many accounts of early US monetary history. The vast majority of accounts of early US monetary history focus exclusively on the Bank of North America. But the US actually borrowed from two banks back then. One was the Bank of North America and the other is Hamilton's Bank, the Bank of New York. And of those two, the Bank of New York is obviously the real ancestor of today's too-big-to-fail banks, not the Bank of North America. And that is based on several abuses that were simply not true of the Bank of North America, the more popular rival than the Bank of New York.
THE UNITED STATES OF ADDICTION
Serialized Article — Part 3
I will just kind of run through what distinguishes Bank of New York over Bank of North America. One, the Bank of New York was born on the wrong side of the law. We are going to see that later. And it operated without a bank charter for seven years. It did not get its charter until 1791. And it did not have a charter because the people of New York did not trust it. The Bank of North America was in Philadelphia. It had its charter in 1781. Number two, the Bank of New York's encroachment on the sovereign money issuing prerogative under Article One of the Constitution was done with 100 per cent private ownership just like the New York Fed today. Bank of North America was 60 per cent publicly owned, at least early on, at least at first. Number three, Hamilton owned shares in the Bank of New York while he was US Treasury Secretary borrowing money from his own bank. So the financial graft of public servants that is so commonplace today started with the Bank of New York. Just those precedents make it a far better case for studying the private power over national credit scam.
Now, briefly, where am I getting my information about the Bank of New York and Alexander Hamilton? The answer is I am getting it from the Bank of New York's official history, 1784 to 1884. So, let's take a look at it. This is my corkboard for this episode where I can see all my source materials in one place and I can get to them. The leftmost item you see here is appendix 7 from the book I just mentioned, the history of the Bank of New York. And you can see the page over there, the list of stockholders of the Bank of New York at the time of its incorporation in 1791. So in 1789, the Bank of New York does not have a charter at all. But that does not stop it from issuing banknotes and lending them out to borrowers like the United States. Nor does it prevent it from issuing stock, including you see here, one and a half shares to Alexander Hamilton and three shares to his good buddy Aaron Burr. And even a share to their pal Oliver Cromwell, who died in the mid-1600s. Huh. Anyway, who knows? Whatever. If you flip to the end of appendix 7, you see that there are 723 total shares in the company, which made Hamilton the 0.2 per cent owner of the Bank of New York while he is sitting as Treasury Secretary. One and a half shares is kind of curious to me. The subscription price for a share was $500 per share. Hamilton was more than an investor though. He wrote the articles of incorporation for the bank in 1794 and was one of its 12 directors before he became Treasury Secretary. I will get to that in a bit, but he was knee-deep in this bank. One and a half shares is curious because it seems kind of small, but it is certainly enough to create the good old-fashioned aroma of self-dealing.
This is a good point to mention. By the way, the War for Bankracy series is 100 per cent backed up by Solari.com and Catherine Austin Fitts. Meaning, not only can you watch and download the War for Bankracy series at Solari.com in case YouTube and BitChute and Odysee take it down, you could always find an archival copy at Solari. But in addition, you can also at Catherine's site download the research materials and sources that you see here like the Bank of New York's official history. There is a PDF of that you can just download yourself. Catherine Austin Fitts, incidentally, gets huge props for this episode in particular and supporting it. She is a major Alexander Hamilton fan. So her support of this episode is being provided at great personal pain, rest assured. But support it she will because Catherine is first and foremost a woman of great personal integrity. She has also been magnificent as a mentor doing a weekly show with her together called Money and Markets on Solari for the last five years. Thank you Catherine Austin Fitts. I do not say that enough.
In any case, let's move on and let's now explore the scam called the private power over national credit by comparing the nation's early dealings with the Bank of New York with England's dealings with the Bank of England in 1694. So to set the stage in 1789, the US has just started to operate under the Constitution and it needs money for salaries and it could get that money either by borrowing money or by issuing money. Congress has both of those powers under the new Constitution specifically under Article 1 Section 8. Paragraph two of that section gives Congress the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. And under paragraph five, Congress can coin money. Now, upfront, did coining money under the Constitution include the right to issue paper money like greenbacks almost 100 years later? A lot of people will tell you, "No, the term coining money only means gold and silver coins." But hold that thought. We will see if that position really boils down to no more than a ruse by private bankers to filter the right to issue paper money from we the people and keep it for themselves. For now, let's stipulate though that coining money is indeed limited to gold and silver coins. And we will see where that stipulation takes our analysis.
