How Far Will The Crash Go and What Do We Do Now?
The “Crash of 2007-8” is underway
by Richard C. Cook
Global Research, August 18, 2007
The immediate triggers are being described quite well: the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market; the vulnerability of the rest of the economy to the subprime undertow, due to the “efficiency” of the markets in spreading risk; the worldwide overextension of cheap credit; the failure of large institutional investors and Wall Street brokerages to behave responsibly; and the long-term effects of the U.S. trade and fiscal deficits which are now coming home to roost.
Amazingly, some commentators have been asking “if the monetary crisis will affect the producing economy,” and whether a recession lies ahead. In reality, the U.S. producing economy has been in a recession for the last year. This is shown most clearly by the decline in M1, the portion of the money supply immediately available to people for making purchases.
The causes of the M1 decline are two-fold. One is the weak purchasing power of American consumers, at least half of whose decently-paying manufacturing jobs have been eliminated by the outsourcing, mergers, and productivity improvements during the past two decades. The other is that while many of the U.S. corporations not connected to housing have been doing all right, their success has been tied to overseas investments and sales, such as GE and GM who are heavily invested in China.
This type of business activity props up the stock prices of these global corporations but does little for the working American. The presumption that overflow earnings from stockholders will benefit the rest of our domestic economy is the essence of “trickle-down,” supply-side economics and is part of the justification for the system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.
But as Barron’s reported earlier this year, much of the profits from the global corporations are being held as retained earnings for future growth, rather than being passed on to stockholders as dividends. Because of the heavy debt load corporations carry today, they are all in a grow-or-die mode. Again, the result is deficient purchasing power which works to negate the already dubious trickle-down effect.
The recession has been masked by four factors: 1) the government’s phony GDP numbers, where the “churning” of financial transactions masquerade as production; 2) the froth on the stock market that took the Dow Jones Average (DJA) from a little over 11,000 to a record-breaking 14,000 during a one-year period that ended with the decline that began in mid-July; 2) the propensity of the American consumer, which is now ending, to continue to buy goods and services on credit, including necessities of life like health care; and 3) modest growth in low-paying service economy jobs, which also may be coming to an end.
These lesser bubbles have mirrored the big ones that are bursting as lenders lose confidence in the ability of borrowers to repay. These are the housing bubble, affecting consumers; the acquisition bubble, affecting equity funds; and the speculation bubble, affecting hedge funds.
As the house of cards comes tumbling down, the leading question on financial websites and blogs is how deep will the decline go. Will it stop at the level of the recessions of previous decades, including 2000-2002, with a decline that is reflected in the DJA of somewhere around thirty-five percent from its peak? Or will it be the “Armageddon” scenario which would take us to depression-level conditions? Of course there are multiple possibilities based on a decline somewhere between a recession and a depression that would share some of the characteristics of each.
Muddying the waters is the fact that the DJA is much less reliable as a measure of economic health today than in the past. This is because today the vast majority of financial transactions now take place within the furtive secrecy of the equity, hedge, and derivative markets. No one really knows what is going on, except that on any given day an announcement is made that another fund or company has been wiped out.
Neither the Federal Reserve nor the U.S. government believes they have an obligation to gather or publish data that will help the public gauge the effects of these crises on their homes or jobs. Some might call this negligence a crime against democracy. In fact the Federal Reserve made tracking even more difficult by ceasing to report the M3 macro-currency numbers, but researchers have shown that growth in M3 is soaring while M1 goes down.
What appears to be happening right now is that the Federal Reserve, which oversees the U.S. economy on behalf of the financial, corporate, and government elites, is deliberately trying to squeeze as much debt out of the economy as it can. It is doing this with interest rates that are high relative to actual conditions, while trying to avoid the Armageddon scenario.
The Fed is carrying out its “soft-landing” policy by holding credit tight while introducing “liquidity” into the markets on a day-by-day basis through use of overnight “repos” and by cutting the discount rate for bank borrowing. Conservative columnists like George Will and Bob Novak watch and shake their pom-poms from the sidelines.
But “liquidity” is just a fancy name for more loans. The one thing we can be certain of is that every loan bears interest charges which someday, somehow, will have to be paid by a person who works for a living.
And if you wondered where the Fed got the $34 billion in liquidity it pumped into the markets on Friday, August 10, you weren’t the only one. The answer is that the Fed has a secret room upstairs where it keeps a large “printing press.” It’s legalized counterfeiting, but as with any counterfeit money, if people accept it in trade it acts just like the real stuff—for a while.
The danger, which many commentators are pointing to, is that the Fed will ignite a hyperinflation, which may be what is happening and may actually be intentional because it devalues debt. It’s what happens when debt is used to pay off debt and is in fact an invisible tax. Such inflation is difficult to discern, again because of the government’s rigged statistics. The most important indicator to watch is the price of oil, which doesn’t show up in “core inflation.”
But there are signs that the “soft landing” is working, such as a modest increase in U.S. exports. Reflecting the weak dollar, China is now charging more for its own exports, which will stimulate our industry here at home. And the Fed’s discount rate cut last Friday sparked a modest stock market rally.
Meanwhile, there is a debate over whether quasi-public agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be used to spread the housing market losses across the entire taxpaying population. While society as a whole is made poorer, many individuals who might have lost their homes or jobs are spared some pain. So it’s hard to argue against it. But this type of bail-out would benefit individual homeowners more than the big banks, so the conservative politicians and commentators oppose it.
But there’s a bigger picture. The strategy of the Fed is likely to allow the recession to proceed but it does want to get the economy moving again before the downturn goes too far. In fact they probably plan to do it in time for the 2008 presidential election.
The Fed wants to see a recovery in place by then so the American public will go back to sleep and elect another politician who will steadfastly protect the privileges and powers of the magnates who, through the Fed, rule the world. Even if a new president has some progressive ideas, he or she won’t be able to alter much if a recovery has started.
The “soft landing” is a political power play.
It’s what they did in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was reelected on a campaign theme of “It’s morning in America,” after the Fed let up following the twenty percent-plus rates it used to trash the producing economy from 1979-83. The Fed did the same with the housing bubble to get George W. Bush reelected in 2004.
