The Empire With The Invisible Throne - By David Whitehead

PUBLISHER’S PERSPECTIVE

The Empire With the Invisible Throne By David Whitehead

T

he United States has a schizophrenic nature when it comes to the word “empire.” This nation spent the first half of its existence defending itself against imperial domination. Then it spent the second half building an empire of its own. As a result, Americans are not comfortable hearing their nation characterized as an empire. Most prefer to think of their nation as a republic that occasionally issues imperial directives to defend its interests. When pontificating fails to persuade, the empire enforces global economic power through a curious combination of economic and conventional warfare. America was drafted into the imperial club by the old empires of Europe when their taste for imperial adventure was soured by two devastating world wars. A bankrupt United Kingdom had no choice but to relinquish its imperial role to the United States. The Bretton Woods agreement was the formal acknowledgment of this power shift. The new imperial throne is invisible. There are no formally acknowledged vassal states, although subordinate powers are expected to know who they are and act accordingly. And like all others that came before, America’s empire is destined to bankrupt itself if it holds to this course. Only the shadowy financial empires, which control capital that builds and destroys political empires, are in a position to capitalize most of the time. The founding fathers sought to avoid this fate for our nation and fought hard to keep old world imperial structures out of the Americas. However, the Monroe Doctrine proved a complete failure as this nation succumbed to the seduction of grandeur driven by treachery from dark corners in the financial world. We incorporated our new imperial position into our emerging nationalism. In the most convoluted way, America professed its republican values while denying 16 S o u t h B a y B u s i n e ss I n s i d e r M a g a z i n e

the actual dynamics of its empire and how it affects the rest of the world. I think this explains many of the moral contradictions that divide this nation politically. It also places us in a very dangerous position. Dangerous because of the empire’s long-term implications and more so because its existence is virtually ignored by most of the American people. Whose Throne is It Anyway? The invisible empire took its current form in the early seventies. The Nixon administration, under the orchestration of long-time Rockefeller family colleague Henry Kissinger, re-invented what appeared to be a collapsing U.S. economy. America became the spearhead for the emerging global economic order. During this period, most nations transitioned from self-sufficient to interdependent. Economies that once depended on their own sinew to leverage their resources while defending their sovereignty through balanced trade succumbed to a system that made them dependent upon one another. Arcane monetary policy was key to the emerging order. It’s one thing to have global reserve currencies backed by the wealth and economic output of a sovereign nation to help stabilize the global economy. It’s quite another to create internationalized currencies like the Euro representing unions of less-than-sovereign nation states. And should the shifting paradigm lead to the further internationalization of central banks to restore order to the global financial system, a dollar that is genuinely sovereign may no longer be possible. To put the financial crisis facing the U.S. in perspective, Richard C. Cook, a former analyst for the U.S. government and frequent contributor to the website GlobalResearch.ca, recently juxtiposed 2 n d I ss u e 2 0 0 9

some shocking statistics regarding the impact of the nation’s aggregate debt: “During fiscal year 2009, the U.S. Treasury is on track to pay over $500 billion just in interest payments to finance the already-existing debt. New debt this year will likely exceed a trillion dollars. The total debt burden on the economy as a whole could reach $70 trillion by 2010, with annual interest payments for individuals, households, businesses, and all levels of government likely to reach $3 trillion out of a $14 trillion GDP that is now in sharp decline.” First, the $500 billion in interest payments just on the existing debt cancels out a good chuck of the $787 billion stimulus, which by the way will accrue its own compounding interest down the road. The trade deficit, which peaked at over $750 billion in 2006, has dropped markedly due to the decline in demand for consumer goods. However, the U.S. has not reported a positive balance of trade since 1975! The reported federal deficit reached above the $10 trillion mark this past year and will undoubtedly rise more as the war in Afghanistan escalates. However, according to Cook, the combined obligations of the nation are approaching $70 trillion. This is $5 trillion more than the planet’s annual productive output of $65 trillion! That’s why economists with the courage to acknowledge the math are getting apocalyptic with their forecasts. The Dawn of Radical Intervention The last time the central bank forced the economy to make a radical correction on its own, it caused The Great Depression. You could say The New Deal was the first radical intervention to alleviate this kind of calamity. But few questioned how radical it was in 1971 when the U.S. went off the gold standard while the dollar remained the world’s reserve currency. I personally had to do a great deal of reading to understand why this was a dangerous position for the U.S. economy. To be fair, I would have to say many financial experts at the time would have had difficulty knowing why this was dangerous themselves without the benefit of hindsight. The financial community pushed the limits of abuse far beyond what any reasonable person could have imagined 38 years ago. Economies can function off the gold standard if the agency entrusted to issue currency ensures money supply has a rational relationship with GDP. Currency should be issued in quantities necessary to facilitate commerce while retaining a stable value that also facilitates beneficial trade free of mounting deficits.