So it is 1789 and the US can coin money or borrow money on US credit to pay the salaries for new government employees like George Washington. But rather than coining money or borrowing money, the US borrows IOUs. It borrows paper notes from private banks in order to pay George Washington's lavish $25,000 a year salary and the more reasonable salary of Vice President Adams at $5,000 and on down to the Senate and the House. But what does that look like? What does a paper note from a private bank look like? Well, let me just show you. Let's just drill right down on this note from the Bank of New York. The US borrowed this privately issued funny money instead of borrowing real money, instead of borrowing gold and silver. But how do we know that this note is not actually money itself? Well, the note tells you that it is not money right there on its face. You can see that the president and directors of the Bank of New York promised to pay $1 on demand to whoever. If this were real money, there would be no need to demand anything. Unless a demand amounted to taking your $1 Bank of New York note to the bank, demanding your dollar, and being told by the teller that you are holding a dollar, and that your demand is thereby satisfied. That is ridiculous. That does not make any sense. So, you can see this note is not actually money. It is a promise to pay money, to pay $1. So, in 1789, money in the US was by custom silver and gold coins. A lot of them were Spanish doubloons, silver dollars, pieces of eight. And that is consistent with our stipulation. So, when the Bank of New York says it will pay $1 on demand, what that means is that the holder of this note could walk into the Bank of New York and demand in exchange for the note one ounce of silver, probably Spanish, or the equivalent amount of gold, probably a coin. But the point is, either way, when you ask the Bank of New York for your $1 in exchange for its $1 IOU here, you are probably going to get your silver dollar probably. If the bank has it on hand, then yeah, but that is not guaranteed. And that is why the $1 Bank of New York note, like all bank notes, is worth less than the face value of the note, worth less than a dollar. Think of it like a coat claim check at a restaurant. Yeah, you are probably going to get your coat back. But the ticket is worth less than the coat itself to be sure due to risk. We will talk about what percentage of their face value the Bank of New York notes were worth in a minute. For now, we know what the bank note is. It is an IOU and what it is not, which is money.
Now, the US borrowed $80,000 of notes from the Bank of New York in 1789. Alexander Hamilton chose that route. He went that way. That was his choice. And up until that point, that is exactly the same route that England took in 1694 with the Bank of England. It borrowed 1.2 million pounds of notes from the private Bank of England. The problem was the Bank of England stopped paying on its notes just two years later in 1696. It was a total disaster and it stopped paying because it lacked the gold to back its notes. And there was a run on the Bank of England. It was forced to say, yeah, we do not have the gold to back the IOUs. We saw this in episode two.
THE UNITED STATES OF ADDICTION
Serialized Article — Part 4
We saw this in episode two. The question is, was the Bank of New York any different? We know because we just saw it that the bank issued at least $80,000 in notes just to the US, plus it issued other notes, plus it had deposits. And depositors can demand gold and silver, too, just like note holders. And also this is very important. The Bank of New York lacked a charter. It did not have a charter in 1789. That is a big problem. The question is did the Bank of New York face the risk of a bank run like the Bank of England did in 1696? And the answer is yeah, it faced a run. It faced the risk big time. Not only did the Bank of New York lack sufficient gold to pay out all the demands out there, but its lack of a charter made it especially susceptible to a bank run. How do we know that? Because the Bank of New York's own official history tells us that in very clear language. Let's go back to our corkboard and see here. Look at the Bank of New York official history again. Let's just look at chapter 4 of the bank's history, page 36, second paragraph. The following is a statement of the assets and liabilities of the bank at the time it commenced business under the charter May 1st 1791. And then the actual balance sheet is shown on the next page. Here we go. We are interested in the Bank of New York species bank. It is Precious Metal Bank. That is in US dollars. The paper bank you see there is a hold over from when New York state as a colony issued notes denominated in British pounds which it actually did up until 1787. So we are going to bypass that and just look at the species bank the dollar bank. So on the right side there you see capital stock and that is gold and silver paid in by investors like Hamilton $318,000. Now, normally that money, that 318 grand would not be subject to a demand for return, but it is here because the Bank of New York did not have a charter. I will talk about that in a minute about why that is the case. But let's keep moving through liabilities. Next, you see notes at 181,000 and then deposits of $774,000. Both of those liabilities are without a doubt subject to demands for redemption on the spot. So, the Bank of New York, we will include the capital. I will get to why you have to include it in a minute. It has $1.27 million of liability