Obama’s Zionist Handlers Want Him To Disarm Americans, What Else To Expect In 2016
Hillary Clinton heckled over Bill Clinton’s sex scandals
A Republican state representative from New Hampshire heckled Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during a campaign event over former President Bill Clinton’s sexual scandals.
When Clinton began taking questions at a Derry town hall, Katherine Prudhomme O’Brien, a GOP state representative from Rockingham, New Hampshire, stood up and began shouting at Clinton.
After Clinton ignored the protestor once, O’Brien began yelling again during another pause in the town hall meeting.
“You are very rude, and I’m not ever going to call on you,” Clinton said forcefully, looking directly at the woman. “Thank you.”
O’Brien’s shouts were inaudible to reporters and most in the audience. It’s unclear if Clinton was able to understand what she was saying.
After the event, the lawmaker said she was trying to ask the Democratic frontrunner about her husband’s sexual impropriety decades ago.
O’Brien said she used to be a Democrat but became a Republican because of what she saw happen in “the Clinton years.”
This is not the first time the former secretary of state has been directly questioned about her husband’s indecent behavior.
A woman asked her last month about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump has launched new attacks against the Clintons in recent weeks, calling the former president “one of the great abusers of the world.”
Trump said last week that Bill Clinton is considered a reasonable target for criticism because of his alleged sexual affairs with Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones and the “many” other women.
The billionaire businessman also stated that Hillary Clinton, though she plays the “women card,” isn’t very popular among voters of her gender.
Abraham’s Pharaoh was not King of Egypt
“Pharaoh’ in the Abraham story, as well as that Moses and Joseph spoke of is not the king of Egypt as millions over hundreds of years have been made to believe”
“Judaism and its Israelite stories of militant raids are as genuinely Arabian as Islam and its tales of holy wars and jihad”
Maybe East is East and West is West, but the twain shall meet in this essay.
For ages, western intellectuals believed that Western culture is evidently distinct from that of the east. It always seemed like Eastern and Western cultures were separated by a (hard to cross) thick red line. Therefore westerners tend to view their political, social and spiritual ideas as completely different from that of the east. The reason for that is the (misguided) belief that the root of every aspect of western culture had originally been created by western minds and grew and evolved on western soil (according to western values). In that regard Judaism has long been considered as one of the building blocks of western spirituality (a conviction we have totally deconstructed and exposed its fallacy in our recent book).
While the former conviction could hold some truth as far as some sciences, art and humanities are concerned, but when it comes to the spiritual and religious ideas that ‘made in the west’ concept won’t hold up to our scrutiny and will eventually fall flat on its face.
And since Judaism and its stories were (seen) at the core of the Christian theology, the two were somehow blended as one faith under the common designation “Judeo-Christianity”. Two totally antagonistic belief systems that shouldn’t have been merged together, hadn’t it been for the Roman political agenda to paint the whole Empire with a monochromic religious brush. That actually payed off in a way that helped put an end to the (ceaseless) Jewish rebellion/militancy (like of today’s Islamic State) in the Roman Provinces of Arabia and the Levant.
Ask any average European or American about what it is that connects him to the ‘Jewish/Zionist state of Israel’ and you’ll instantly get this (painfully) naïve and spontaneous answer
“there is a strong bond between us and Israel because we share the same values”
By the same values, he/she means the Judeo-Christian faith and the Israelite (apocalyptic) stories, the (insane) accomplishment of which will herald the so called second coming of the Christ. Hence, new ecclesiastical terminology and churches have recently started to capitalize on this (distorted concept), e.g., Christian Zionism. But little did those Americans and Europeans (who subscribed to this new faith/church) know that this bond was just a deception in disguise, and those values were completely alien to the West and its inherent culture. This is principally the aim of our book and this essay; to expose centuries of deception and delusion augmented by biased and misguided western academia.
Judaism and Islam: Two sides of the same coin
Most of the orientalists who examined the Quran and Islamic literature and jurisprudence have often come to the conclusion that Islamic literature/scripture had copycatted many of the Jewish laws and stories. Well, in that regard the orientalists and most of the Western scholars are damn right. But oddly enough no one of them wondered why Islam and Judaism are so (strikingly) similar in their laws and stories. Why the same stories of the Jewish Patriarchs are reiterated over and over again, and may be in a more detailed manner, in the Qur’an?
Even more bizarrely important, how come that millions of Muslims over the last 1400 years have grown so familiar with the Israelite stories if those were exclusively western?