The financiers’ worst fear is that if things get too bad the American people might elect a reformer in 2008. So far the corporate press has kept two such reformers—Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich—in the shadows. Now that Hillary Clinton is starting to sound more progressive, they’ll attack her overtly since she is too big a player to be ignored. The Washington Post has already begun.
So we’ll see if the Fed’s plan succeeds as well over the next couple of years as it has in the past. In the meantime, what remains firmly in place is the monetarist regime through which the financiers and the Fed have ruled America for the past thirty-six years, since President Richard Nixon closed the gold window for international exchange in 1971.
During this period, we have seen several interlocking phenomena:
- interest rates that on the whole have been much higher than the previous period of the New Deal and its aftermath, lasting into the 1960s;
-
inflation that has eroded eighty percent of the value of the dollar;
- replacement of our producing industrial economy with a service economy dominated by high finance;
- almost continuous warfare with a clear objective of world domination whose purpose is to shore up the dollar as the world’s reserve currency;
- ever-deepening public, private, and household debt;
-
the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, with increasing numbers of the poor, homeless, and hungry who are left out of the nation’s economic life;
-
a crisis in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure; and
- the constant whipsawing of over 200 million ordinary people.
It’s our citizens who are batted around like ping pong balls between alternating conditions of boom and bust as every few years many of them watch the overnight disappearance of their homes, pensions, savings, health insurance, and jobs. Added to this is the stress that has eroded the health and even life expectancy of the U.S. population.
It’s a horrible picture created by a filthy system. It’s why religious leaders for thousands of years have characterized usury, and a culture ruled by usury, as a crime against God and humanity. The monetarist rule of the Federal Reserve is legal, institutionalized usury.
Over the years they have mastered all the tools of the trade, the objective of which is to continually allow the financial superstructure to skim the cream off the producing economy. Come to think of it, isn’t that how the Mafia used to work with its protection and loan-sharking rackets?
And can anything be done about it? Of course.
In previous articles on the Global Research website and elsewhere, this writer has offered a list of reforms—mostly monetary—that can and should be made. They all involve the recognition of credit as a public utility, part of the societal commons, not the private playground of the financiers, with the Fed as their facilitator.
Low-cost credit overseen by the federal government was the basic building block of the New Deal. It was done by strong people with an ideal of public service, though in many respects they didn’t go far enough and relied too much on World War II and armaments to attain a full-employment economy.
We now need a New Deal for the 21st century that would correct the flaws of the last one, resolve the present crisis, and carry us into a future that will benefit everyone, not just the privileged few.
Richard C. Cook is a retired federal analyst, whose career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department. His articles on monetary reform, economics, and space policy have appeared on Global Research, Economy in Crisis, Dissident Voice, Atlantic Free Press, and elsewhere. He is the author of “Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age.” His website is at www.richardccook.com.
I took the liberty of highlighting a few statements that I thought were particularly important - though the whole post is worth reading to the end.
Also, there is an important monetery reform conference being held this September in Chicago by the American Monetary Institute.
It's Sept. 27-30 and there is an incredible line up of knowledgeable speakers who will present practical solutions for our monetary system going forward.
I will try my best to attend.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
This is an interesting article but is incorrect in one or two of its assertions - in respect of the repos entered into by the Fed to prop up the banks.
The article says "$34 billion in liquidity it pumped into the markets on Friday, August 10" was 'counterfeit'. Actually, under the laws of the US the Fed is the entity responsible for the issuance of the money supply, so when it puts further credit into supply it is not committing fraud or issuing counterfeit credit. We can ask the question "Should the Fed be doing this", which is far deeper and wide ranging (and the answer is No!)
The reason the Fed is entering into overnight Repo transaction with the 'bulge' banks as follows: These banks have got into a real mess with their Tier 2 and Tier 3 capital. This capital, under the New Capital Accord, is allowed to be held in the form of realisable assets. However, when the assets started melting down and the markets became illiquid, all the assets in this class positively correlated, making the entire asset class illiquid. This in turn caused greater skew in the capital allocation models. And this in turn led to contagion across other asset classes, because that banks' internal portfolios had become an unquantified and unquantifiable mess (portfolio theory becomes domino reality). As a result, the risk and capital allocation systems in all the banks are now completely trashed. The banks do not know either a) how much capital they should be holding or b) how much capital they've actually got.
Hence Ben and his overnight repos. The Fed has been buying these illiquid assets on an overnight basis, so the banks can actually declare that they are holding cash as part of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital requirements. Ben got a trouncing for this course of action in the City of London and financial markets elsewhere because it is similar to the 'student' approach to decorating. Meaning, where there is a hole in the plasterwork, rather than fill in and repaint the wall, we simply put a nice poster of Che Guvara over it.
Given that more and more of the CDO asset class is going bust on a daily basis, the correlation to 1 of these assets has turned out to be a mathematical prophecy.
As for fixing this situation... well that costs money.
Respectfully,
Muhammad
Strange how economic “reformers” never mention the one idea that would make a difference: the elimination of private central control of banks, currency, and interest.
The Fed, of course, is a private for-profit entity, accountable to no one except to the financial con-game it sustains. It deliberately brought about the Great Depression, which caused most people to starve, but allowed David Rockefeller (a banking insider) to increase his personal fortune from $3 million to over $100 million. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” put some people to work temporarily, but again the Fed was the master.
We need a public and transparent system of currency and banking, like the American colonies had before Jewish bankers in England moved to crush the system (which in turn sparked the War Of Independence). The people who run such a system should be elected, without voting machines. If they trash the economy for personal gain –as the Jews of the Fed do – they could be voted out. Public / transparent control would mean that enough currency is circulated to keep the economy humming, but not so much as to cause hyperinflation.
Today’s private gangster-bankers (mostly Jewish) conjure up as much money as they need for any purpose. They do it with the touch of a computer button. This has allowed Jews to gain ownership of most corporations in most western nations. It also eliminates competition from Gentiles, since no one can compete with a party that has unlimited supplies of money. And since Jews only help their own kind, they prosper, while everyone else serves them.
By the way, Muhammad-Rafeeq wrote, “Under the laws of the US, the Fed is responsible for the issuance of the money supply, so when it puts further credit into supply, it is not committing fraud or issuing counterfeit credit.”
I disagree.
All private banking systems, including the Fed, are fraudulent, for they claim to seek the welfare of the state, when in fact they seek the welfare of themselves. Any “service” they do for the state is only to keep the entire scam going.