subject to demands for conversion into gold and silver coins. If I am right about its capital stock being subject to demands for return, now let's pause for a minute. Let's look at assets. On the left side, you see gold there at $516,000. But you notice that it gets reduced down to $463,000 because there is $53,000 of notes that are already laying claim to that gold. So, it is only $463 grand. So the actual value of Bank of New York notes is not 100 cents on the dollar. It is 35 cents on the dollar because the bank has only got 463 grand to back up over $1.27 million of liabilities. And that figure, like I said, that is for 1791. It is not going to be that much different in 1789 unless it is worse. Now let's talk about why I say the capital stock is subject to demands for gold. Just like note holders and depositors can demand the gold. So could investors in the Bank of New York. Normally investors in companies like Hamilton investing in the Bank of New York. They can get their money back. They can get their gold back out of the company by selling shares to a second investor willing to buy those shares. In other words, if they want their gold back, they got to find a buyer. The company or the bank is not just going to hand the gold back to the investor in exchange for the investor's shares. But the Bank of New York's articles of incorporation, which were written by Hamilton in 1784, as we saw, told investors that their legal liability was limited to the amount that they invested. So, it was limited liability company. In other words, if you invested $10 in the Bank of New York, your total liability, your total exposure for the acts of the bank would be $10. But it turns out that is false. Without the bank charter, investors are on the hook for every act done in the Bank of New York's name. So if you invested $10 in that bank and the Bank of New York then loses, let's say, a wrongful death lawsuit for $10 million, a court issuing that judgment can reach your assets to the extent necessary to pay that $10 million judgment. You see why a charter is important now? So, if an investor asks the Bank of New York for their gold back the Bank of New York has got to cough up pronto. And Alexander Hamilton damn well knows that because he is a guy who got investors gold in the first place by telling them that the Bank of New York was a limited liability corporation. Now Hamilton was smart enough to recuse himself as a bank director when he became US Treasury Secretary, but there is no getting out of being the author of those articles of incorporation. And in 1787, Hamilton, as we saw from the Bank of New York's own official history, still had stock in his own bank, which George Washington is going to learn when he destroys the bank with a hatchet for refusing to honor his bank notes that he earned as US president. Now, given everything you have heard about Alexander Hamilton before, does he strike you as the kind of guy who is going to leave a loose end like a potential bank run just hanging out, whipping around in the wind, looking for something to hit. That is what William Paterson did with the Bank of England in 1694. But William Paterson was a pirate. He was a retired buccaneer. Hamilton was a lawyer. He was not a sloppy guy. He did what he had to do to conceal the bank's massive gold shortage. How did he do that? Well, let's take a look. Let's go to the official record. As you can see, this is the history of national loans of the US, July 4th, 1776 to June 30th, 1880. It is from the Treasury Department for the 10th Census of the United States. The part we are interested in is on page 29, which shows exactly how Hamilton solved the problem he created by paying people like George Washington and other US creditors with paper IOUs printed up willy-nilly by a private bank without enough gold in its vault to cover a potential run. Let's go top of the page. Look at the look there talking about arrangements with Bank of New York and Bank of North America for temporary loans in the earliest days of the US. Specifically, it says money received from these banks paid the first installment of salary due to President Washington, senators, representatives, and officers of Congress during the first session of the Constitution. So, temporary loans from these two banks pay George Washington. And we know that what the Bank of New York lent to the US government was paper notes. We also know that the Bank of New York cannot come even close to honoring all of its liabilities. So what does Hamilton do? He writes an official Treasury circular and sends it around to creditors of the United States who are both owed money by the US and who in addition sooner or later owe or will owe money to the US themselves. The circular quoted here was sent to customs collectors. Customs remember were the main source of US revenue back then more than a hundred years before income taxes got started. And this is how Hamilton headed off the Bank of England problem. How he prevented a bank run that caused the Bank of England to default. Here is what Hamilton says to the creditors. Sir, it is my desire that the notes of these banks payable either on demand or at no longer a period than 30 days should be received in payment of the duties as equivalent to gold and silver and that they will be received from you as such by the treasurer of the United States. This measure, he says, will facilitate remittances, facilitate payments from the states without drawing away their specie, meaning without drawing down their gold and