Till this very moment every Muslim child, before he is taught the alphabetical order, is usually well instructed/indoctrinated with the stories of Noah, Joseph, David and Solomon and of course (spoon fed) the notorious story of Moses and Pharaoh (in Egypt)
Some might argue that this is not surprising nor unexpected since Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions that also included Judaism and Christianity. Well, that is a good argument, provided we first agree on the (original) geography and the culture that gave birth to Abraham and his new faith/ideas. First tell me the native culture/homeland of Abraham and then lecture me on the so called Abrahamic religions.
Pinning down not only the timeline but most importantly the exact geography that produced Judaism and the Israelite stories will be of a tremendous help. It will give us access into the kind of ‘culture’ that created that faith, and the kind of ‘people’ that told and nurtured those (violent and tribal) Israelite stories. In other words, getting to find out the cultural roots of Judaism will indeed uncover the (anthropological) reasons behind the (tribal) violence and intolerance that the Israelite stories/laws are so soaked with that made the adherents of the Jewish faith the hardest to assimilate (into other cultures) throughout the history of mankind. And likewise that will help us understand why Islam had so uncompromisingly followed suit.
The academic circles till this very moment insist on loosely defining Judaism as ‘a monotheistic faith that sprouted in the ancient Near East. In modern terminology, that would translate to the (whole) Middle East as the home ground for Judaism and its stories. In other words, orthodox historians are allocating the whole area from Morocco in the west to Iran in the East, and from Yemen in the south to Turkey in the North as the land of the Israelite stories. While this clearly sounds so grotesquely unscientific, but on the other hand these loose geographical boundaries couldn’t be more convenient for fostering/advancing the idea of Greater Israel (though there is no relation whatsoever between nowadays Israel and the ancient Israelites and their so called Promised land)
According to the critical/academic school of history the ‘patriarchal/ancestral period’ that starts with Abraham is now regarded a later literary construct, not a period in the actual history of the ancient world.
But since I render alternative views on ancient history, I tend to rely more on the philosophy of history with its analytical methodology than critical/orthodox school of history, though I agree with the assessment of its scholars that view the tale of Abraham (as interpreted by orientalists) not reflecting real history.
The term philosophy of history refers to the theoretical aspect of history, it speculates if there is a design, purpose, coherence, directive principle in the processes of human history. And most importantly it investigates with its analytical power the truthfulness of our historical records and stories, and whether the path of human history has been deceitfully deviated, or its stories tampered with. Unlike the critical school of history which focus on the literal interpretation of recorded history, the philosophy of history try hard to read between the lines, and connect the dots looking backwards to try and figure out how we ended up where we are.
According to the orientalist interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, Abraham was the “Superman of antiquity”.
The Patriarch was born (sometime around 1900 BC) in the city/village of Ur (south Iraq) in the ancient Chaldean Empire in ancient Mesopotamia, then he moved to Haran (Turkish-Iranian border) and then he headed to Damascus (Syria) then he traveled to Shechem and Bethel in Palestine (mistaken by academics for Canaan). After that, he took a giant leap to Egypt where he had offered his wrinkled 65-year wife/sister as a concubine for its king (mistaken for Pharaoh). Then he turned back to Palestine (mistaken for Canaan) and of course the Journeys of the then 150 plus years Patriarch wouldn’t have been made holy without stopping for a while at Salem (Jerusalem) where he had a friendly meeting with its chief, Melchizedek (honest king in Arabic!)
Now the reason why many ‘academic’ historians view the tale of Abraham as merely fictional is simply because many of the city names mentioned in his story were actually not yet established around the time of Patriarch.
At 1900 BC there was no Damascus yet, no Canaan, No Jerusalem and definitely no Pharaohs in Egypt (as detailed in my book)
Feeling the heat and embarrassment after nearly two centuries of Extensive excavations in Egypt yielded no historical evidence of ‘Pharaoh’ as the title for the ‘King’ of ancient Egypt, archeologists (with Bible geared mindset) admitted that ‘Per-aa/Pharaoh’ had never actually been the royal title for Egypt King. However, in an attempt to save face, they have recently added that the title ‘Pharaoh’ began to be used as a generic reference for the ‘King’ of Egypt at a very late period of the ancient Egyptian Empire (around 1200-1000 BC)
Now, although that assertion & timing is totally erroneous (as detailed in my book) still it remains very difficult for those ‘academic’ historians and archeologists to explain how on earth the ‘King of Egypt’ whom Abraham introduced his wife to as his sister could be referred to as ‘Pharaoh’? For according to their ‘robust’ thesis/investigation there were no ‘Pharaohs’ in ancient Egypt around 1900 BC (the purported time of Abraham’s tale)
Now let’s stop here for a while and ponder upon this inconsistency. There were no ‘Pharaohs’ yet in Egypt but still Abraham met one in his ancient journeys. Well, that could translate to one of two likelihoods.
