Wednesday, July 04, 2007

[july 4th] time to plan your future

The situation, this July 4th

1] The U.S. dollar is fiat money, i.e. it is only paper backed by a government decree or eight;

2] The controller of finance in the U.S. is the Fed - not a government body but 12 banks controlled from New York under the influence of the House of Morgan [and other offshoots and colleagues]:

1828 - Mayer Amschel Rothschild: "Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws."

1923 - Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England: "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them the power to create deposits, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again."

2] The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is not a new idea:

October 28, 1939 - John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State] proposes that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.

Thus it will not become an election issue because technically no sovereignty is being ceded, i.e. it is not a constitutional issue;

4] The reality is the ceding of the powers of:

a. defense

b. the judiciary

c. education

d. social security

e. opening of all borders

f. creation of a free trade zone within NA shores

to a new body called the North American Advisory Council, who are not constitutionally defined. As they were proposed by the CFR and were accepted as an entity on March 23rd, 2005, in his meeting with the Canadian and Mexican leadership by George W. Bush, it is highly likely that the CFR will either control, heavily influence or ensure that fellow travellers constitute the governance of that body.

4] This is all due to begin early 2009, very subtly at first and at a time of increasing crisis ocver other issues. I have no clue what those issues are - housing? Fuel? Terrorism?

5] Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson are or were both connected with the CFR, just as Blair and Brown were both Bilderbergers. [Do your own research]

6] Who are the CFR?

Feb. 23, 1954 - Senator William Jenner of Indiana says before the U.S. Senate: The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without our suspecting the change is underway.

1975 - Retired Navy Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy and former CFR member, writes in a critique that the goal of the CFR is the "...submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful one-world government..."

1981 - Congressman Larry McDonald calls for comprehensive congressional investigation of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Congress is urged to investigate these organizations.

1983 - Larry McDonald is killed along with 268 other passengers on Korean Air Lines (KAL) flight 007, shot down over Sakhalin Island in the Sea of Japan.

What should you do?

1] Get out of any credit arrangement within the next two years or any other mechanism where you are in thrall to a financial body;

2] Take legal advice on the status of your private property and ensure the title is secure in your name;

3] In the case of a mortgage, be prepared to have the balance called in by 2012, i.e. be prepared to concede the loss of your property when the 2nd Fed induced crash comes [1929 being the first];

4] Therefore have some fallback living facility somewhere, even if it's only a beach house with a garden.


1] I don't buy any of this alarmist c--p. Answer: Fine and good luck to you. On the other hand, there's very little wrong with urging people to own their own property outright, is there;

2] If everyone took this advice, there'd be a run on the banks and the collapse would occur anyway, only earlier. Answer: Yes but this is just a small blog and this advice applies only to a small readership.


ScotsToryB said...


may I add to remember to have your money in precious metals etc to avoid the New World currency.


Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Well, I don't own any property and can't afford a beach house either. I'll have to keep muddling along.

Wolfie said...

3] In the case of a mortgage, be prepared to have the balance called in by 2012, i.e. be prepared to concede the loss of your property when the 2nd Fed induced crash comes [1929 being the first];

I'm not sure about this one James. Interest rates may go through the roof and commercial loans will get called but mortgages are an unlikely target as the asset they underwrite would become worthless overnight if this became widespread. Governments would be more likely to suspend the markets or underwrite the bank's loss in such a crisis. Somewhat likely is a possible debt realignment where you might be expected to pay a large lump sum to reduce your liability and aid the lender's liquidity. So have that to hand.

In the event of such a looming crisis it would be best to sell your property, move into rental property (as the default market would reduce rents to a pittance) and invest your liquidity in something like gold. However, notice that governments are currently making it hard for the non-institutional investor to diversify into gold. There just isn't enough of it to go around and some institutions have been selling more than they hold.

james higham said...

Wolfie, ScotsTB, this is exactly so and that's why I've left property, have low liquidity and something else more substantial.

Wolfie - you say: the asset they underwrite would become worthless overnight...

We'll agree to disagree here because you're still ascribing purely financial and political motives for the move and therefore this is 100% correct.

I'm not ascribing this. I barely blog about it [usually stopping short] but I think there is something else far more crazy going down which would like to see property suddenly debased.