silver. Signed, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury. So that is how Hamilton fixed the problem he caused when he had the US borrow bank notes worth 35 cents and pass them off as full dollars. A gamble that had burned the Bank of England and William Paterson, but was not about to burn the Bank of New York and Alexander Hamilton. Treasury Secretary Hamilton converted the Bank of New York IOU paper from notes into full US dollars by making them acceptable to the US government in payment of taxes. That is how you create money. And notice that he also expressly decreed those notes to be equivalent to gold and silver. England did not do that with the Bank of England in 1694 and it defaulted two years later. There was no bailout over there at least not in 1694. But let's return to the issue of paper money and let's think about what happened here with one piece of paper Hamilton circular the letter to the creditors. Hamilton converted other pieces of paper notes worth 35 cents into money into dollars. That is absolutely identical to a two-step money printing process. Step one, the Bank of New York prints some angels on a bunch of paper. Step two, Hamilton puts the US seal of approval on the angel paper, converting it into money. The Bank of New York angel paper started out as a 35 cent asset. The official US seal added 65 cents, turning it into $1 of legal money. So why is the US paying a percentage of the dollar when it added the vast majority 65 cents of that dollar's value? The better question though is why the US did not cut out the Bank of New York all together, pay it nothing, and simply print the paper itself. It could print eagles instead of angels. Obviously, the US had the ability to issue paper money from day one. Hamilton's letter that circular proves that even without the Supreme Court decision 80 years later holding as much that was Knox versus Lee of a series what is called the legal tender cases. And Knox versus Lee said yeah no greenbacks are constitutional. They are valid. The point here now though is that no one has ever complained about Hamilton's letter purporting to turn confetti from the Bank of New York into gold. So why do not the people who insist that the US can never ever be allowed to print money vilify Hamilton for doing exactly that, for violating their precious commandment? And the answer is their real problem is not with the US printing money. Their real problem is with the US printing money and not handing a percentage of it to private bank parasites like the Bank of New York. Remember, you got to remember the Bank of New York's demand for a percentage of the money came after the US upgraded the parasites trash IOUs into full dollars, which saved the bank from a bank run. And all these demands that the Bank of New York made, the upgrade, the bailout, the percentage cut, they are being made despite the painfully obvious fact that the US does absolutely not need the parasites at any stage of the money printing process. The Bank of New York drew angels on Post-it notes. That is it. That is all it did. Angels on Post-it notes. That is it. And if the bankers want a percentage of GDP for that, you got to be kidding me.
How much did the US pay the parasites anyway? Pay the Bank of New York for them to just suck interest payments out of the country whose labor is what enabled the conversion of their 35 cent junk paper into full silver dollars in the first place. Remember, the US borrowed $80,000 face of Bank of New York paper IOUs. But how much did that cost us? Well, let's take a look. Here you go. Center of the page for payment of interest on $80,000 borrowed from the Bank of New York, $1,934.82. And you can see just below that that the 80 grand loan from the Bank of New York was not made all at once. The US government borrowed 20 grand on Hamilton's third day in office, September 13, 30 grand the next day, 20 grand on October 1st, and a final 10 grand installment on December 1st, all in 1789. And you can see from above those entries that Hamilton is computing the interest payment on the loan as of March 1st next year, 1790. So it is less than a year. The bottom line math on these installments works out to a single blended rate on the aggregate $80,000 loan of 6 per cent annually. And I am here to tell you that is pure usury. That $1,935 interest statement, that is pure skim. You just saw it is Hamilton's blessing in his role as Treasury Secretary as a public servant that makes those notes worth 100 per cent of their face value. Makes them money rather than a paper asset worth 65 per cent less. So again, if it is the country's blessing of private bank notes that confer status as money on those notes, why are we paying private bankers a percentage of our own money when we could simply have the Treasury issue 80 grand ourselves and be completely free of any debt? Hands down, this is the biggest scam of all time anywhere. But let's ask this question. How does 6 per cent interest though for the Bank of New York parasites compare with the Bank of England parasites? Well, when England borrowed its gold back notes, it paid the Bank of England 8 per cent. So, the interest rate was different. The bottom line here is that American revolutionaries ended up getting a whole whopping 2 per cent discount for their troubles. Other than that, the scam of the US borrowing private banknotes in 1789 is identical to the scam of England borrowing private banknotes in 1694. This transatlantic scam, in other words, is what launched the public debt as an operating expense both in England in 1694 and in the US in 1789.