Either Abraham never set foot in Egypt, or he had really met ‘Pharaoh’ but not in the ‘Egypt’ we all know of, and that is what had really happened.
‘Pharaoh’ in the Abraham story, as well as that Moses and Joseph spoke of is not the king of Egypt as millions over hundreds of years have been made to believe, but it is ‘Faraon/ فرعون the ancient Arabic title for tribal chieftain. It is linguistically/historically known that in ancient Arabia the head of the tribe was designated Faraon/فرعون. That’s why the real Pharaoh of Moses was nothing but a ruthless Arabian Bedouin/nomad. And consequently that would make the Israelites natives of ancient Arabia (funny … eh?). Yet it is painfully true.
But never for a second fall under the false notion that we’re building our thesis merely out of linguistic correlation, there is a lot more to this than just phonetic similarities, a hell of a lot more. There is the hidden truth and we are just scratching its surface. We are simply exposing a gruesome and deliberate (Jewish) act of distorting humanity’s ancient history. This ancient deception has unfortunately driven us to our current situation where we are overwhelmed with more of the same gruesomeness and distortion.
The incredible journeys Abraham (solely and on a camel) seemed almost impossible or otherwise just pure fiction for 100-year-old man to make. It was made even harder for the sophisticated and modern (Jewish) archeologists to swallow after they had dated the 7th century BC as the time camels were first domesticated in the ancient Near East. In his long and arduous journeys, the aging Patriarch must have ridden one of those direhorses we saw in James Cameron’s Avatar (no sarcasm intended)
But if we reexamined the same story of Abraham, but this time around, viewed it in its original and native geography, culture and timeline the whole story could sound not only different but also plausible.
According to the Arabic/Muslim ancient oral narrations, all the Places Abraham travelled to in his ancient tale were inside ancient Arabia and North Yemen. Once we realized that Ur, Horan, Bethel, and Salem/Jerusalem are but ancient names for Arabic small towns in the Asir (the origin of Israelites) province (stretching from Mecca in the north to Sanaa in the south) the whole bits and pieces of Abraham’s puzzling story will instantly fall into place (historical references and evidences are abundant in the book)
Billions of Muslims around the globe and throughout the past 1400 years accept as true that Abraham was the one (with his son Ishmael) who actually built up the sanctuary in Mecca and that he lived somewhere near Moriah (Marwah) mountain. This is a robust tenet of Islamic tradition and history (based on countless ancient narrations and parallel citations in the historical records & poetry of ancient Arabia)
At this particular point in my essay someone (agitated by these new revelations) will try and refute the ancient Arabian narrations, poetry and traditions as historical evidence. I absolutely have no problem with that, only if Mr/Ms ‘agitated’ would apply the same (refuting) doubts and methodology to Judaism and Christianity (and their totally anecdotal historical sources/evidences) . Let’s all bury our dead legends and start anew.
I believe that not many westerners knew that ‘Jerusalem’ is referred to as ‘Salem’ in the Hebrew Bible. And I doubt that even fewer westerners knew that ’Salem’ is a genuine Arabic word that means ‘Peaceful’ just like Melchizedek means ‘Honest king’ .
For crying out loud, what a word like ‘Melchizedek’ has to do with (the whole) Western phonetic culture, let alone its spirituality. The truth of the matter is that ‘Judaism’ is as dreadfully alien to Westerners as ‘Melchizedek’ is to their ears.
In many of the ancient Arabian records and oral narrations ‘Salem’ is referred to as ‘Dar Salem/ peaceful house’ in North Yemen, or what the western orientalists had mistakenly identified with ‘Jerusalem’ in Palestine.
But why the Hebrew book of stories should include Arabic words? This should come as no surprise if we came to understand that the Israelite stories are simply ancient Arabia’s remote folktales. Judaism and its Israelite stories of militant raids are as genuinely Arabian as Islam and its tales of holy wars and jihad.