Regarding the “laws of the U.S.,” those who control the money supply control the laws.
And of course we must adopt the Islamic idea of having no capital lent at interest. The Catholic Church forbade interest during the first few centuries of its existence, but Jewish moneylenders gradually infiltrated it, and brought about changes in "God's laws." Now the church is the same as all other transnational entities.
Most people cannot imagine a world in which there is little or no debt, a world not controlled by private central banks. In 1996 I saw a “Star Trek” movie titled “First Contact” in which the main characters go back in time. One character tells a woman from the past that in the future, people work to “better themselves,” rather than work for monetary gain. Everyone in the theatre audience chuckled. Moviegoers could believe any fantasy, but they could not imagine a world without private (and Jewish) control of banking and currency.
Incidentally, private control means that U.S. financial aid to ziostan (israel) is irrelevant, since that money comes out of thin air. It is simply ones and zeroes in the computer networks of central banks. The gangsters put a billion dollars in someone’s pocket at will. They are constrained only by the need to be prudent, lest they cause too much inflation, or become exposed to the public.
P-R-I-V-A-T-E.
It’s a seven-letter word. Engrave it on your mind. Unless it is addressed, all chatter about “reform” is just chatter, and will change nothing.
Hi there thx1138,
Please have a closer look at what I wrote and you will see that I said that the Fed, as you correctly point out a privately owned institution, should NOT be creating the credit.
As for their position in respect of counterfeiting. At the present time they are legally empowered by the US government to create all credit. Therefore, when they create any credit they are technically not acting illegally and most certainly are not counterfeiting. Counterfeiting money and/or credit can only be done by person(s) not legally entitled to do so.
Therefore the claim in the original article of counterfeit is technically incorrect.
This issue is about who is legally empowered by government to issue credit or fiduciary, thereby determining who is a criminal and who is not, in terms of the existing law.
As for interest free credit, OBVIOUSLY! This point is not even up for debate.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
A most informative and insightful post. I find it fascinating how the ones born from 1965 and on, how low the numbers of these able to afford a home compared to, say their fathers and grandfathers. I am surrounded by people in my age group and then so many born in the 70s, even 80s, who live with their parents or rent apartments. So many just getting by.
So many jobs not plentiful anymore. Big companies don't hire full time, so they don't have to pay out benefits. It's who you know, not so much your skills anymore. And not many can afford to go to college or university to get those skills. My cousin is shelling out 5,000 plus to go to school at Wayne State University for just the one semester.....but there is 6 and 1/2 semesters to go....
Back in 1986 I paid 700 for my first semester [first year] at a University in Canada. By 1990, tuition fees climbed to over 900 per semester. I am not including books and other expenses, of course.
All that time, my job's wages hardly matched the rise of tuition.
Such a farce.
The thing is, in the 80s, we didn't realize how bad it would get, job-wise, bank-wise. I have had many rows with bank idiots in past years. I have now fixed my account so that I don't get charged those sickening fees.
Why the hell should I pay THEM to keep MY money?
If I could turn back time, I would hardly spend any of my money. Who did I feed? Who did I make rich and secure? Certainly not myself. So many of us were so dumb.
USURY- a diabolical force that the people must put an end to somehow.
Yes, education has become impossibly expensive – for Gentiles. Jews, of course, are admitted to any college they choose, and have their student loans magically erased. When they are done with school they easily get jobs, since Jews own the corporations, and hire their own.
Who can expose them? Jews would simply cry, “anti-Semitism,” or pay someone to kill whoever exposed them. They have unlimited amounts of money, since they own the central bank (the Fed). No matter how big your army, they can buy a bigger army. If you refuse to take their money, there are millions of other people who will take it, and will eliminate you, plus your family, your city, and your entire country if necessary. It’s been done several times before. Their power is absolute, and can never be discussed. And since the bankers create money out of thin air, they can change any law, and perpetrate vicious hoaxes such as the “holocaust.”
Some people say the problem is that Jews own the media, but Jewish bankers produced the money for Jews to buy all the media outlets. This was made possible by the Telecommunications Act (also signed in 1994). The problem is central private control. Those who control the money control human energy, and thus control the planet.
You wrote, “In the 80s, we didn't realize how bad it would get, job-wise, bank-wise.”
Most of us in the 1980s were horrified by “merger mania,” in which a fourth of all corporations (using Jewish money) bought the other three-fourths. Science fiction movies from the 1980s depicted a future in which there were no countries. Instead, there was “the company” or “the corporation.” The end of the 1980s brought “free trade,” which central bankers use to further consolidate their power on a global basis. The mass waves of illegal immigration into the USA were started by NAFTA (signed in 1994), which allowed large private interests in Mexico (again backed by Jewish money) to buy all smaller interests, wiping out jobs. Today if you are female in Mexico, you work in the sweatshops (maquiladoras). If you are male, you go north. Even the maquiladoras are disappearing, since corporations keep moving to whichever country has the cheapest labor.
We can’t win, since Gentiles prefer slavery. We are together in a dungeon, with Jews as our jailers. We are in “the matrix.” All we can do is understand the problem, and treat our fellow inmates with kindness. We must find what love and beauty we can.
Muhammad,
You are correct when you point out that legally speaking the Fed is not counterfeiting. However, their "right" to print money and to issue credit was obtained by deception and trickery and as such morally speaking they are counterfeiting.
Hi there Sullivan,
The right to create credit by the Fed was not achieved using deception and trickery. It was actually achieved through murder, intimidation, kidnap and blackmail. It involved a constitutional amendment and the approval of congress, all of whom submitted under to intimidation or blackmail. Those who didn't were 'accidented'.
And technically the phrase 'morally counterfeiting' is wrong, because they cannot copy themselves and counterfeit implies copying. What they are doing is immoral but who is the greater criminal; the producers of this credit or those posers paid to represent the people whom allowed them to get away with it?
More importantly, given the trillions of dollars involved, do you think these guys will blink for even a heartbeat, at murdering you, me or anyone to keep their grip on this position? Of course not - it's not even personal, it's just business. This is why I am not a monetary reformer.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
I beg to differ on that, although I don't deny that murder, intimidation, kidnap and blackmail were not also a part of the picture.
