Empire of Money (2013)

THE DUTCH, THE BRITISH, & THE EMPIRE OF MONEY: Freeing humanity from the belief that money is the source of wealth by Robert Ingraham The human species is now facing a crisis of monumental proportions. This crisis manifests many different aspects, but at the center of the maelstrom is the utter and complete bankruptcy of the global monetary-financial system. Many people currently believe that we can solve this crisis by changing policies, but the blunt truth is that there is no possible pathway out of this crisis unless our leaders and our people do the one thing which – so far – almost none of them have been willing to do, which is to change the way they think. As Lyndon LaRouche has insisted, the problem today lies not in WHAT people think, but in HOW they think.

I. - THE ARGUMENT Currently, the LaRouche Political Action Committee is leading the fight to bring about the reimplementation of the full original Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This campaign is a life or death matter for every American. Were we to fail in this, were we to not immediately repeal the Dodd-Frank banking legislation and replace it with GlassSteagall, the full murderous significance of that failure has been irrefutably documented in two recent documents released by LPAC: “How the U.S. Joined the International Bail-In Regime,”1 and also “Bailout or Bail-in: The Queen’s Policy Is Genocide.”2 Yet, even among the many individuals who recognize the dire urgency to reimpose the Glass-Steagall Act, some still see that proposed legislation as a mere “reform” of the current banking-monetary system. They fail to challenge what they view as the self-evident existence of that money-system itself. We live in a society in which almost everyone has been massively brainwashed on the subjects of both wealth and money. As a people, we seem to be completely ignorant, to have lost all historical knowledge, as to what constitutes real wealth, and what it is that has made possible the advancement of the human species. Almost everyone seems to axiomatically accept the notion that wealth is determined by personal riches, by the amount of money or dollar-denominated property in one’s possession. This view cuts across all political spectra. Liberals and Conservatives alike; they may differ on how the money gets “divided up,” but it is all still just about money. No one seems to ask the question, “How do we increase the overall wealth of society in a way that current and future societal happiness is enhanced?”. Part of the reluctance to examine axiomatic beliefs about money, banking and wealth derives from cowardice, and the abject failure of members of Congress to fight relentlessly for the reenactment of Glass-Steagall certainly flows from such cowardice. Yet, that cowardice itself also arises within a culture that has lost all sense of its own history. Things which were precisely understood 100 or 200 years ago are a mystery for most today. Even basic knowledge such as the founding NATURE of our republic versus the axioms of empire escapes most of our citizens and leaders today. Hopefully, this paper will help some to rediscover what has been lost.

II. - VERY BRIEFLY, ON HUMAN CREATIVITY & WEALTH Lyndon LaRouche has insisted that to understand that essence which sets Homo sapiens apart from all lower beasts, the very same essence which has made all human progress possible, one must acknowledge the significance of the human mastery of fire some several hundred thousand years ago. The true implications of that Lower Paleolithic discovery lead directly to a realization that throughout the entirety of the recorded and archaeological history of the human race, mankind's progress on the planet has been driven by a noetic power which is possessed by no other species currently known to us. Animals gather nuts and berries. Animals fight over scarce resources. Animals exist entirely by sense certainty, and all animals exist in a fixed relationship with nature which they are incapable of altering. Only human beings make scientific discoveries, and mankind’s history is one of such discoveries, beginning with the harnessing 1 2

Available at: http://larouchepac.com/dodd-frank Available at: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2013/2013_20-29/2013-23/pdf/11-14_4023.pdf

of fire, continuing through the revolutions in neolithic tool usage, the breathtaking scientific advances in Bronze Age technologies, and the medieval harnessing of wind and water power. Much more fundamental then any of these specific discoveries is the power which continues to generate them. The human species’ increasing “power over nature” derives entirely from this noetic quality of the Human Mind, a quality that permits an accelerating role of the human species within the universe. This is the source of all human wealth, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with money. The British imperialist Adam Smith argues that new inventions are simply brought forth by competition in the free marketplace, as individual entrepreneurs strive to improve their products and their profits. But stone-age man did not discover how to control and use fire because there was “a profit in it,” nor were any of the lower species of animals able to make such a breakthrough. More will be said later on this, but for now the point simply must be made that the explosive growth of human civilization since the last Ice Age and the existing entropic system of an economy driven by money-derived values are fundamentally incompatible and one or the other has to go.