Few westerners had tapped into this (historical) information; one of them was Paul the Apostle. Why do you think Paul the apostle headed to Arabia and sojourned there for long three years before he dared embark on his missionary journeys (in the Roman/Western world).
“But when the God who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace was pleased to reveal his son in me, so that I might be his herald among the nations, at once I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17)
Paul did not travel to Arabia on a Safari tour nor to dig for oil. The educated and multilingual man knew that Arabia was the cultural and geographical (native) land of Judaism and its stories of a new Messiah/Mashiach (the theme of then his upcoming mission impossible)
The Christian ideology is based on the (Jewish) distorted narrative that Pharaoh was the king of ancient Egypt and that Moses was raised in an Egyptian royal household and that the Epic Exodus took off from the (heathen) kingdom of Egypt to the new and Promised Land (kingdom) of God’s chosen & righteous people in Palestine/Canaan. It is based on the false belief that Moses received his tablets on The Egyptian Mount Sinai. But at the time the story of Christ was evolving it seemed that Paul the Apostle was the only one who really knew the truth (after he had dived into ancient Arabia)
“Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman, one by the free. But the slave woman’s son was born according to the flesh; the free woman’s, through promise. Which is an allegory: for these two women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, born for slavery, which is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia; and [Sinai] corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is the mother of us all.” (Gal 4:25 )
Here is Paul, the man who literally invented (western) Christianity, unambiguously affirming that the mountain which witnessed the encounter of Moses with his God had all along been in Arabia. Well that would automatically suggest that the rest of the ‘Israelite Exodus’ story had actually taken place in ancient Arabia as well (and not in ancient Egypt as the millions of laymen so ignorantly/pathetically believed). And Paul was not the kind of man who neither uttered words lightly nor maintained facts he knew were not true.
Only aliens are in need of translation
Unlike the west, the Arabs and Muslims did not rely on a translation of the Hebrew book to get familiar with its stories. As a matter of fact, the Hebrew Bible was first translated into Arabic as late as the 10th century and it was done by the Egyptian Jewish scholar “Saʻīd bin Yūsuf al-Fayyūmi, also known in the western world as Saadia Gaon”.
And while the ‘Septuagint Bible’ in its Greek translation (in the third century BC) was the breakthrough moment for the Israelite stories after which it had started to disseminate throughout the Western world, the Arabic translation of the same Hebrew Bible actually changed nothing on the ground, for the whole Eastern world had already been familiar/soaked with the Israelite stories for hundreds of years that even preceded the time of the so called Septuagint translation.
The Israelite stories were well known by all Arabs for simply ancient Arabia had all along been the homeland of Judaism and its stories. That’s why the native Arabs were never in need of a translation of one of their native cultural products.
The whole thing is Arabic. The Arabic (Hebrew) Bible and Arabic Israelites will lend credence to the misinterpreted Journey of Abraham (from Ur/Haran in Mesopotamia to Damascus, to Bethel in Palestine then to Egypt and back to Bethel once again!) Those long and arduous Journeys (ridding a camel, not a 4×4 Landrover) seemed not only silly for an elderly man (almost one hundred and fifty years) but utterly impossible. The flawed way in which the western orientalists had interpreted the geography of the Patriarch’s story had irrevocably turned this old tale of Abraham (and the rest of the Israelite stories) into an absolute riddle for archeologists and a flimsy plausibility for the historians.
When Haran is seen as it originally was, the Arabian valley of Horan, and Bethel as the Holy city of Mecca then the Journeys of old Abraham will no longer need a Superman to make it or a gullible mind to believe it.
Mohamed, the prophet of Islam, was an illiterate man who got no access to the western/Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Islam’s prophet was in no need for a Greek translation of the Hebrew book when he actually had a unique access to the original (Arabic) version of the whole book and its violent/tribal stories.
Mohammed did not have to read the Hebrew book to be informed about those Israelite stories for they were but the tales of his Arabian/Jewish ancestors.
Moreover the Arabian Peninsula during the 7th century A.D, the time of Islam’s rise, was an isolated territory after the demise of the ancient incense caravan route. It is worth mentioning here that the Caravan route had never cut across the land of ancient Palestine, rather it started south in Yemen and ended up in Palmyra (near Syria) or Petra (near Jordan). In the former case the camel caravans continued their journey to (pagan)Persia in the East and in the latter continued on its path to (Pagan) Egypt in the west and then through Alexandria to (Pagan) Greece via naval route.