The legislation to establish the "Federal" reserve and the "Federal" income tax was pushed through the Houses of Congress during a Christmas break when it was pretty much guaranteed that senators and representatives would be at home with their families. That qualifies as trickery in my book.
$4.5 billion options bet on catastrophe within four weeks
The fractional reserve central banks of the world are nothing more than thinly veiled counterfeiting monopolies that enforce their privilege bribery and assassination.
These frankist sabbiteans don't even follow the old jewish usury rules of jubilee. Instead, they collapse their fiat money on 100 year intervals and profit from the chaos.
It's time to let this system collapse.
Embattled company ups the ante with own currency
Definitely deception and trickery. Definitely counterfeiting. How else does such a small group of bloodless creatures amass such fantastic wealth? You just don't take that kind of money from people without swindling and two-faced back-stabbing. You just don't! Deception: leaving trails that end nowhere. Murder and kidnapping are harder to hide, although I don't doubt the occurences, no sir! Besides, swindling people out of their money is just as dangerous and violent as murder. Where else does murder result, among other things? But when you have the media on your side you can hide anything and fool anybody. When you gain such power through monetary wealth you CAN buy people, you CAN intimidate anyone, and you CAN get away with almost anything.
Mel Gibson is a case in point. Dolly Parton is a case in point. Marlon Brando is a case in point. They all had to apologize to their bread and butter makers for saying the truth about zionist handlings to the press. The only person {that I know of} that wouldn't back down is Vanessa Redgrave. And even SHE couldn't say all that she would like to say about what she had experienced in Lebanon in Palestine! Her movie, The Palestinian, seems to have disappeared mysteriously as of the mid-80s. That's gotta be some kind of power to shut people up like that. Pure solid money power!
Ellendra Jane
Hi there Sullivan,
If the Federal Reserve Act, which established the Fed, had been done on the quiet there would have been a major row about it!!!
I don't understand what you are trying to say, that everyone was on holiday at the time of the votes and so the Act was snuck in?
This is absolute nonsense man. The whole central banking thing had been raging in the US for more than 10 years. The first draft of the Act had been submitted to congress in January 1912, and was eventually voted in in December 1913, after 2 years of debate.
What is sneaky or deceptive about that?
Look at what Wikipedia says about how many persons were in attendance at the actual vote:
"After months of debates, votes and amendments, the proposed legislation, with 30 sections, was enacted as the Federal Reserve Act. The House, on December 22, 1912, agreed to the conference report on the Federal Reserve Act by a vote of 298 yeas to 60 nays with 76 not voting. The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting. The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting on the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions."
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act)
Your view is diametrically opposed by the known and well documented historical facts.
What you need to be able to answer is why no Democrats actually voted "No" in the Senate and only 2 voted "No" in the House?
What happened to them that made them vote in the same direction? Answer, Intimidation, Murder and Blackmail.
To even suggest they did not know what was going on in December 1913 is flagrant rubbish. If they really thought the issue was important they could have been there and also they could have blocked it.
Don't try to exonerate these political criminals, they should have resigned rather than succumb to what they did. Instead they left an evil monster for the rest of us to deal with.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
I rarely use it except for trivia and entertainment.
That's all it's really good for.
"We can’t win, since Gentiles prefer slavery. We are together in a dungeon, with Jews as our jailers. We are in “the matrix.” All we can do is understand the problem, and treat our fellow inmates with kindness. We must find what love and beauty we can."
There is something there in what you say.
BTW The Matrix and THX1138 are on tonight.
I can't get the THX cuz it's on a cable channel I don't get.
And Masher, I have been reading the transcript of this 70's movie:
VOICE
You are a true believer.
Blessings of the state. Blessings of the masses. Thou art a subject of the
divine. Created in the image of
man, by man, for man. Let us be
thankful we have commerce. Buy more. Buy more now. Buy more and be happy.
http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/thx1138.txt
The ending reminds me of the Truman Show.
"For more Enjoyment And Greater Efficiency Consumption is being standardized We are sorry"
First you take D.C. Then you take New York (:
For those who have seen that horrific movie, each of us is the character “THX 1138” -- nameless entities in an infinite machine that regards us as disposable commodities. In the world of THX, everyone is required from birth to constantly take drugs that inhibit emotions, love, compassion, sexual desire, or feelings of any kind. (In our own world, the drug is Godless consumerism.) Items are purchased and immediately dropped into a trash disposer. Babies are grown in jars. Industrial accidents kill hundreds of people, yet everyone shrugs and resumes toiling. Anyone who violates a law is disposed of; and has his or her organs recycled. There are no villains, no heroes, and no tyrant -- there is only the Machine. How did it start? Where does it end? What is its purpose? Who controls it? No one knows. Everything is based on advanced technology, yet nothing makes sense. It’s a sterile slaughterhouse in which robot policemen reassure their victims that, “We are only here to help.”
I first saw that movie thirty years ago, and have never stopped thinking about it.
“Take four red capsules. In ten minutes take two more. Help is on the way!"
Spanked my cranium into reality when i was a kid. I saw that film when i was young and helping my father haul freight. And i saw it through the monitor window at the theater we delivered the large cans of film to and i KNEW then that the TV was not MY friend. It could not be trusted. It was not real. And most crave it like a drug.
The THX-1138 unit used it. All willing machine participants have elements of THX-1138 need to be TOLD what normal is.
THX-1138 was released from the machine and even felt some loss upon LUH's intervention But the joy of reality carries THX right into the DIRECT SUNLIGHT for his first time.
What JOY he must feel right at the final credits as he beholds the setting sun for his first time EVER. As he sees a bird for the first time!
I Would Crave this view.
And i KNOW the REAL sunrise for us all is much the same as THX-1138's first real view of ENLIGHTENMENT and Self.
Crave your return to your VIEW because it is all you need to lead you home.
First you take D.C. Then you take New York (:
A new Series is on the net.
Wanna try
First you take D.C. Then you take New York
The Overdue Response
Hi there Rhiannon,
I feel like Brian from Monty Python's The Life of Brian. If I gave you the quotes for my research from books, people complain, 'Oh, how can we be sure of this?'. So, I produced web-based reference sources so that people can check for themselves and then they say 'Oh I don't trust this'.
Yes Rhiannon, I have also read about evil groups editing Wikipedia to their own ends. However, when somebody puts something false up there, people who are well informed about the specific subject start complaining and raising the issue.