III. - THE ORIGINS The first modern predecessor of what we would today call a “Central Bank” was established in Venice in 1157 AD, and for more than 200 years the Bank of Venice stood alone as the institutional center of an oligarchical banking-money system, until similar institutions were established in Barcelona in 1401 and Genoa in 1407. This first Bank of Venice went through many transformations over several centuries and was eventually replaced in 1582 by the famous Banco della Piazza di Rialto, also usually referred to as the Bank of Venice. It was this 1582 version of the Bank which then became the model for everything that emerged over the next 125 years in both Amsterdam and London What was created was an oligarchical financial empire within which wealth and power were defined by monetary riches and the possession and trade in money-denominated commodities. Money and the control over money was established as the societal paradigm. One of the phenomena that was created, embryonically in Venice but realized more fully later in Amsterdam, was a thing called “Central Bank Money,” which was defined as the axiomatic monetary “unit of account,” a fictitious construct against which the value of everything else was measured. The irony is that the actual societal wealth of Europe had been rapidly upgraded in the period from 800 to 1250 AD by the industrial application of new technologies. By the 13th century there were 200,000 windmills and 500,000 vertical waterwheels in operation throughout Europe. They were utilized for almost every conceivable type of industrial and agricultural task, from powering sawmills, paper-mills, threshing mills, to grinding grain and processing oil seeds, wool, and paint, and processing wood pulp into paper. The windmills were capable of generating 30 horsepower of energy, and they utilized the most advanced – newly invented – camshafts, crankshafts and gears of that time, all made possible by the accompanying development of the mass production of iron. Between 800 and 1,200 AD the population of Europe tripled. Energy use per-capita and per-square kilometer jumped. Food production and nutritional levels advanced rapidly. But for the oligarchy, these advances in the human condition did not represent real “wealth,” and the banking collapses of the 14th century destroyed much of what had been built in the preceding centuries. For the oligarchy, wealth was strictly defined by the profits that could be derived from financial speculation and the trade in monetary-denominated goods. This is precisely the scenario set forth 300 years later by Adam Smith in his definition of the “great mercantile republic.”3 For Smith, as for Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip today, the idea that the noetic power of the human mind is the sole basis for advancing the condition of mankind – that idea simply doesn’t exist. At the heart of the moneyempire is the conviction that all human beings are motivated by the “pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain,” just like hyenas, pigs, or monkeys. If one can simply deduce what commodities give the greatest pleasure, such that people will be enticed to purchase them, then financial profits can be achieved accordingly. But – ask yourself – is that really wealth?

3

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book IV - “Of the Principle of the Commercial or Mercantile System,” by Adam Smith