For just let all this sink in for a minute. We won the American Revolution. The American Revolution was won in 1781. But eight years later, the private bankers in London who had been fleecing the rebel colonies, indebting the rebel colonies at an 8 per cent interest rate, had been replaced by private banker parasites in New York who were indebting the United States at 6 per cent interest. Private anonymous bankers control each country by controlling its national currency. The country pays interest to private bankers to use their IOUs instead of simply issuing their own money, issuing the country's own money. The tragedy is that both countries destroy themselves with debt rather than just issuing money with no debt at all. And you can thank Alexander Hamilton for that. You can thank Hamilton for reducing the American Revolution to a shift change in bank managers who enslave nations in debt wherever they go. In other words, the United States might have beaten King George III's army, but it did not beat his bosses. Alexander Hamilton saw to it that the bankers stayed in command. When Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration in 1776, 40 years later said that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies. This is exactly what he was talking about. And this is why Alexander Del Mar complained about the American Revolution. Actually, he did not complain about the American Revolution. He loved the American Revolution like I do. He complains about what happened just after the Revolution. And this is in his History of Money in America, which he wrote in 1899. Let's turn to page 109 where Del Mar goes on about how great the American Revolution is before revealing his massive disappointment with the immediate aftermath. Listen to his reason here. Never was a great historical event followed by a more feeble sequel. A nation arises to claim for itself liberty and sovereignty. It gains both of these by an immense sacrifice of blood and treasure. Then when victory is secured, it hands the national credit, that is to say, a national treasure over to private individuals to do as they please with it. So Del Mar says the US wins sovereignty when it wins the Revolutionary War, but then it immediately hands the win over by handing national credit over to bankers. The question though really is so what? If you hand over the national credit as Del Mar calls it to private individuals, are you also surrendering your sovereignty like I have been saying here? Del Mar answers that question yes. He comes down on my side of that issue which he makes clear when he completes his thought that he started there on page 109. He goes on so let's go back and I will finish that passage off. Here is Del Mar's impact assessment of handing over the national credit to private individuals. The colonists had practically an entire continent to themselves. They had only to take care that the seed they planted was genuine and uncontaminated. Nature was certain to do the rest. Well, they planted. And now, 1899, look at the fruit and see what it is that they planted. They planted financial corporations, a rotten seed that Rome had trampled underfoot nearly 2,000 years before. They planted private money in which successively both Greece and Rome had found the germs of social decay. And they planted financial exemptions from public burdens whose offspring has already become a tree so mighty that it cast a threatening shadow over the land. In a word, they planted another revolution. So there you have it. Now, why do you need a revolution? Why so extreme guy is what you are asking? The revolution is what you need in order to replace a king with some form of representative government run in accordance with the will of we the people. In theory, we the people gained our sovereignty from the revolution, at least here in the US. So the question really boils down to first, why is it that a handover of national credit amounts to a much broader handover of national sovereignty? And second, more specifically, why do not we the people simply use the sovereign powers that we did not hand over, like lawmaking, law enforcement, the right to raise standing armies? Why do not we use those sovereign powers to take the national credit issuance power back out of private hands? What is it about private and anonymous people issuing national credit that gives them sovereignty and dominion over an entire country despite the fact that their ability to issue that credit only exists because the country gave them that permission to do so in the first place? The answer is that debt-based monetary system as launched by Hamilton on his third day in office amounts to an addiction in which the drug dealer lender has total power over the drug user borrower. When bankers wrote IOUs for $80,000 and lent them to the US, which then had to pay back $82,000, private credit addiction was born in the US. The real cost to the country for that $80,000 hit was not $80,000. It was $82,000. And the hit after that is going to be $84,000 and so on. That is your basic addiction. You need more and more drugs to get the same high and you need more and more money to buy the same stuff. Debtor nations and debt-based monetary systems are addicted in two distinct senses. Number one, they pay ever larger prices to their dealer for yesterday's high. And second, if they do not get enough dope, they crash. The dealer's power over addicts comes from the control of the dope supply. And actually, private credit addiction is worse than a drug addiction due to what happens after a crash. When drug addicts and alcoholics crash, aftercare is managed by people outside of the cycle of addiction, doctors, family, friends, people who see that the real problem is alcohol and drugs and urge the addict to stop using dope and