This is extremely helpful to us because it gives insight into how the other side is thinking. Which information they wish to control and mislead people with.
Given that the Federal Reserve Act information that I have posted, in respect of dates and political attendances to votes is a matter of PUBLIC record, the mainstream university historians would rip the Wikipedia entry apart if it did not match the facts. A study of the dates published on the Fed's own website confirms the dates relating to the Acts.
You can get to those links to the Fed's own history pages yourself. I have done enough and as far as I am concerned the position is fully established.
Remember, you must provide EVIDENCE for what I have said is being incorrect. If you can't do this then the facts stand. You cannot just say "Oh I don't trust your source", especially when the source is public, debatable, and verifiable.
Also this subject, the history of the Act, is such a well established set of events even the other side don't deny this part of the story.
What they (the banksters) deny is that during the 2 YEARS OF DEBATES in the US government institutions, the opposers to the bill were steadily worn down during that time, till the consensus on the final vote was achieved.
Just think about it, there was initially so much opposition to the act when first presented in January 1912, that it took the proposers of the bill 2 YEARS to 'convince' that opposition movement to wholesale vote otherwise. That's a lot of opposition and a lot of flip-flopping.
As for the reason I quoted this part of the saga of the Fed, it was to establish the fact that it was NOT created in secret without both the main US political parties knowledge. Sullivan claimed the process was secret and deception. It clearly was not secret and not deception. So he was wrong, accept it and move on.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
"Sullivan claimed the process was secret and deception. It clearly was not secret and not deception. So he was wrong, accept it and move on."
Nice.
Wikepedia can be edited. It is run by zionists. Sullivan is actually not wrong. Nor was he wrong about December 23, 1913.
Your Wikepedia "facts" mean nothing to me. Great for entertainment though.
So no, I will not accept it and move on.
Respectfully,
Rhiannon
Okay, since you don't want the Wikipedia version, here is a version complete with the congressional references from an US economics professor. He completely disproves this 'illegal Act' theory, which has bounced around for years. It is clear from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that the subject of the act was fully debated by US politicians of the day.
Therefore, again, pedantically even, THERE WAS NOTHING SECRET ABOUT HOW THE FED CAME INTO BEING. All the politicians of both sides knew about the (Aldrich) bill, that was a source of debate for 2 years.
If after this you don't want to accept that Sullivan's unsubstantiated claim was wrong, and you don't want to accept basic historical facts and move on that's your choice, but don't expect me to bother debating with you in future.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
BY: Edward Flaherty, Ph.D. Department of Economics College of Charleston, S.C.
The silliest of the Federal Reserve conspiracy theories is that the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913 passed illegally. The constitution stipulates that both the House and the Senate must have at least half their members present, a quorum, to vote on any bill. According to this myth, the Senate voted on the Federal Reserve Act (known as the Currency Bill at the time) deviously in a late night session when most of its members had gone home or had left town for the holiday. This was done to impose the will of a pro-banker minority on the objecting majority. Since no quorum was present, the Federal Reserve Act is not valid.
This idea is better described as folklore than a full-blown conspiracy theory because I've never been able to find it in print, only on occasion on Usenet or in e-mail from readers. Gary Kah, author of En Route to Global Occupation, came close when he wrote that the bill's supporters waited until its opponents were out of town and it was passed under "suspicious circumstances" (Kah, p. 13-14).
Nevertheless, the myth has no basis in fact. The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913.3 The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm.4
What of the missing Senators? Since there were 48 states in 1913, forty eight votes plus the tie-breaking vote of vice-President Thomas Marshall would have been sufficient to approve the bill even if all absent votes had been cast against the bill. However, many of the missing Senators had their positions recorded in the Congressional Record.1 Of the 27 votes not cast, there were 11 'yeas' (in favor of the bill) and 12 'nays.'1 Even if the absentee Senators had been there, the Currency Bill would have passed easily.
President Wilson signed the Currency Bill into law in an "enthusiastic" public ceremony on Dec. 23, 1913.4
References:
1. Congressional Record, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, Dec. 23, 1913, pp. 1487-1488.
2. Kah, Gary (1991), En Route to Global Occupation, Layfayette, La.: Huntington Press.
3. "Money bill goes to Wilson today," New York Times, pp. 1-3, Dec. 23, 1913.
4. "Wilson signs currency bill," New York Times, pp. 1-2, Dec. 24, 1913.
What. "facts" by the Fed itself? My my my, such UNLAZY "facts" YOU present.
A US economics professor? Whoa. I am so impressed.
If Congress is so comfy cozy about how there was no SECRET manipulations on bringing about the Federal Reserve Act, then why such a heavy debate "by the US politicians of the day?" - as you say.
Sullivan is not wrong and you are sounding like a troublesome fanatic about knowledge that is NOT fool proof.
Embrace your Edward Flaherty with a Ph.D....for all that I care... I am sure he belongs and/or rubs shoulders with the zio-tribe who believes Lebanon's children deserved a murderous bashing last year, by ziostan/israel - the same tribe that is lynching the career of Norman Finkelstein.......
The New York Times?
Huntington Press?
Oh please.
Gee, thanks for telling me it's my choice. I keep needing reminding.
Don't expect you to debate with me in the future?
Get over yourself.
You imply that Congress passed the Fed and the Income Tax with was no secrecy whatever. Wow.
Prior to that, I suppose there was no secret meeting at Jekyl Island between the seven big money changes of the day. I suppose there was no secrecy in Paul Warberg's (World War I head of German Intelligence) shipment of gold to his “enemies” the (Jewish-led) Bolsheviks.
In fact, private central banks have never involved any secrecy at all, have they?
It’s true that American law requires corporations to publicly list their officers, but since 1983 the officers of the Federal Reserve member banks (which are private corporations) have been cloaked in secrecy, but this is not secrecy. Right?
The Fed is the biggest, most evil, most powerful, most criminal scam ever conceived -- but it has involved no secrecy or trickery at any point from its inception to today.
Right?
I meant to say Max Warburg, the head of German Intelligence. Paul Warburg (Max's brother) helped set up the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Another Jew who was in on the banking scam was William Wiseman, the head of British intelligence in Washington during World War I.
Again, none of these Jews ever did anything in secret.