IV. - THE DUTCH Between 1602 and 1609 three institutions were created in the city of Amsterdam which initiated the modern imperial financial system that is still with us to this day. The first of these was the Dutch East India Company, followed by the Amsterdam Bourse (stock exchange) and the Bank of Amsterdam. Amsterdam became the financial capital of all of Europe, as vast amounts of financial paper were created and exchanged. The Dutch East India Company became the first truly global corporation, dominating the trade in spices, slaves, raw materials and other goods. Yet, even from the beginning, it was the buying and selling of East India Company shares which became the cornerstone for the operations of the Amsterdam Bourse, and by mid-century the amount of money involved in financial transactions at the Bourse dwarfed the operating capital of the East India Company itself. All of the modern elements of our 21st century “financial casino” originated either in Amsterdam or at the earlier Antwerp Bourse, also in the Netherlands. Buying and selling on margin, the discounting of financial paper and the creation of a speculative money market in short term paper, futures contracts, options contracts, 17th century versions of financial derivatives trading, speculating on foreign exchange rates – all of this is a legacy of the Dutch Empire. At the same time, the current practices of our present-day central banks can all be traced back to the innovations at the Bank of Amsterdam after 1609. For the oligarchy, national sovereignty doesn’t exist. The “independent” financial market resides outside of and superior to the purview of government. The role of central banks is to protect the financial-money interests, not the people of their respective nations. As we see today in Greece, Cyprus and really everywhere else, when the interests of the money/financial empire conflicts with the well-being of the population, it is always the latter which is sacrificed. All of this activity is premised on an oligarchical-created notion that wealth is defined by money, not by increases in the physical productivity of the population. Financial markets are a way of creating, manipulating or even stealing this money out of thin air. Money and other financial instruments hold the power to excite and enrich anyone clever enough to possess them. The Anglo-Dutch Empire On November 1, 1688 the Dutch fleet, under the personal command of William of Orange, set sail from the port of Hellevoetsluis, in the western Netherlands. The fleet consisted of 500 ships, 40,000 men, thousands of horses, and vast amounts of artillery. This force was four times larger than the famous invasion fleet of the Spanish Armada, a century earlier. On November 5th the fleet landed at Brixham, in the county of Devon, England. From there the invaders marched across the country, and, by December 18, 1688, Dutch troops under William's command occupied the city of London. These events were not a “Glorious Revolution;” it was, in fact, a Dutch military invasion. Nevertheless, the Dutch takeover was also really just the dénouement of a decades-long effort which included co-conspirators in both nations, an endeavor that had witnessed repeated attempts throughout the 17th century to effect a takeover or merger of The Netherlands and England. A subsumed aspect of that effort were the repeated proposals and attempts to bring the financial practices of Amsterdam into the city of London. During the 1650s, the Dutch political leader Johan de Witt tendered to Oliver Cromwell a proposal for the official merging of the two Calvinist nations. Despite significant support for the idea from among a faction of the English leadership, Cromwell refused the offer. During the next thirty years this idea of political union was revived several times, often by the leaders of the two East India Companies, who desired to join their commercial operations under one flag. Major players on the English side in the effort to bring about a union of the two countries included the English Ambassador William Temple, John Locke's employer Anthony Ashley Cooper (the Earl of Shaftesbury), and leading members of the Russell, Cavendish, and Sidney families. In 1666, Algernon Sidney, residing at the time in the Netherlands, proposed to the Dutch leader de Witt that the Dutch launch an invasion of England to overthrow the Stuart monarchy. Later, in 1679, William Temple deployed Henry Sidney, Algernon’s brother, to Amsterdam to offer the English throne to William of Orange. Although William declined this 1679 offer, Sidney, after being appointed as English ambassador to the Hague in 1681, became the key London-Amsterdam go-between in organizing the eventual 1688 invasion. It was also the same English ambassador, William Temple, who negotiated the 1678 marriage of William of Orange to Mary Stuart, the first in line of succession to the English throne.

In 1687 William of Orange – in a not very subtle bid for the kingship – issued several “Open Letters” to the English People, offering his aid against the Stuart monarchy. Then, in the spring of 1688, a letter was sent to William imploring him to invade England. Known today as the “Letter to William” and signed by the “Immortal Seven,” including Henry Sidney, William Cavendish and Edward Russell. It read, in part: "If the circumstances stand so with your Highness that you believe you can get here time enough, in a condition to give assistances this year sufficient for a relief under these circumstances which have been now represented, we who subscribe this will not fail to attend your Highness upon your landing and to do all that lies in our power to prepare others to be in as much readiness as such an action is capable of..." Once William’s troops had landed in England, many additional aristocrats among the English elite quickly rallied to his side, including leaders of the Churchill, Cecil, Montagu, Hyde and Talbot families. James II fled England, and the representatives of the financial/monetary empire seized complete control. The Money System In fewer than ten years after the Dutch invasion, all of the structures of the Dutch financial system had been cloned in London, including the establishment of the Bank of England, the new Royal Stock Exchange, and the new (reformed) East India Company, all directly copied from the commercial-monetary triumvirate which ruled the Dutch Empire. By the early 17th century, London and Amsterdam functioned as one combined financial-monetary cartel, although for many decades it was Amsterdam that remained pre-eminent in financial and monetary power. Gradually, over time, London would emerge as the “first among equals,” but the incestuous Anglo-Dutch alliance remained, and was consolidated after the establishment of the modern Dutch monarchy of the House of Orange in 1816. This is the financial and money empire which, still today, rules the planet. This rapid post-1688 transition of London into a capital of the monetary empire was facilitated, once again, by the prior decades-long organizing for just such a transformation by the pro-empire faction in Britain. The first significant proposal for the establishment of a Central Bank (“clearing bank”) in London was put forward in 1636 by Philip Burlamachi, a financial advisor to King Charles I of England, and then in 1646 an individual named Benbrigge called for the creation of "a bank in the city of London as is at Amsterdam." During the next 40 years proposals for establishing a bank in London modeled on the Bank of Amsterdam would be repeated again and again. In 1668 the already mentioned English Ambassador to the Netherlands, Sir William Temple, wrote: “In this city of Amsterdam is the famous Bank, which is the greatest Treasure either real or imaginary, that is known any where in the World. The security of the Bank lies not only in the effects that are in it, but in the Credit of the whole Town or State of Amsterdam, whose Stock and Revenue is equal to that of some Kingdoms.” By 1688 those clamoring for for the importation of Dutch financial methods into London, and those conspiring to effect a Dutch military invasion, were one and the same party. By the time William of Orange’s troops entered London the pro-empire elites of London and Amsterdam were so closely intertwined, culturally, intellectually, dynastically and politically, that the invasion was more like a merger.

