The Empire With the Invisible Throne - By David Whitehead

8/14/2019 The Empire With the Invisible Throne - By David Whitehead

1/4

16 S o u t h B a y B u S i n e S S i n S i d e r M a g a z i n e 2 n d i S S u e 2 0 0 9

P U B L I S H E R S P E R S P E C T I V E

The United States has a schizophrenic nature when it comesto the word empire. Tis nation spent the rst hal o itsexistence deending itsel against imperial domination. Ten

it spent the second hal building an empire o its own. As a result,Americans are not comortable hearing their nation characterizedas an empire. Most preer to think o their nation as a republic thatoccasionally issues imperial directives to deend its interests. When

ponticating ails to persuade, the empire enorces global economicpower through a curious combination o economic and conven-tional warare.

America was drated into the imperial club by the old empireso Europe when their taste or imperial adventure was soured bytwo devastating world wars. A bankrupt United Kingdom had nochoice but to relinquish its imperial role to the United States. TeBretton Woods agreement was the ormal acknowledgment o thispower shit.

Te new imperial throne is invisible. Tere are no ormally ac-knowledged vassal states, although subordinate powers are expect-ed to know who they are and act accordingly. And like all othersthat came beore, Americas empire is destined to bankrupt itsel iit holds to this course. Only the shadowy nancial empires, whichcontrol capital that builds and destroys political empires, are in aposition to capitalize most o the time.

Te ounding athers sought to avoid this ate or our nation andought hard to keep old world imperial structures out o the Ameri-cas. However, the Monroe Doctrine proved a complete ailure as thisnation succumbed to the seduction o grandeur driven by treacheryrom dark corners in the nancial world. We incorporated our newimperial position into our emerging nationalism. In the most con-voluted way, America proessed its republican values while denying

the actual dynamics o its empire and how it aects the rest o theworld. I think this explains many o the moral contradictions thatdivide this nation politically. It also places us in a very dangerousposition. Dangerous because o the empires long-term implicationsand more so because its existence is virtually ignored by most o theAmerican people.

Whose Trone is It Anyway?Te invisible empire took its current orm in the early seventies.

Te Nixon administration, under the orchestration o long-timeRockeeller amily colleague Henry Kissinger, re-invented what ap-peared to be a collapsing U.S. economy. America became the spear-head or the emerging global economic order.

During this period, most nations transitioned rom sel-sucientto interdependent. Economies that once depended on their ownsinew to leverage their resources while deending their sovereigntythrough balanced trade succumbed to a system that made them de-pendent upon one another.

Arcane monetary policy was key to the emerging order. Its onething to have global reserve currencies backed by the wealth andeconomic output o a sovereign nation to help stabilize the globaleconomy. Its quite another to create internationalized currencieslike the Euro representing unions o less-than-sovereign nationstates. And should the shiting paradigm lead to the urther inter-nationalization o central banks to restore order to the global -nancial system, a dollar that is genuinely sovereign may no longerbe possible.

o put the nancial crisis acing the U.S. in perspective, RichardC. Cook, a ormer analyst or the U.S. government and requentcontributor to the website GlobalResearch.ca, recently juxtiposed

By David Whitehead

The Empire Withthe Invisible Throne


2/4

S o u t h B a y B u S i n e S S i n S i d e r M a g a z i n e 1 72 n d i S S u e 2 0 0 9

... should the shiting paradigm lead to the urther internationalization

o central banks to restore order to the global fnancial system, a dollar

that is genuinely sovereign may no longer be possible.

some shocking statistics regarding the impact o the nations aggre-gate debt:

During scal year 2009, the U.S. reasury is on track to pay over

$500 billion just in interest payments to nance the already-exist-ing debt. New debt this year will likely exceed a trillion dollars. Tetotal debt burden on the economy as a whole could reach $70 tril-lion by 2010, with annual interest payments or individuals, house-holds, businesses, and all levels o government likely to reach $3trillion out o a $14 trillion GDP that is now in sharp decline.

First, the $500 billion in interest payments just on the existingdebt cancels out a good chuck o the $787 billion stimulus, whichby the way will accrue its own compounding interest down theroad. Te trade decit, which peaked at over $750 billion in 2006,has dropped markedly due to the decline in demand or consumergoods. However, the U.S. has not reported a positive balance otrade since 1975! Te reported ederal decit reached above the$10 trillion mark this past year and will undoubtedly rise more asthe war in Aghanistan escalates. However, according to Cook, thecombined obligations o the nation are approaching $70 trillion.Tis is $5 trillion more than the planets annual productive outputo $65 trillion! Tats why economists with the courage to acknowl-edge the math are getting apocalyptic with their orecasts.

Te Dawn of Radical Intervention

Te last time the central bank orced the economy to make a radi-cal correction on its own, it caused Te Great Depression. You couldsay Te New Deal was the rst radical intervention to alleviate thiskind o calamity. But ew questioned how radical it was in 1971

when the U.S. went o the gold standard while the dollar remainedthe worlds reserve currency. I personally had to do a great deal oreading to understand why this was a dangerous position or theU.S. economy. o be air, I would have to say many nancial expertsat the time would have had diculty knowing why this was danger-ous themselves without the benet o hindsight. Te nancial com-munity pushed the limits o abuse ar beyond what any reasonableperson could have imagined 38 years ago.