I do not trade insults. You refuse to accept evidence from Wikepedia, maybe this can be acceptable at times. You refuse to accept evidence from lecturers quoting the congressional record, this does not bear up.
Not only that but you ridicule this lecturer, knowing nothing about him, casting aspersions on his character and claim that he probably rubs shoulders with zionists. You have no evidence to support any of these allegations. This is utterly disgraceful conduct on anybody's part. If you have EVIDENCE of this man, who I have never met in my life and know nothing about him except his position, then please share it.
If you have no evidence about him and do not even know him then you have slandered him.
Most likely you did not know that Sullivan, probably by accident, was propagating a well known falsehood circulated by the banksters to remove credibility from their detractors; no problem about that.
But when evidence is produced then the choices are to accept it or find evidence to the contrary. Sullivan has provided no evidence or support for his claim. When I produced evidence you refused to accept the evidence and continued to accept Sullivan's unsupported claim.
I can only assume that you have personal reasons for keeping this position, for it is untenable. Hopefully you do not discount the evidence I put forward just because I am a Muslim. Hopefully you are not acting just out of emotion. You are certainly not acting with logic however.
Respetfully,
Muhammad.
Hi there thx1138,
You say:
"It’s true that American law requires corporations to publicly list their officers, but since 1983 the officers of the Federal Reserve member banks (which are private corporations) have been cloaked in secrecy, but this is not secrecy. Right?"
The biggest Member bank of the reserve system is the Federal Bank of New York:
Here is the organisation chart:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/org_chart.html
What is secret about that? All the officers are listed and you will find the same is true for all the other reserve member banks - the senior management is a matter of public record.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
You said:
"You imply that Congress passed the Fed and the Income Tax with was no secrecy whatever. Wow."
1) I have never discussed tax law in the US and have no intention of so doing - ever - it does not interest me.
2) The passing of the Federal Reserve Act and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in law were PUBLIC actions. Performed in public, documented in public.
The FACT is that I state that INTIMIDATION, BLACKMAIL and MURDER were used to get senators etc to vote this way. These actions were certainly not carried out in public for OBVIOUS reasons.
You said:
"Prior to that, I suppose there was no secret meeting at Jekyl Island between the seven big money changes of the day. I suppose there was no secrecy in Paul Warberg's (World War I head of German Intelligence) shipment of gold to his “enemies” the (Jewish-led) Bolsheviks."
Of course there was a meeting at Jekyll Island. There were probably hundreds of secret meetings about creating a central bank in the US. But the passing of the Federal Reserve Act, which created the bank, was NOT a secret process. It was a very open government procedure, like passing all legislative acts is. Sullivan claimed that the bank was created in secret, but it clearly wasn't.
Think about it. Eventually all those Jekyll type meetings had to culminate in the creation of a national central bank. At some point the conspiracy had to come to senate and congress, in the end wearing the face of the Aldrich bill. The conspiracy was about how to get the very public bill passed into an act. For this purpose they resorted to MURDER, BLACKMAIL and INITIMIDATION of senators and congressmen. If those senators and congressmen had stayed together and gone public with what was happening to them, the conspiracy would have been foiled.
"In fact, private central banks have never involved any secrecy at all, have they?"
The Bank of England, before the creation of the Euro,was in fact covered by the Official Secrets Act in English law!
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
Thanks --yes I know that each of the twelve member banks in the Fed has a web site. Indeed, the U.S. President appoints the Board of Governors, buy they’re merely window dressing. Even the zionist jews that own Wikipedia concede that the board of governors partially oversees the Fed.
I meant the overall board membership. I would be grateful if you can find any source that lists overall stockholders (foreign and domestic) in Federal Reserve member banks.
One more thing: obviously the creation of the Fed was a public act, since Congress created it. I interpret Sullivan to mean that the final vote in Congress was taken quickly and discreetly, at a time when most congressmen were eager to get home for Christmas. It was timed so it could (in effect) be "snuck through." No, it was not a surprise. Debate over monetaery policy was common in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, the manner in which the final vote was taken seems furtive.
As far as the Fed's overall legality, doesn't Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution say Congress shall have power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures"? The Constitution does not give this power to a private cartel such as the Fed.
Thanks for reading.
Hi there thx1138,
The reading of your comments is a pleasure.
You: "Even the zionist jews that own Wikipedia concede that the board of governors partially oversees the Fed."
Me: Correct, it is an 'oversight committee' and according to the official Fed interpretation the committee is not allowed to influence the Governor (Chairman) and the actual Fed board. It is only allowed to make sure that the Governor and board act within their remit. Also, officially, the member banks are not allowed to individually try to direct the Governor and the board, since this may be to the benefit of one member and the detriment to other members.
You: "I meant the overall board membership. I would be grateful if you can find any source that lists overall stockholders (foreign and domestic) in Federal Reserve member banks."
Me: The shares in the Fed itself are only owned by the member banks and no-one else. The Federal Reserve Act prevents any other party from owning the shares. This is why this post is total rubbish:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3334
The actual shareholdings in the Fed are again a matter of public record. The banksters love these false trails because when you go up against them in a conference or public venue they can ridicule your claims - I've seen it done many times.
As for the shareholdings in the member banks: For those banks that are quoted it is possible to apply to the governing exchange. For those private banks all of this information, going back over decades, has been available for persons wishing to pay for it. Usually this is other banks who need to assess the worthiness of other banks for credit purposes. A classic tool for this purpose is Bankscope, which lists all the information you require above.
http://www.bvdep.com/en/bankscope.html
Never believe anyone who tells you this stuff is secret, it is merely private and has always been available.
You: "It was timed so it could (in effect) be "snuck through." No, it was not a surprise. Debate over monetaery policy was common in the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, the manner in which the final vote was taken seems furtive."
Me: The final vote timing issue is a smokescreen. It draws attention away from the result of the vote. No-one voted against the bill in the end, but 23 months earlier it was almost wholsesale rejected. When the Aldrich bill was first submitted it contained 59 clauses, the final version voted in as an Act contained something like 35 clauses. Look how many concessions they had to make to win some sceptics over. But even this was not enough for those senators and congressmen who adamantly refused to budge - on the grounds that the bill violated the constitution. That's the real issue here. Why did these guys flip-flop.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
You do not trade insults?
