The common tie binding America into the global arena is the international banking system, most notably anchored by the International Monetary Fund and central banks. It is as old a truth as the history of man, that he who controls the monetary supply can manipulate the trends of domestic trade under a geopolitical framework. As Lord Acton noted, “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.” And Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who in 1815 bankrolled the British victory over Napoleon at Waterloo, advised further for investors to “Buy when there’s blood in the streets, even if that blood is your own” when according to Frederic Morton, he was “on his way to London (beating Wellington’s envoy by many hours) to tell the government that Napoleon had been crushed” when he proceeded to the Stock Exchange after his news was discounted where he “kept on selling… until, a split second before it was too late, Nathan suddenly bought a giant parcel for a song,” where after the official “great news broke,” his insider knowledge sent “consols soaring,” wiping out the “hopes and savings” through his engineered panic.
Little wonder then that when faced with the odds while betting on sporting events, the house usually wins.
Thomas Jefferson was profoundly observant in his 28 May 1816 letter to John Taylor where he wrote, “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…,” wistfully intimating they were “a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction… by the gamblers in corruption” who even now sweep away “in it’s progress the fortunes & morals of our citizens.” Claimed Henry Ford in a sort of tongue-n-cheek manner, “It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” And the colossal 10,000 page unfinished work The Story of Civilization disclosed that “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.” Therefore, the fault will “lay in her people, her morals, her class struggles and failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, and consuming wars” — a full vindication of the paradox issued by Lord Acton that “Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being.”
We may thus deduce how under the present geopolitical climate, in the aftermath of the British exit from the European Union, major hedge fund investors continue speculating on the pound sterling, the United Kingdom’s standard currency. No investment mogul is more sought after for his advice than the old devil himself, George Soros, who infamously raked in a cool single-day gain of $1 billion on September 16, 1992 by short selling the British pound during the time Britain had been a part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. While Britain resisted the devaluation, continued pressure from the fixed system and speculators in the currency market, the Bank of England floated its currency, causing the value of the pound to sharply decline in a trade which Soros leveraged. Since at least 1992, George Soros has been the Nathan Mayer Rothschild for our time.
Several critical contemporary global financial epochs should be employed in explaining how we arrived at our present condition.
- The establishment of the Federal Reserve in the United States
- The War Guilt Clause and subsequent hyperinflation in Weimar Germany
- The Stock Market Crash of 1929
- The establishment of the Bretton Woods international currency exchange standard
- 1970: President Richard Nixon kills the Bretton Woods currency exchange rates in order to grow the money supply via fiat in the aftermath of the “Great Society” and ongoing Vietnam war
- The Clinton/Bush era policy of reckless subprime mortgages designed to drive up homeownership.
- The Financial market crash of 2008 following the collapse of the real estate bubble and bank bailouts resulting in purchasing more debt from central banks
- Quantitative easing; and artificially low interest rates designed to fritter away at debt through killing interest on outstanding debt
Murray Rothbard wrote that “The Libertarian Creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” “Aggression” is defined in his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973) “as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else,” which subsequently becomes “synonymous with invasion….” “Every individual,” therefore, “[has] the right to his own property without having to suffer aggressive depredation… to give away his property (bequest and inheritance) and to exchange it for the property of others (free contract and the free market economy) without interference.”
While Rothbardians favor “the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange,’” they ironically reject the right to simply be born so long as one may profit off fetal “blood money”. Divorced of John Locke’s logic behind the natural right to property ownership, the individual, void of consequence and causality, demands all people radically accept his pervasive moral bankruptcy, his unchecked profligacy while rejecting an independent third party brokering a separate peace out of fear that they may ultimately confiscate everything one owns. They demand to be liberated of civil society, not subject to any defined civility; that they may subsist of their own designs off an open range of infinite, unfettered acreage of land. Thus by the individual asserting his personal claim to property as did homesteaders or the earliest nomads of the ancient world, no known arbiter can qualitatively settle contractual disputes other than what Edmund Burke described as “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge”. Objectivity is subject to the conscientious objector who may enforce the rule of law, where through enforcement, statutory coercion exists. Thus it is in violation of Locke’s landmark foundation for modern Western democracies governed by the tacit phenomenology that “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one,… that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions….” Therefore a fetus is not a widget off which to profit, nor the moral source for profit off “blood money” through military conscription, human trafficking, even child prostitution — and neither is an abortion industrial complex, the most expedient source for silent, purposeful political genocide.
Edmund Burke championed the American war for independence over his disapproval of the colonies’ lack of parliamentary representation, imploring the House of Commons to “Reflect how you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free, and think they are not,” given their “scheme yields… nothing but discontent, disorder, disobedience….” For Burke to acknowledge that “such is the state of America, that after wading up to your eyes in blood, you could only end just where you begun; that is, to tax where no revenue is to be found…,” the lesson in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)—that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” under the rule of law—must continue growing still more abstract.
Burke also warned that “the wisdom of [a nation’s] ancestors” must neither be forgotten nor it be revised, for “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” The sudden precondition for radical acceptance subsequently leads to chaos, confusion and uncertainty even under the best of transitions. It is why we should never simply submit to “what a lawyer tells [us] may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice, tell me I ought to do.” The foundation behind the idyllic civil society can only be undergirded if “Freedom and not servitude is the cure of anarchy….”
If “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” no “government [may] endure, permanently half slave and half free.” This liberty exists only in an idyllic world, constructed by chaos and achieved only by answering “If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy,’ why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block?” while addressing the individual’s personal obligation to maintain “Each house? Each person?” To diffuse the passions of a civil society, “The spiritual, biological, political, intellectual, and moral elite would govern, through state power, the character and quality of American family life.” We must therefore pray that, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, “Utopia never comes, because we know we should not like it if it did.” If as a conservative I adhere to Romans 5:13, that “To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law,” then because rights are universal according to Rothbard, “their enforcement must be local,” whereupon the role of a democratic government according to Pericles is to conserve harmoniously “the various elements of freedom, public and private, with each other for the greater good” while projecting the potential kinetic reflexivity.