Economies can unction o the gold standard i the agency en-trusted to issue currency ensures money supply has a rational rela-tionship with GDP. Currency should be issued in quantities neces-sary to acilitate commerce while retaining a stable value that also

acilitates benecial trade ree o mounting decits.

Because the Federal Reserve is owned by private investors andoperates or prot, conficts o interest develop at many levels thatavor ultra-wealthy nancial speculators and ultimately do great

harm to the American people they are entrusted to serve. And asthe issuer o the worlds key reserve currency, oreign investmentrees the Fed rom keeping the money supply closely tied to thenations real productive output. Instead, they leverage the wealtho nations who must hold dollar reserves to unction in the globalmarketplace. Tis allows the Fed to expand the money supply toirrational levels while incurring mounting debt along the way. De-veloping nations in turn play their currencies o those o the con-sumer nations in the West. Tis radically altered the way many ous earn our livings today.

Te process the Fed uses to create money via the nations bankingsystem also creates interest, as does the leveraging o oreign invest-ment. Te debt gets packaged and repackaged again in countlessways that make it questionable whether it can ever be repaid. Teprocess used to get currency into the market is more o a lendingprocess than a refection o the nations actual wealth. Whoeverthought it was a good idea to package the debt o people and insti-tutions operating in this kind o environment as investment instru-ments to be sold back to many o these same indebted consumeroidswas either not paying attention or deliberately creating a massivePonzi scheme.

In the wake o 9/11, most people barely noticed when the FederalReserve bottomed out interest rates. Tis occurred right ater thedotcom crash at a point when the economy was due or a correc-tion. Instead o letting some overdue austerity set things right, the

economy was fooded with easy cash. People in a position to capital-ize speculated their way to the good lie.

Tis is the system o the last 38 years reaching its apex and it is run-ning out o steam ast. Te current bailout strategy is more aboutrepackaging and expanding debt to astronomical levels, which wontcreate real prosperity. Te system must change and change soon.But to what?

Putting Humpty ogether AgainFirst I will address what we cant do, which is business as usual. I

we let the dollar implode, the American people will not be in a posi-tion to regain control o our money supply and ultimately our des-

Continued on page 24


3/4

24 S o u t h B a y B u S i n e S S i n S i d e r M a g a z i n e2 n d i S S u e 2 0 0 9

P U B L I S H E R S P E R S P E C T I V E

tiny. However, globalization advocates care more about the destinyo the global economy than the national interests o any particular

nation state. Tis is important to note because whether it happensater the current stimulus strategy burns out or a ew years romnowdepending how long it takes or the system to completelyailexpect people in high places to propose an internationallycontrolled central banking system, ostensibly to restore stability.For the United States, that will probably mean something like theproposed North American Union, but they could try to disguisethis by linking existing central banks and letting individual nationskeep their currencies, at least in name.

Tis is inevitable because most nations o this world issue cur-rency rom privately-owned or-prot central banks based on the1694 Bank o England model, which, operating as separate entities,

are designed to provide a money supply or sel-sucient nationstatesnot the interdependent unions o nations we have become.Te U.S Federal Reserve is actually a privately-owned bank thatlends money to the government at interest. It has little or no ac-countability to anyone except its own private investors who transactmost o their business secretly away rom public scrutiny. Imaginean internationalized central bank empowered to do the same thingor the entire world. Te potential or abuse would be enormous,and i we nd ourselves under its heels, there would be no way toescape it.

We cant go on orever allowing decits to mount exponentially,creating boom/bust economic cycles that have grown so erociousthey are now tearing the nations o this world apart. Te [central]

bankers are on the run, everishly trying to use the collapse o thecurrent system to steer us toward an Amero-style North Americancurrency, or a one-world private banking system and privately-is-sued global currency that they and only they control, Ellen Brown,J.D., author o the book Web of Debt, recently stated in a letter toPresident Barak Obama calling or a return to Lincolns monetarypolicy o issuing currency interest-ree rom a U.S. reasury that isnot controlled by Wall Street. We the people will not accept thosesolutions, however, no matter how bad things get. We demand realsolutions that empower us, not urther enslave us.

I would expect urther internationalization o the central bankingsystem to be laid out as the only possible solution in the midst o an

enormous crisis while anyone bold enough to stand up or the au-

tonomy o their nation will be ridiculed and discredited. But dontbelieve there are no viable options available and dont let the mediaspin (which I expect to be brilliant wordplay at its nest) shut you

down rom analyzing this. Tere is simply too much at stake to letour initial ears dull our sensibilities to the that point we passivelyhand our country over to the global nancial system and whoever itis that actually runs it.