By pulling me into a stupid argument with you by saying:
“get over it and move on”
I would call extremely insulting – AS IF you didn’t know.
Your reasoning is incredibly LIMITED. And the narrow minded logic you present reminds me that of a child throwing a tantrum.
Because you are Muslim I respond “emotionally” as you claim??
And you also claim I am not using logic?
Oh, sweetie, DO get over yourself! It seems to me the ones who respond with exactly the logic you wish to have at times – you call these people emotional. But you lack emotion as you are cold and sterile with some of your comments. This undermines a lot of what you say.
Sullivan’s unsupported claim?
I find it hilarious how you divide the words: Murder, Kidnapping, Intimidation, Deception, and Secrecy into two camps! All for the sake that your wikepedia garbage and your New York Times and Huntington Press nonsense, and Flaherty crap is right and the logic and of THX1138, Sullivan and myself is “emotionally” wrong and unfounded.
Murder, kidnapping usually do sprout from the root actions and behaviors of DECEPTION AND SECRECY - is it possible for that to seep into your sterilized transom?
Because you are a Muslim I don’t agree with you? Now who is sobbing with uncontrollable emotion here?
What does you having to be a Muslim have to do with anything we are saying on the subject of the Federal Reserve?
As for the evidence you require about your Flaherty, you are changing the subject.
REMEMBER! The Federal Reserve, 9/11, and so many more like these events are SCAMS brought on by the Zionist elite – regardless of the “faith” they attach themselves too.
Since Flaherty denies any secrecy and deception of the creation of the Federal Reserve Act, why the hell should I believe his character is worth a retracting of my opinion of this person?
Your logic right now and here is so half-assed and so cold and sterile that I am beginning to lose TOTAL RESPECT for any of your posts and blogs. REALLY FAST!
Respectfully,
Rhiannon!
-----------------------------
And do take NOTE:
The NEW YORK TIMES
THE HUNTINGTON PRESS
WIKEPEDIA
ARE ALL OWNED AND OPERATED BY ZIONISTS.
Why should I believe a word they say about the Federal Reserve?
As I understand it, objectivity is meant to be sober and disparate, but never mind.
You still do not accept that Sullivan was wrong, yet you do not provide any evidence for this claim of his being right. He never put up any information for the source of his original claim either, which I dispute.
You claim I tried to draw you into an argument. Actually, I asked you to produce evidence of your or his claim, otherwise to move on, since there is nothing further to rationally discuss.
Yet you refused to produce evidence and also you refused to move on, dragging up the subject several more times without evidence.
However, if you felt that I was attempting to draw you into an argument by asking you to produce evidence or to move on, then that is a clear misunderstanding.
As you yourself have noted, I am far too boring and pedantic to have any emotions, and therefore am not even capable of an irrational argument. It is a scientific fact that the objective truth cannot be understood through emotions, but rather intellect.
For that reason I apologise to you unreservededly for any misunderstanding you may have had.
As for my treatment and my concerns about that. There is obviously some reason why you are treating me differently to Sullivan (he is right without supporting evidence, I am wrong no matter how much supporting evidence). You know nothing about me except my name, which implies my faith. You know nothing else about me on which to discriminate between my evidence and Sullivan's non evidence. I would be very happy for you to clarify what this factor of discrimination is.
Respectfully,
Muhammad
And I apologize that you even posted about Wikepedia as argument against Sullivan and then further brought forth ‘historical” facts from the Zionist sources of the FED itself, the New York Times and Huntington Press.
I apologize that you would ignore Sullivan’s stance that the Fed was DECEPTIVELY and SECRETIVELY brought forth to wreck havoc on a nation of people based on greed and power. [Oh my, the emotions are just a running!]
I apologize unreservedly for your misunderstanding of what people have been saying about the Federal Reserve and you are not big enough to realize that you are wrong when you, rafeek, play games with the words: deception, murder, kidnapping, secrecy, intimidation instead you offer ambiguous Zionist sources to support your notion of the LACK of secrecy and deception.
These words ALL apply to Zionism -- DECEPTION, FRAUD AND SECRECY being the root sicknesses of Zionism from which murder, torture and kidnapping sprout. But you want to play silly games and divide the words up to show how “intelligent?” you are [not anymore in my book] for some God awful reason – and I apologize for that also.
rafeek: "For that reason I apologise to you unreservededly for any misunderstanding you may have had".
________________________
A nice empty apology. Of course, I laugh at the apologies of the likes of people such as yourself because, naturally, you don’t mean them…you just say them to further insult the one you direct the “apology” to --- so that you may go on with your sterilized thought processes.
You are giving us Z-I-O-N-I-S-T sources – concerning the Federal Reserve. For this website this is QUITE a slap in the face, let alone an INSULT. Anything the Fed puts out and OTHER historical “facts” you put out are dubious.
Therefore your posts about the Federal Reserve are RUBBISH.
I have no misunderstandings. But I see that you are pathologically set on providing dubious material about votes, flip-flopping, and such.
NONE OF THIS takes away from the facts that the Federal Reserve was most assuredly brought forth upon America through lying, deception, secrecy, and fraud.
Discrimmination?
Whining again about religion - looking for something in my posts that are not there. For there is nothing in my posts that speak of disagreeing with you because you are a Muslim. So, if you want to keep up with this childish, and worn out, over-used tool to change the subject….. making this argument into something that it never was….if you are trying to get me on the defensive concerning religion, think again and twice more! Childish pranks you play here about me being discriminating because of religion is beyond nauseating.
I most sincerely did not want to enter into an argument with anyone.
I am sorry you do not accept my apology for any misunderstanding.
There are links everyday on this site every days to zionist owned mainstream news sources such as:
Neck Deep: The Real Colin Powell
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3374
Which quotes http://consortiumnews.com/2007/090607.html which in turn quotes "a full-page Washington Post ad"
The Israeli Lobby and How we got into Iraq
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3371
Which quotes the New York Times
UPDATE: Israeli warplanes bomb Syrian targets; Syria returns fire
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3368
Which quotes Associated Press and the BBC
The list goes on and on.