The whole part of the caravan route had been in ancient Arabia and Yemen, the homeland of the Judaism and the Israelite stories, as we argue in the book. The wide dissemination of the stories of the Jewish patriarchs throughout the ancient Near East was due to the fact that those stories sprouted in ancient Arabia and were carried wide and far by the Arabian Jews who once controlled the Incense trade and its caravan route. Arabia did not only carry incense and spices on their camel caravans to the ancient world but also the new ideas of Judaism and the stories of their patriarchs.
This is what had weirdly escaped the mind of western orientalists. Western scholars had miserably failed to see that ancient Arabia (and not Palestine) had always been the native land of the Israelites and their (violent) stories of tribal wars. And that’s why Islam had picked up where exactly Judaism left off.
In other words Judaism and Islam as two faiths/religions are the cultural products of ancient Arabia and Yemen, and the Stories of the Jewish Patriarchs are Arabia’s ancient folktales.
To make the case for his new religion in Arabia, Mohamed made it clear that he was just the last messenger of a long line of prophets. Those predecessor prophets he often referred to were of course the Israelites Patriarchs. Now let’s also Pause here for a moment and try to contemplate what we have at hand. Mohamed did not come up with anything new, rather his Quran was packed to the brim with the Israelite tales of Noah, Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon, and of course Moses and Pharaoh.
It is obvious (with a bit of critical thinking) that the Mohammedan message was merely a variation on the same old Israelite/Jewish theme. In other words, the Islamic sharia is the Jewish Talmud but with a twist. That’s why the hardline Islamic Salafis/Jihadists share the same (Arabian) dogmatic ideology of the Jewish Haredis
To make his case strong, Mohamed made it clear from the start that he came to finish up what his predecessors had started, but somehow failed to accomplish. The reason for that failure and consequently the dismay of God had been the Jews’ deviation from the creator’s righteous way. When Mohamed was referring to his creator God (Allah) he was not speaking of some foreign god the Israelites/Jews were not familiar with. For the one supreme deity the northern Arabian tribesmen of Hejaz and Mecca referred to as ‘Allah’ the southern Arabian Jewish tribesmen in Yemen called ‘Elohim’ (a narrative that is frightfully alien to any western values and traditions)
In that sense Islam’s main conflict was with the Jews and the pagans of Arabia. Mohamed made it unambiguously clear that his mission was to accomplish the final mission many of his predecessors failed to do, namely unite all of Arabia’s tribes under Allah/Elohim banner. That he most certainly did, and mainly by beating/subjugating the Jewish tribes of Arabia.
This in a way explains the concept of Jihad/militancy/belligerence that permeate the whole of Islam’s scripture/literature.
That also explains why the Muslim scripture/literature is somewhat anti-Jewish. For Mohamed to rise to power in Arabia (and beyond) he simply had to dominate the Arabian Jewish tribes and usher in a new era in Arabia, the era of Islam. But make no mistake, this new Islamic faith had relied on and incorporated the same ancient tales of Arabia that Judaism did before, namely the stories of Abraham and his (Arabian) Israelite tribe.
When the west was duped
But then how come the western world had so miserably/gullibly come to believe that Judaism is one of the core components of western spirituality and culture. Well, that was the result of a distorted translation of the ‘Hebrew book’ into Greek (mother tongue of all western languages) that came to be known as ‘Septuagint Bible’
In that Greek translation (the mother source of all the Bibles around the western world) seventy Jewish scribes had deceitfully relocated the geography of the Israelite stories from its original Arabian place to new places that were then under the Greek colonial rule, namely Egypt and Palestine.
In the New Greek translation, that took place in the 3rd century BC at the legendary library of Alexandria, ancient Egypt and Palestine were hijacked and the kings of Egypt were overnight turned into ‘Pharaohs’.
In the process of westernizing/Hellenizing the Hebrew (Arabian) tales Egypt had been turned into the land of the Israelite Exodus just as Palestine tuned into their “Promised Land’
This (Greek/Jewish) brazen deception had undeservedly served as the infallible source/premise for all the scholars of ancient history and theology in the western world starting from the 3rd century BC and till this very current moment. Do you start to discern the huge proportions of this brazen act of deception the west (and consequently the whole world) had long fell under its sway.
If you really do, then reach for the nearest Bible (that may be tucked under you own warm pillow) and start rereading the Bible properly, by omitting the bits and pieces about Egypt and Palestine. For Egypt knew no Pharaohs nor Israelites.