Under no sane economic move, even a self-interested or political one, would calling in mortgages make sense.

Who said that it made sense? In other words I'm insinuating that there is very much a streak of madness running throughthis and in all they touch.

However, that's outside the scope of the article.

CityUnslicker said...

James - predicint the credit crunch is entirely accurate. The rest is beoynd me as ever.

You never ascribe motive or purpose as I said in my earlier reply to you. Why would those who benefit most destroy the system?

Wolfie said...

The '29 crash was engineered so that a few could profit at the expense of the many, its quite possible it could be the same story now except such a strategy could not be disguised today as it was then.

A more plausible theory is that an impoverished proletariat is more susceptible to going to war if the soldering will provide a living wage and the "enemy" can be framed as responsible for their poverty.

james higham said...

Both of these comments sniff around and about what is going down.

...You never ascribe motive or purpose as I said in my earlier reply to you...

The thing is - I don't know how to do it. I see it and have quotes from myriad people as to purpose [one or two only in this post] and nothing occurring now casts the slightest shadow of a doubt on what is going down but I don't know how to put it, how to collate it.

Both of you are arguing from a rational perspective for a start.

...impoverished proletariat is more susceptible to going to war...

This is the logical conclusion [or one of them] if you are a sane man from the City. I would conclude such as this myself if I were groping for a reason. But we're not talking of sanity here.

The instant I name insane things, they're so well known and yet so banal and in the case of the more bizarre things, so well mocked and those pointing to them equated with funny-farm residents that there is no chance of anyone taking what I have to say seriously.

Take the tunnels under the Appalachians, for example. They're denied. And yet they're directly quoted by both a shadowy woman who supposedly betrayed her group a la Philby and by a former naval intelligence officer.

Very slim evidence indeed and yet independent for all that.

Take her allegations of military airports being used to buy and sell service slaves, in particular Omaha.

Sheer craziness until the recent CIA flights comes into the picture. Now not so crazy. I have testimony from former CIA but again, unattributable.

At this stage I'm not trying to prove but just to gauge where the truth is. Truth is well nigh impossible to prove with my resources and with what these people have to lose.

Take Bohemian Grove. Innocent in essence, after the ravings of the sensationalist Jones are removed and the whole thing seen in the context of a bunch of oligarchs having a well earned break and a bit of Boy's Own adventure.

Hell, I've been to a similar camp.

Except that to do mock sacrifices of effigies with fire at the foot of a 40 foot altar [which is well documented]and when all that are well-connected in US [and elsewhere] finance and politics have flown in for this beano, is at least strange.

Why not a musical concert, an orchestra? Why not even a show? Why chanting priests in robes sacrificing an effigy on a stone? Why do Christian crosses suddenly spring into fire along the path?

Just a bit of mock goth they say. But why? Why? Why not Roman gladiator or mock mediaeval? Why mock Moloch?

Take the direct allegations by a woman whose evidence is highly suspect about Dick Cheney and sex slaves? Absolutely garbage, right?

Then why has it never been denied and why has the woman never been sued?

Allegations by 14 people [including teenagers] of the sex parties and the brutality of the men participating? Why, in reply, when they say it's rubbish, do they attack the kid as a pathological liar and known prostitute but never explain or deny that he was actually there. They deny that what was alleged happened but not that such a person was invited in the first place.

Why would the supposed betraying woman mentioned above refer to mind experiments through torture and independently, I have Easterbrooke's testimony and the conviction of the Canadian and New Zealand psychiatrists is on the record, all confirming that suchis the case.

Throw in Abu Ghraib and the recent European flights.

So to answer the question of ascribing motive, it can be answered at two levels:

1 The Nixon level. Why did he do as he did? Paranoid? Just a natural bad 'un?
2 The institutional level. The madness of a very powerful agency which is really quite insane. Torturing, IDing the populace, drawing the noose tighter, creating a terrorist scenario to garner powers for itself, the natural misdtrust and distrust of its citizens - this is madness.

Why would they destroy their property base? This might answer it and I quote:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government

OK, laugh at it until you're blue in the face but answer me this - which plank of this platform is clearly not being currently if surreptitiously pursued?

Whoa, you say. The main players in the greatest capitalist nation in the world acting to bring themselves down? It's sheer lunacy.