However, the worst of the lot in the current bunch (last few days) however is found in the comments to the following blog:
"Please Allow Me To Introduce Myself" - A Vulture Sweeps Over America (yes, your own post)
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3334
It contains a comment from THX1138
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3334#comment-14839
Which links to the website http://www.khouse.org/
Which on the current front page is promoting the following 'holiday':
* * *
The Issachar Tour
October 8 - 19, 2007
ISRAEL II – OCTOBER 2007 TOUR: The tour is currently sold out. If you wish to be put on a waitlist, you would need to have all forms and payment submitted first. Contact Sharon Stolebarger at: sharon@khouse.org.
Israel II, The Issachar Tour is Koinonia Institute's one-of-a-kind experience to Israel that will give our explorers an INSIDERS look at the Israel of today. Besides visiting amazing biblical sites, this trip will provide private briefings with members of the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet as well as members of the Knesset. These unique encounters with Israeli speakers will enlighten you to the real Israel of today -- the one that you will never see on the 6 o'clock news or read about in your local newspaper. You will learn of Israel's struggle for survival and see firsthand the locations that threaten Israel today!
You will also be given the opportunity to roll up your sleeves and serve alongside the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and be introduced to both Jewish and Christian organizations that are ministering in the Israel of today. You will visit the Jerusalem Support Center, a Christian organization that serves Jewish immigrants as well as ''lone soldiers'' who have made their aliyah, having no families in Israel. You will visit Hatzollah, a Jewish emergency response center that arrives on the scene for any emergency within 72 seconds!
This one-of-a-kind trip will give you memories that will last a lifetime!
* * *
Needless to say lots of other posts came after his references stating bravo! bravo! - wonderful logic etc etc.
Yet you have the nerve to only claim that my mainstream sources are not acceptable.
And you try to call me a zionist tool or useful idiot.
Oops, you appear to be pointing fingers very selectively.
As for my apology, it was sincere, if you did get any misunderstanding from what I had written, it was not intended. If you won't accept my apology that's up to you.
However, if you continue to falsely charge me with being a zionist, whilst your supporters are quoting from sites promoting zionist "bridge building tours", we all know what that means.
If you have the decency to openly claim they are zionists tools too AND openly denounce them as you have me, then all would be fair.
If you continue to selectively attack me in the light of what I have just presented to you all, then it is a matter for the individuals and qrswave to judge your conduct.
Failure to denounce this source material by all concerned will prove your zionist loyalities once and for all. I expect Rhiannon, Thx1138 and all those other hand clappers to publicly denounce this website and its contents as zionist.
Thx1138 should also apologise for not checking his sources properly, instead of bringing openly class 1 zionist disinfo to this site.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
was for “MY” misunderstanding, according to you. I have no misunderstandings. Quit pretending that I am saying something else and stop with the bullshit. You whine about not wanting to argue, but you delightfully plunged in and created more arguments out of air – the religion thing – and look – but there but for the grace of God go you, [bless your heart] putting words in my mouth.
Therefore your apology is not sincere. That you say it is makes me laugh. But seeing how you are clutching desperately at straws to win this argument I see there is no limit to this passive-aggressive behaviour.
rafeek crying and whining in his beer – “Needless to say lots of other posts came after his [thx1138] references stating bravo! bravo! - wonderful logic etc etc. Yet you have the nerve to only claim that my mainstream sources are not acceptable.And you try to call me a zionist tool or useful idiot. Oops, you appear to be pointing fingers very selectively.”
I never called you a zionist tool. You have a hard time
R-E-A-D-I-N-G posts. But I think you do it on purpose to be obnoxious, to get under people’s skin. Not very nice of you, rafeek.
What I said was to stop using the old worn out tool of claiming I disagree with you because of religion. And because there is nothing in my posts for you to substantiate your disgusting claim ...now you shoot down to a new low. Now you are shrieking that I am calling you a Zionist tool.
Hey you said it, sonny boy, not I.
thx1138 speaks from the intangibles - heart and soul. You speak somewhere from the tangible below. You’ve lost all credibility and respect from me – totally.
Rhiannon,
My original apology was complete sincere, and unreserved.
There is no way I would ever dream of becoming a 'mudfester' and if the way in that I expressed something, it was understood by you as me looking for an argument, then that is a genuine misunderstanding. I would never write anything with that intention. It was not meant to read like that. I apologise for writing in a style in which this misunderstanding came about.
The misunderstanding was not mine however, it was yours. Re-reading the entry I can see how someone might think that I was using some kind of council estate 'street speach', but my statements were academic. If you go back and re-read them in an academic light you will see what I was trying to do.
That said, you do seem to be very easily provoked into argument. Why didn't you ask me for a clarification before charging off into assumptions? That would have saved both of us a lot of agro and typing.
If you don't want my apology and claim that it is somehow hollow, that is up to you. But the offer was and still is sincere.
The sad thing is rather than leave the matter to die a death, since we don't see eye to eye, you keep coming back to raise this nonsense again and again.
With your claiming your right to reject my sources on the basis that they are zionist owned or influenced, I was forced to research who references what on this blogsite, to see if I was genuinely out of step. And an interesting exercise it was, with some astounding results.I found you accepting posts in your blog that use quotes from naked totally pro-zionist anti-Muslim sites.
You are a hypocrite if you do not condemn that websource and the post that was founded upon it, in your blog - in the same way you rejected my more mainstream source. I bet that university lecturer which I quoted has never organised a tour of "the great work of zionists in Palestine" in his life. For this reason I have posted a blog because I want this subject resolving either through open debate, or preferably privately so the matter can go away.
It's up to you, but at the present time you are on my own zionist radar for claiming that I am a zionist. Prove your innocence, like you want me to do.
Therefore, by practising discrimination it will prove that you ARE a Muslim hating zionist supporter, because you accept the version of history from rabid zionists, whilst rejecting the history from Muslim researchers. Lady, it's a no brainer.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.
Rhiannon, you said -
"You are giving us Z-I-O-N-I-S-T sources"
By definition this makes me a zionist tool or at best a zionist useful idiot. You rejected all my ascertions on the basis that I used 'zionist' sources and therefore I and my quotations could not be accepted.
Therefore don't deny calling me a zionist tool. As I zionist tool, through using zionist sources, it means that I am supplying you, and the public at large, the 'zionist' view of world history.
What bigger zionist tool could I be than a disinfo tool as a serious Muslim researcher, either wilfully or as a useful idiot.
Respectfully,
Muhammad.