In case you decided to renounce falsehood, and instead embrace the truth that has been obliterated for thousands of years. Then you could/should read my book (Egypt knew no Pharaohs nor Israelites) available now on Amazon.
Read More: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/04/abrahams-pharaoh-was-not-king-of-egypt/
Israel’s Command of White House and US Congress, Financed by $6bn through the AIPAC Lobby in Washington
The Zionist Council – now known as AIPAC – is the most powerful lobby of American foreign policy ever known. It decides who stands for election to Congress and who gets elected right across all fifty states of the Union.
Effectively, just 20% of the American electorate control the US Legislature and Administration in a process that runs counter to any form of democratic government. It exerts that control by money paid to ensure that virtually no individual who does not support AIPAC’s political agenda for Israel is elected to Congress.
It is a complete corruption of the democratic process that effectively disenfranchises over 240m Americans and impacts the lives of billions around the world in the most powerful, long-running, political scam ever perpetrated in the West.
The consequences to the Middle East and to Europe are mind-blowing. The Israeli government virtually controls American global foreign policy both overtly through Mr Netanyahu’s direct instructions to Congress and covertly through AIPAC’s political machinations in Washington.
The result is effective Israeli command of the White House and the consequent impotency of the elected president. A travesty of democratic government and an insult to justice, morality and civil rights that extends across the world and threatens eventual war with nuclear weapons.
There is no greater threat that faces the world in 2016.
London January 2016
Article Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-command-of-white-house-and-us-congress-financed-by-6bn-through-the-aipac-lobby-in-washington/5499002
Related Video: Former CIA Officer Israel Controls U.S. Government & Media
Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank—and Why is It Shrouded in Myths and Mysteries?
It is well enough that 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. (Henry Ford)
Give me control of a Nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws. (M. A. Rothschild)
The Federal Reserve Bank (or simply the Fed), is shrouded in a number of myths and mysteries. These include its name, its ownership, its purported independence form external influences, and its presumed commitment to market stability, economic growth and public interest.
The first MAJOR MYTH, accepted by most people in and outside of the United States, is that the Fed is owned by the Federal government, as implied by its name: the Federal Reserve Bank. In reality, however, it is a private institution whose shareholders are commercial banks; it is the “bankers’ bank.” Like other corporations, it is guided by and committed to the interests of its shareholders—pro forma supervision of the Congress notwithstanding.
The choice of the word “Federal” in the name of the bank thus seems to be a deliberate misnomer—designed to create the impression that it is a public entity. Indeed, misrepresentation of its ownership is not merely by implication or impression created by its name. More importantly, it is also officially and explicitly stated on its Website: “The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not owned by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution” .
To unmask this blatant misrepresentation, the late Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s, described the Fed in the following words:
Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.
The fact that the Fed is committed, first and foremost, to the interests of its shareholders, the commercial banks, explains why its monetary policies are increasingly catered to the benefits of the banking industry and, more generally, the financial oligarchy. Extensive deregulations that led to the 2008 financial crisis, the scandalous bank bailouts in response to the crisis, the continued showering of the “too-big-to-fail” financial institutions with interest-free money, the failure to impose effective restraints on these institutions after the crisis, the brutal neoliberal cuts in social safety net programs in order to pay for the gambling losses of high finance, and other similarly cruel austerity policies—can all be traced to the political and economic power of the financial oligarchy, exerted largely through monetary policies of the Fed.
It also explains why many of the earlier U.S. policymakers resisted entrusting the profit-driven private banks with the critical task of money supply and credit creation:
The [private] Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our constitution . . . . If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency . . ., the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered (Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President).
In 1836, Andrew Jackson abolished the Bank of the United States, arguing that it exerted undue and unhealthy influence over the course of the national economy. From then until 1913, the United States did not allow the formation of a private central bank. During that period of nearly three quarters of a century, monetary policies were carried out, more or less, according to the U.S. Constitution: Only the “Congress shall have power . . . to coin money, regulate the value thereof” (Article 1, Section 8, U.S. Constitution). Not long before the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, President William Taft (1909-1913) pledged to veto any legislation that included the formation of a private central bank.