Yes, it's lunacy. Either that or they're is another agenda somwhere which we haven't fully gleaned.

And there it is above here. And it covers all available evidence.

But why? Who would want this?

To answer that, look at the nature of the Jenner comment again - dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state.

Or the Wilson comment - so insidious, so interlocked, so all-powerful.

This is not a bunch of businessmen here. This is not just financiers whose daily business is money. this is organized and interlocked - financiers don't operate that way.

So who is this power? No way I'm saying one more word.

Crushed by Ingsoc said...

What really surprises me James, is that this all studd which an economic Marxist would agree with- I do.

Believing that Marx' ECONONIC theory is correct does not entail supprting his proposed POLITICAL solution. Volume 1 of das Kapital is bang on, if the other two volumes are less relevant.

If you believe in the permanency of the coming Crash, in the sense I think you do, you have come to the conclusions that are supported by Marx, but mot the gurus they would have you believe now.

Lord Higham of Straf-Dresden said...

I'm diametrically opposed to Marx on virtually every ground. It is precisely the surreptitious socialism in this agenda I'm railing against.

Anonymous said...

Die SPP, die die! Man, Samuel Adams beer never tasted so good!`

Lord James Cholmondley Blitz-Higham of Straf-Dresden said...

Was that Samuel Adams Summer Brew or Extreme Beer, Matt? I ask only for information.

lady macleod said...

wow. I have no doubt, knowing what I know of government operations, it could all well be true.

fortunately some years ago, a 'paranoid' friend suggested if i were going to be on the go everywhere to liquify some assets, literally. I took every piece of gold lying about my jewelry chest (I am really not a jewelry person) without sentimental value and had it melted down into several appreciable but unobtrusive chunks and mounted on heavy gold chains. Whenever I am about in the world, I wear or keep handy at least one.

The real estate information is interesting. I had not heard this but finance is not my field. You just made the very affordable houses in the Fez Medina look all the better...

Welshcakes limoncello, you can come here if it all goes belly up, I have an extra room.

A thought provoking post james. Thank you. I like the new nom de plume.

Anonymous said...

Samuel Adams Boston Lager, James. I do like the Summer Ale on occasion though. Can you believe there's over eighteen varieties of Sam Adams?!? By the way, I like your new name, Lord James Cholmondley Blitz-Higham of Straf-Dresden , haha.

CityUnslicker said...

i am none the wiser. Many of hte things you say are true but can still be seen in a rationalist light.

Cheney and sex slaves, sure. he is rich and powerful and this happens throughout history. The middle east is full of harems?

Why deny it when they rubbished the story so well that it sunk?

sick, yes. a global conspiracy, no.

Please don't mention the lizards next, I heard enough about them from the celebs in LA whne I was there.

Lord Nazh© said...

This is worse in some ways than the climate porn you peddle. Will you finally print a retraction in '09 when you are wrong?

And another in '12 when you are wrong again?

Don't hang your credibility on a concept the truthers wouldn't embrace.

Lord James Cholmondley Blitz-Higham of Straf-Dresden said...

You see, CUS, this is why I won't debate. Because people - other people, not me, want to drag Ickean lizards and conspiracy theory and all that tosh into a debate which is about economics.

I want to keep to the known issues.

Lord nazh. You won't see, in 2009 because it ain't gonna be announced, son. You're so balck and white on thngs. These people are shades of murky grey.

Cheney. It's a fragment, an index of character, that's all. And yet one wonders about his, Kennedy's and all the others' cahracters. What happens to these people once they hit Washington?

Wolfie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wolfie said...

Well you can stick doggedly to logic and financial analysis and still reach the same conclusions.

First of all lets establish that the politicians do not run the world, once they attain power they get to meet the people who really do and "the parameters" of their power is explained to them. Testing those limits is met with either ruination or removal, few bother. Then there are those who are "their property" from the start.

There are a number of problems on the horizon that the elite want to survive and use to their advantage.

1) Peak Oil.

2) Climate Collapse.

3) Overpopulation.

It doesn't take a genius to guess their strategy, they are not lizards, they are not devil worshipers. They are just very selfish and ruthless men, I know, I've met a few. They know what's in the future, they are well informed and whatever happens they want to "come out on top".