V. - MONEY & EMPIRE, THE 19TH CENTURY, AND CENTRAL BANKING In was the anti-American British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston who once stated “We have no permanent allies... we only have permanent interests.” This is also true in regard to money and banking. There is no “permanent” policy of the British financial empire. It has changed, shifted, and adapted many times. Nonetheless, there is a permanent oligarchical outlook and culture which has motivated every one of those pragmatic shifts in policy. “Hard money,” “fiat money,” gold standards, silver standards, floating exchange rates – all of these and more have served the Empire of Money at different times. None of these policies are lasting. But the oligarchic

outlook which opposes all national sovereignty, denies the true creative nature of the human species, and which today is committed to mass depopulation of the planet – that outlook IS permanent. In 1819, having taken control of all of the Spanish gold and silver mines in South America during the Napoleonic Wars, the British Parliament voted to adopt a strict monetary gold standard. This would become the basis for all international finance lasting until 1931. In 1844 the British Prime Minister Robert Peel enacted the Bank Charter Act which extended and codified the provisions of that gold standard, binding the issuance of all new currency to a one-to-one ratio of gold and silver on deposit. Any increase in banknote issuance was tied directly to an increase in specie reserves, thus creating the most rigid deflationary gold standard in human history. The Act also codified the modern practice of empowering the Central Bank with the sole authority for the issuance of new currency. This infamous British gold-standard was never really intended as an economic policy. Even many of its 19th century London supporters recognized that the the gold standard was immensely destructive to economic development, even within England itself. The intent of the gold standard was control and domination. Its existence was intended to place the institutions of the City of London in a dictatorial position over all global financial markets. The gold standard was, in effect, a geopolitical policy, not an economic policy, and during the 19 th century its primary use was to undermine and attempt to destroy the American Credit System of Alexander Hamilton. For most nations, lacking in gold reserves, the imposition of the gold standard was an economic death sentence which made impossible any serious physical economic development. Central Banking Beginning after the American Civil War and continuing up to the outbreak of World War II, a second imperial initiative was to extend the British-Amsterdam central banking model throughout the world. Central Banks, modeled explicitly on the Bank of England were created in Germany (1875), Japan (1883), Switzerland (1905), Italy (1893), Denmark (1908), Sweden (1893), the United States (1913); and then, after World War I in Austria (1923), Hungary (1924), Czechoslovakia (1926), as well as the various British Dominions, including Australia, New Zealand, India, Ireland, and Canada. All of these banks were modeled on the Bank of England, and all were – to a greater or lesser degree – subservient to the London banking establishment. The primary role assigned by the Empire to the system of central banks was to bring about the de-facto surrender of actual national sovereignty to the global financial empire. The current-day activities of the European Troika are paradigmatic of this, as the only actual decision-making left to the elected officials of individual European “nations” is how to implement the austerity policies dictated by the Troika. Following the first World War, and particularly after 1931, the “hard money” gold faction gave way to the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, leading into today’s era of unlimited Central Bank fiat money. But for those who rail against the current “bail-out” policies, remember that these too will pass. In truth, the financial empire has changed gears many times as it has careened from one monetary and banking crisis to the next over the last 200 years. These crises do not represent “business cycles,” at least not in the sense that “business cycles” are a normal part of an actually functioning human economy. What they do represent is a continuing failure by the oligarchy to impose a linear “money system” on to a human society which is governed by neg-entropic creative processes. Change, yet unchanging A great misunderstanding concerning the Anglo-Dutch financial empire is to confuse it with the military aspects of the 19th and early 20th century British Colonial Empire. That confusion is one of the reasons why so many people believe that the British Empire no longer exists. The interests of the Imperial Financial Empire were never the same as those "Colonel Blimp" types who were obsessed by “India” or the rest of the British colonial possessions. That territorial empire was kept as long as it was useful, and its military capabilities were used when needed, 4 but the real empire was never about territory. When the time came to change – despite fierce and occasionally violent opposition from some members of the British oligarchy – most of that geographical empire would be sacrificed to the interest of the Money Party. Today’s version of the colonial empire – the “Commonwealth” – really has its philosophical origin in the career of Lord Shelburne (William Petty FitzMaurice), the 18 th century British Prime Minister who judged that the 4 Sort of like a Frankenstein monster, kept in the basement and let out at intervals to wreak havoc