Soon after Woodrow Wilson replaced William Taft as president, however, the Federal Reserve Bank was founded (December 23, 1913), thereby centralizing the power of U.S. banks into a privately owned entity that controlled interest rate, money supply, credit creation, inflation, and (in roundabout ways) employment. It could also lend money to the government and earn interest, or a fee—money that the government could create free of charge. This ushered in the beginning of the gradual rise of national debt, as the government henceforth relied more on borrowing from banks than self-financing, as it had done prior to granting the power of money-creation to the private banking system. Three years after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, however, Wilson is quoted as having stated:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men .
While many independent thinkers and policy makers of times past thus viewed the unchecked power of private central banks as a vice not to be permitted to interfere with a nation’s monetary/economic policies, most economists and policy makers of today view the independence of central banks from the people and the elected bodies of government as a virtue!
And herein lies ANOTHER MYTH that is created around the Fed: that it is an independent, purely technocratic or disinterested policy-making entity that is solely devoted to national interests, free of all external influences. Indeed, a section or chapter in every college or high school textbook on macroeconomics, money and banking or finance is devoted to the “advantages” of the “independence” of private central banks to determine the “proper” level of money supply, of inflation or of the volume of credit that an economy may need—always equating independence from elected authorities and citizens with independence in general. In reality, however, central bank independence means independence from the people and the elected bodies of government—not from the powerful financial interests.
Independence has really come to mean a central bank that has been captured by Wall Street interests, very large banking interests. It might be independent of the politicians, but it doesn’t mean it is a neutral arbiter. During the Great Depression and coming out of it, the Fed took its cues from Congress. Throughout the entire 1940s, the Federal Reserve as a practical matter was not independent. It took its marching orders from the White House and the Treasury—and it was the most successful decade in American economic history .
Another MAJOR MYTH associated with the Fed is its purported commitment to national and/or public interest. This presumed mission is allegedly accomplished through monetary policies that would mitigate financial bubbles, adjust credit or money supply to commercial and manufacturing needs, and inject buying power into the economy through large scale investment in infrastructural projects, thereby fostering market stability and economic expansion.
Such was indeed the case in the immediate aftermath of the Great Depression and WW II when the Fed had to follow the guidelines of the Congress, the White House and the Treasury Department. As the regulatory framework of the New Deal economic policies restricted the role of commercial banks to financial intermediation between savers and investors, finance capital moved in tandem with industrial capital, as it essentially greased the wheels of industry, or production. Under those circumstances, where financial institutions served largely as conduits that aggregated and funneled national savings to productive investment, financial bubbles were rare, temporary and small.
Not so in the age of finance capital. Freed from the regulatory constraints of the immediate post-WW II period (which determined the types, quantities and spheres of its investments), the financial sector has effectively turned into a giant casino. Accordingly, the Fed has turned monetary policy (since the days of Alan Greenspan) into an instrument of further enriching the rich by creating and safeguarding asset-price bubbles. In other words, the Fed’s monetary policy has effectively turned into a means of redistribution from the bottom up.
This is no speculation or conspiracy theory: redistributive effects of the Fed policies in favor of the financial oligarchy are backed by undeniable facts and figures. For example, a recent study by the Pew Research Center of income/wealth distribution (published on December 9, 2015) shows that the systematic and escalating socio-economic polarization has led to a sharp decline in the number of middle-income Americans.
The study reveals that, for the first time, middle-income households no longer constitute the majority of American house-holds: “Once in the clear majority, adults in middle-income households in 2015 were matched in number by those in lower- and upper-income households combined.” Specifically, while adults in middle-income households constituted 60.1 percent of total adult population in 1971, they now constitute only 49.9 percent.
According to the Pew report, the share of the national income accruing to middle-income households declined from 62 percent in 1970 to 43 percent in 2014. Over the same period of time, the share of income going to upper-income households rose from 29 percent to 49 percent.
A number of critics have argued that, using its proxies at the heads of the Fed and the Treasury, the financial oligarchy used the financial crisis of 2008 as a shock therapy to transfer trillions of taxpayer dollars to its deep pockets, thereby further aggravating the already lopsided distribution of resources. The Pew study unambiguously confirms this expropriation of national resource by the financial elites. It shows that the pace of the rising inequality has accelerated in the aftermath of the 2008 market implosion, as asset re-inflation since then has gone almost exclusively to oligarchic financial interests.