using drugs altogether in order to help the addict kick the addiction. When the debt-based monetary system crashes, by contrast, aftercare is managed by the drug dealers, by the bankers, because they are the experts, and their job is to keep the cycle of addiction going. And to do that, they have got to convince the addict that his problem has been fixed, that the cause of the crash is all gone. Now, the entire debt-based monetary system, in other words, rests on selling huge lies as truth to all of society. You actually believe that Dodd-Frank fixed the causes of the global financial crisis? Dodd-Frank is the brainchild of the leading drug dealer in the United States. I am going to show you that in the next episode using the drug dealer's own handwriting. You think the Banking Act of 1933 or Glass-Steagall eliminated the causes of the Great Depression? You got to be kidding me. They might have been good laws, but they played footsie with the real problem, which is private credit addiction on a national scale. But the high priest experts of finance and economics who are rich from the system that they work under are not going to tell you that. They will never identify any real solution. The entire industry, the entire finance and economics industry is a huge PR firm working for and owned by the people who get to create money out of thin air and lend it to the rest of us. That system, by the way, can sustain itself for only so long. Eventually what happens is the interest payment gets so big that the dealers got to start seizing the addict's collateral, seizing the nation's assets. That process is actually underway right now in the US. You see all these different schemes going about. Tokenization is one that all boil down to one thing. They are harvesting national assets before the parasites move on to their next host. And there is no voting your way out of this either. There is no buying your way out. Neither one is really an option, voting or buying your way out. And the reason for that is that no matter how much money you have got, Dope Man has got more. Dope Man prints money. You got to earn your money. To get out of this, you need assets that are not for sale. You need people who are not for sale. You need their spirit. You need their anger and the willingness to act. You need a revolution. In other words, exactly like Alexander Del Mar said. And you are never going to get there as long as you are looking for scapegoats like coup d'état perpetrators. And that is true for two reasons. Number one, it is a waste of time. Let us just say you are right. Let us say you are right and there was a coup at some point. Okay, well now what? What are you going to do? Round up all the perps? Most of them are dead. And if what you say is true, they are above the law anyway. So even if you are right about a coup, you are wasting your time because there is nothing you can do. The second reason to stop looking for perpetrators of some coup d'état is that blaming your problems, you are here meaning a country's problems, on some hobgoblin like a coup d'état perpetrator without ever asking if you yourself did something to cause your own misery is a go-to behavior of addicts in order to rationalize their own suffering. Addicts blame every person, place, and thing under the sun except for their own behavior, which never changes as a result because it is never identified as being a problem. As anyone in any drug and alcohol recovery program can tell you, Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Rational Recovery, Women for Sobriety, Recovery Dharma, all of them, any program to stop addiction. It is not until the addict gets honest about the role he has played in his own misery that addiction can start coming to an end. Until the addict gets honest, he is going to hide behind fake villains and never take matters into his own hands. The problems in the US are rooted in its monetary system. That system is open to inspection. It is on the books. It is in Treasury circulars. It is in statutes. It is in case law. The problem is not hidden away in some dark cloak and dagger mystery. And look, I am not saying the people in charge have not committed crimes. They damn sure have. I have documented a lot of them at length on this channel. But the reason those crimes go unpunished is not that there was some coup. The reason those crimes go unpunished is that the criminals can use national credit to buy their way out of problems, to stay in power, and stay out of jail. Blaming your problems on a coup gains you nothing. Actually, the people who control the system by lending money into existence are all too happy to watch you vanish down rabbit holes searching for some coup rather than searching for things that we can do to end our own debt servitude. Now, in case you still doubt me that handing over national credit to private banks amounts to a handover of sovereignty, in the next episode, we are going to look at America's leading drug dealer, the New York Fed, at the height of the global financial crisis, and see how it controls the political process and election outcomes, and watch it break every law in its path to prop up its bank lieutenants just to keep the private credit addiction system alive and well in the West. There were eight people in the room that night in the New York Fed and one of them was a junior guy from the Treasury named Kevin Warsh. How about that? So, your new Fed chairman is a material witness to the Fed decision that night to break all the rules, including, by the way, the cardinal rule of central banking. Warsh's leash has been short ever since, and it is going to stay short when the next crash materializes into an absolute nightmare. So, stay tuned. Thanks so much for watching. I will see you next time.
Last edited by MoneyMan