Allowing globalism to fourish unchecked is not ree market capi-talism. Tis is what the late Georgetown University historian Car-roll Quigley described as monopoly capitalism. Te 1890 Sher-man Antitrust Act, which has been curiously marginalized in re-cent years, was implemented to prevent this sort o thing so marketsremain truly ree or diverse entrepreneurial activity. Its ironic tonote that monopoly capitalism has more in common with commu-nism than genuine ree market capitalism. In act, laissez faire capi-talists abhor ree markets or all but themselves. I you study thehistory o global nancial power, it reveals the most elite among theworlds nanciers dont care whether capital is concentrated publiclyor privately so long as it is in a position where they can control it.Permit me to issue and control the money o the nation and I carenot who makes its laws, is a requently reerred to quote made inthe 18th Century by M.A. Rothschild, ounder o the amous Euro-pean banking dynasty.

Politics and Money

In the let/right political debate, we waste a great deal o timearguing about matters o unctional irrelevance while the hiddenhand is content to pick our pockets rom either side. World Bank

Group President Robert Zoellick recently stated in a speech hegave addressing the global nancial crisis beore the recent G-20summit in London that major international banking institutionsneed more power to monitor national policies. I leaders are se-rious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, letthem start by modernizing multilateralism to empower the Worldrade Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to moni-tor national policies, Zoellick said. Bringing sunlight to nationaldecision-making would contribute to transparency, accountability,and consistency across national policies.

Im all or transparency, but heres the problem I have with thisstatement, which mirrors countless statements echoed relentlessly

in the international nancial community: It is impossible to cre-

Continued from page 17

We dont want central banks issuing currency or proft any more than we

want the military starting wars or proft. FiatMoney is an

instrument o law, and we get on dicey ground when we empower a

privately-owned institution to originate law rom which it profts.


4/4

S o u t h B a y B u S i n e S S i n S i d e r M a g a z i n e 2 52 n d i S S u e 2 0 0 9

ate meaningul global governance without

marginalizing national sovereignty in the

stated areas o jurisdiction. And what area

o jurisdiction is more important to nation-al sovereignty than domestic banking and

monetary policy? Te United Nations in

its current orm is global government lite

compared to what Zoellick just described.

What Zoellick calls or is global govern-

ment jurisdictions centered on banking

and monetary policy with real authorita-

tive power. In this world, whoever controls

money ultimately controls everything else.

Tats why these olks dont need to micro-

manage everything to infuence the outcome

o just about every decision we make. Teyknow this well and they rely on the act

most o us are unaware o their agenda and

tactics. Te only way or citizens at large to

protect themselves and their nations rom

this closely guarded insider power is to

keep their nations sovereign and to make

their governments truly accountable to the

peoplesomething they have not been or

a very long time.

Its as crucial or governments operating

by the consent o the people to keep their

monetary system under their control justas they would control the military. We

dont want central banks issuing currency

or prot any more than we want the mili-

tary starting wars or prot. Fiat money is

an instrument o law, and we get on dicey

ground when we empower a privately-

owned institution to originate law rom

which it prots.

Tis means the agency entrusted to issue

currency should be a genuine government

agency and no secondary layers o interest

or debt should be tied to the money supplyitsel. Tis would ultimately be better or

honest chartered banks, the business com-

munity and citizens at large. And i we do

this, the rest o the world will stop rolling

their eyes when we espouse our republican

values with each imperial directive.n

David Whitehead is the Publisher of Busi-

ness Insider Magazine. He can be reached by

email at [email protected].

torney will spend one or two hours preparing or every hour actually in the court-

room. Tis includes writing bries and evidence motions, preparing exhibits, andreviewing testimony and discovery.

rial usually begins with a conerence with the judge over procedural details.Next are arguments on motions in limine these are vital, as they determine whatevidence the jury can and cannot see. Sometimes the case is won or lost on thesemotions.Jury selection is next. Te judge and both attorneys question the potential jurors

and try to strike rom the panel those they eel will be unavorable. Once a jury(usually o 12) is selected, the lawyers give their opening arguments, plainti rst.

Te plainti must prove his claims by a preponderance o the evidence by show-ing that his claims are more likely than not true. Te plainti puts witnesses uprst, and the deense then gets to cross-examine them. When the plainti rests,the deendant presents his case. Ater the deense rests, the plainti gets a shortchance to put on rebuttal evidence.

Te lawyers then argue the case to the jury, and then the jury deliberates. Tecourt will instruct the jury--that is, read largely pre-written explanations o thekey issues o law applicable to the case. Te jurys verdict requires a 9-3 or bettervote on each issue.

Te winning party will then have a judgment in her avor. Note that havinga judg-ment against someone is not the same as collectinga judgment rom someone. I thejudgment debtor has no assets, there is nothing to collect. I the judgment is against

Continued from page 11

Continued on page 29

Business litigation is a long, complex process that

takes considerable time and money. The key is to

think about your business goals and resources at

every step in the process, and to work with a legal

professional who understands your needs.

The Empire With the Invisible Throne - By David Whitehead

Documents

Transcript of The Empire With the Invisible Throne - By David Whitehead