Proxies of the financial oligarchy at the helm of economic policy making no longer seem to be averse to the destabilizing bubbles they help create. They seem to believe (or hope) that the likely disturbances from the bursting of one bubble could be offset by creating another bubble! Thus, after dot-com bubble, came the housing bubble; after that, energy-price and emerging markets bubble, after that, the junk bond market bubble, and so on. By the same token as the Fed re-inflates one bubble after another, it also systematically redistributes wealth and income from the bottom up.
This is an extremely ominous trend because, aside from issues of social justice and economic insecurity for the masses of the people, the policy of creating and protecting asset bubbles on a regular basis is also unsustainable in the long run. No matter how long or how much they may expand financial bubbles—like taxes and rents under feudalism—are ultimately limited by the amount of real values produced in an economy.
Is there a solution to the ravages wrought to the economies/societies of the core capitalist countries by the accumulation needs of parasitic finance capital—largely fostered or facilitated by the privately-owned central banks of these countries?
Yes, there is indeed a solution. The solution is ultimately political. It requires different politics and/or policies: politics of serving the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people, instead of a cabal of financial oligarchs.
The fact that profit-driven commercial banks and other financial intermediaries are major sources of financial instability is hardly disputed. It is equally well-known that, due to their economic and political influence, powerful financial interests easily subvert government regulations, thereby periodically reproducing financial instability and economic turbulence. By contrast, public-sector banks can better reassure depositors of the security of their savings, as well as help direct those savings toward socially-beneficial credit allocation and productive investment.
Therefore, ending the recurring crises of financial markets requires placing the destabilizing financial intermediaries under public ownership and democratic control. It is only logical that the public, not private, authority should manage people’s money and their savings, or economic surplus. As the late German Economist Rudolf Hilferding argued long time ago, the system of centralizing people’s savings and placing them at the disposal of profit-driven private banks is a perverse kind of socialism, that is, socialism in favor of the few:
In this sense a fully developed credit system is the antithesis of capitalism, and represents organization and control as opposed to anarchy. It has its source in socialism, but has been adapted to capitalist society; it is a fraudulent kind of socialism, modified to suit the needs of capitalism. It socializes other people’s money for use by the few .
There are compelling reasons not only for higher degrees of reliability but also higher levels of efficacy of public-sector banking and credit system when compared with private banking—both on conceptual and empirical grounds. Nineteenth century neighborhood savings banks, Credit Unions, and Savings and Loan associations in the United States, Jusen companies in Japan, Trustee Savings banks in the UK, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia all served the housing and other credit needs of their communities well. Perhaps a most interesting and instructive example is the case of the Bank of North Dakota, which continues to be owned by the state for nearly a century—widely credited for the state’s budget surplus and its robust economy in the midst of the harrowing economic woes in many other states.
The idea of bringing the banking industry, national savings and credit allocation under public control or supervision is not necessarily socialistic or ideological. In the same manner that many infrastructural facilities such as public roads, school systems and health facilities are provided and operated as essential public services, so can the supply of credit and financial services be provided on a basic public utility model for both day-to-day business transactions and long-term industrial projects.
Provision of financial services and/or credit facilities after the model of public utilities would allow for lower financial costs to both producers and consumers. Today, between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector: bankers, insurance companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the like . By freeing consumers and producers from what can properly be called the financial overhead, or rent, similar to land rent under feudalism, the public option credit and/or banking system can revive many stagnant economies that are depressed under the crushing burden of never-ending debt-servicing obligations.
 “Who owns the Federal Reserve?” < http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm>.
 This statement of President Wilson is quoted in numerous places. A number of commentators have argued that some of the damning words used in this much-quoted statement are either not Wilson’s own, or taken out of context. Nobody denies, however, that regardless of the exact words used, he had serious reservations about the formation of the Federal Reserve Bank, and the misguided policy of delegating the nation’s money supply and/or monetary policy to a cabal of private bankers.
. Ellen Brown, “How the Fed Could Fix the Economy—and Why It Hasn’t,” <http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/fedfixeconomy.php>.
 Hilferding’s book, Finance Capital: A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development, has gone through a number of prints/reprints. This quotation is from Chapter 10 of an online version of the book, which is available at: <http://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1910/finkap/ch10.htm>.
. Margrit Kennedy, Occupy Money: Creating an Economy Where Everybody Wins, Gabriola Island, BC (Canada): New Society Publishers, 2012.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics (Drake University). He is the author of Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis(Routledge 2014), The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave–Macmillan 2007), and the Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser’s Egypt(Praeger Publishers 1989). He is also a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.
The original source of this article is Global Research