Because the Federal Reserve is owned by private investors and operates for profit, conflicts of interest develop at many levels that favor ultra-wealthy financial speculators and ultimately do great harm to the American people they are entrusted to serve. And as the issuer of the world’s key reserve currency, foreign investment frees the Fed from keeping the money supply closely tied to the nation’s real productive output. Instead, they leverage the wealth of nations who must hold dollar reserves to function in the global marketplace. This allows the Fed to expand the money supply to irrational levels while incurring mounting debt along the way. Developing nations in turn play their currencies off those of the consumer nations in the West. This radically altered the way many of us earn our livings today. The process the Fed uses to create money via the nation’s banking system also creates interest, as does the leveraging of foreign investment. The debt gets packaged and repackaged again in countless ways that make it questionable whether it can ever be repaid. The process used to get currency into the market is more of a lending process than a reflection of the nation’s actual wealth. Whoever thought it was a good idea to package the debt of people and institutions operating in this kind of environment as investment instruments to be sold back to many of these same indebted consumeroids was either not paying attention or deliberately creating a massive Ponzi scheme. In the wake of 9/11, most people barely noticed when the Federal Reserve bottomed out interest rates. This occurred right after the dotcom crash at a point when the economy was due for a correction. Instead of letting some overdue austerity set things right, the economy was flooded with easy cash. People in a position to capitalize speculated their way to the good life. This is the system of the last 38 years reaching its apex and it is running out of steam fast. The current bailout strategy is more about repackaging and expanding debt to astronomical levels, which won’t create real prosperity. The system must change and change soon. But to what? Putting Humpty Together Again First I will address what we can’t do, which is business as usual. If we let the dollar implode, the American people will not be in a position to regain control of our money supply and ultimately our desContinued on page 24

... should the shifting paradigm lead to the further internationalization of central banks to restore order to the global financial system, a dollar that is genuinely sovereign may no longer be possible. 2 n d I ss u e 2 0 0 9

S o u t h B a y B u s i n e ss I n s i d e r M a g a z i n e 1 7

PUBLISHER’S PERSPECTIVE

Continued from page 17 tiny. However, globalization advocates care more about the destiny of the global economy than the national interests of any particular nation state. This is important to note because whether it happens after the current stimulus strategy burns out or a few years from now—depending how long it takes for the system to completely fail—expect people in high places to propose an internationally controlled central banking system, ostensibly to restore stability. For the United States, that will probably mean something like the proposed North American Union, but they could try to disguise this by linking existing central banks and letting individual nations keep their currencies, at least in name. This is inevitable because most nations of this world issue currency from privately-owned for-profit central banks based on the 1694 Bank of England model, which, operating as separate entities, are designed to provide a money supply for self-sufficient nation states—not the interdependent unions of nations we have become. The U.S Federal Reserve is actually a privately-owned bank that lends money to the government at interest. It has little or no accountability to anyone except its own private investors who transact most of their business secretly away from public scrutiny. Imagine an internationalized central bank empowered to do the same thing for the entire world. The potential for abuse would be enormous, and if we find ourselves under its heels, there would be no way to escape it. We can’t go on forever allowing deficits to mount exponentially, creating boom/bust economic cycles that have grown so ferocious they are now tearing the nations of this world apart. “The [central] bankers are on the run, feverishly trying to use the collapse of the current system to steer us toward an ‘Amero’-style North American currency, or a one-world private banking system and privately-issued global currency that they and only they control,” Ellen Brown, J.D., author of the book Web of Debt, recently stated in a letter to President Barak Obama calling for a return to Lincoln’s monetary policy of issuing currency interest-free from a U.S. Treasury that is not controlled by Wall Street. “We the people will not accept those solutions, however, no matter how bad things get. We demand real solutions that empower us, not further enslave us.” I would expect further internationalization of the central banking system to be laid out as the only possible solution in the midst of an enormous crisis while anyone bold enough to stand up for the au-

tonomy of their nation will be ridiculed and discredited. But don’t believe there are no viable options available and don’t let the media spin (which I expect to be brilliant wordplay at its finest) shut you down from analyzing this. There is simply too much at stake to let our initial fears dull our sensibilities to the that point we passively hand our country over to the global financial system and whoever it is that actually runs it. Allowing globalism to flourish unchecked is not free market capitalism. This is what the late Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley described as “monopoly capitalism.” The 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act, which has been curiously marginalized in recent years, was implemented to prevent this sort of thing so markets remain truly free for diverse entrepreneurial activity. It’s ironic to note that monopoly capitalism has more in common with communism than genuine free market capitalism. In fact, laissez faire capitalists abhor free markets for all but themselves. If you study the history of global financial power, it reveals the most elite among the world’s financiers don’t care whether capital is concentrated publicly or privately so long as it is in a position where they can control it. “Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws,” is a frequently referred to quote made in the 18th Century by M.A. Rothschild, founder of the famous European banking dynasty. Politics and Money In the left/right political debate, we waste a great deal of time arguing about matters of functional irrelevance while the “hidden hand” is content to pick our pockets from either side. World Bank Group President Robert Zoellick recently stated in a speech he gave addressing the global financial crisis before the recent G-20 summit in London that major international banking institutions need more power to monitor national policies. “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernizing multilateralism to empower the World Trade Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies,” Zoellick said. “Bringing sunlight to national decision-making would contribute to transparency, accountability, and consistency across national policies.” I’m all for transparency, but here’s the problem I have with this statement, which mirrors countless statements echoed relentlessly in the international financial community: It is impossible to cre-

We don’t want central banks issuing currency for profit any more than we want the military starting wars for profit. Fiat Money is an instrument of law, and we get on dicey ground when we empower a privately-owned institution to originate law from which it profits.

24 S o u t h B a y B u s i n e ss I n s i d e r M a g a z i n e

2 n d I ss u e 2 0 0 9

ate meaningful “global governance” without marginalizing national sovereignty in the stated areas of jurisdiction. And what area of jurisdiction is more important to national sovereignty than domestic banking and monetary policy? The United Nations in its current form is “global government lite” compared to what Zoellick just described. What Zoellick calls for is global government jurisdictions centered on banking and monetary policy with real authoritative power. In this world, whoever controls money ultimately controls everything else. That’s why these folks don’t need to micromanage everything to influence the outcome of just about every decision we make. They know this well and they rely on the fact most of us are unaware of their agenda and tactics. The only way for citizens at large to protect themselves and their nations from this closely guarded insider power is to keep their nations sovereign and to make their governments truly accountable to the people—something they have not been for a very long time. It’s as crucial for governments operating by the consent of the people to keep their monetary system under their control just as they would control the military. We don’t want central banks issuing currency for profit any more than we want the military starting wars for profit. Fiat money is an instrument of law, and we get on dicey ground when we empower a privatelyowned institution to originate law from which it profits. This means the agency entrusted to issue currency should be a genuine government agency and no secondary layers of interest or debt should be tied to the money supply itself. This would ultimately be better for honest chartered banks, the business community and citizens at large. And if we do this, the rest of the world will stop rolling their eyes when we espouse our republican values with each imperial directive. n David Whitehead is the Publisher of Business Insider Magazine. He can be reached by email at [email protected]. 2 n d I ss u e 2 0 0 9

Continued from page 11 torney will spend one or two hours preparing for every hour actually in the courtroom. This includes writing briefs and evidence motions, preparing exhibits, and reviewing testimony and discovery. Trial usually begins with a conference with the judge over procedural details. Next are arguments on “motions in limine” – these are vital, as they determine what evidence the jury can and cannot see. Sometimes the case is won or lost on these motions. Jury selection is next. The judge and both attorneys question the potential jurors and try to strike from the panel those they feel will be unfavorable. Once a jury (usually of 12) is selected, the lawyers give their opening arguments, plaintiff first. The plaintiff must prove his claims “by a preponderance of the evidence” by showing that his claims are more likely than not true. The plaintiff puts witnesses up first, and the defense then gets to cross-examine them. When the plaintiff “rests,” the defendant presents his case. After the defense “rests,” the plaintiff gets a short chance to put on rebuttal evidence. The lawyers then argue the case to the jury, and then the jury deliberates. The court will “instruct” the jury--that is, read largely pre-written explanations of the key issues of law applicable to the case. The jury’s verdict requires a 9-3 or better vote on each issue. The winning party will then have a judgment in her favor. Note that having a judgment against someone is not the same as collecting a judgment from someone. If the judgment debtor has no assets, there is nothing to collect. If the judgment is against 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.

S o u t h B a y B u s i n e ss I n s i d e r M a g a z i n e 2 5