use of military force to subdue the American colonies had been a mistake. Shelburne envisioned a system – later borne out in the creation of “Dominion” status, and still later by the creation of the Commonwealth – whereby the British colonies would be bound together by a shared system of money, banking, free trade and “common values.” In 1925 the British historian Alfred Zimmern delivered a series of five lectures at Columbia University, titled “The Third British Empire,” wherein he posited that the Empire was evolving into a new ideal, based on a relationship of equality between units – a Commonwealth – which would be held together, not by external coercion, but by common desire. Zimmern was not the first to propose this idea of a British Commonwealth. That discussion went back to the late 19th century and took a major step forward with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1926. Later, in 1945, after the dumping of Winston Churchill, the dismantling of the colonial empire was initiated by the post-war Labour government, a process which culminated in the British military withdrawal from most of Asia following the 1960 “Winds of Change” speech by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. The Financial Empire has repeatedly shown its ability to change its military and geopolitical posture as often as it has changed its banking and monetary policies, and a willingness to sacrifice territory, and even parts of the money system itself, in order to survive.. Even today, the current global policy of hyperinflation and financial "bailouts" could be replaced at any moment by a regime of brutal deflation and Hitler-style austerity. 5 And as we have seen in comments coming out of London, a return to a British military presence “East of Suez” is now very much a live option.

VI. - MONEY AS A FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS The Imperial Money System is driven by the oligarchy’s culture of the pursuit of pleasure. The American Credit System, as designed by Alexander Hamilton, is defined by the human species’ pursuit of happiness. These two concepts are not the same! Pleasure, in the present, is the behavior of the lower beasts. Investment in the future – happiness – is the realm of Human Economics, where all advances in the human condition are the product of the human mind's creative application of new discoveries in science & technology, discoveries which increase the potential relative population density and energy flux density of our species. Although Adam Smith lived more than 100 years after the the creation of the London-based money system, it is the popularizing of his evil and false notion of “wealth” which continues to poison our culture down through the present day. In his mis-named Wealth of Nations Smith posits the idea that money-based financial and commercial markets exist as self-evident entities, part of the natural order of things, independent of the existence of nations. 6 He asserts that England has discovered the secret to wealth accumulation through the creation of a “great mercantile republic,” whereby, through buying and selling commodities and financial contracts (i.e., “buying cheap and selling dear”), monetary wealth might be accumulated. 7 These anti-human ravings of Smith and his 19th century progeny define the problem we face today of the subjective contamination of our culture, a contamination which has arisen as a result of centuries-long rule by the Imperial Financial Empire. Recent discussions held with a wide array of elected officials by LPAC organizers, concerning the urgent need for NAWAPA8 and other major scientific and infrastructure projects, have often run up against a mental wall when the legislator asks, “Where is the money going to come from?” Similarly, today almost every American is obsessed with his or her “money.” Consider some of the manifestations of this: • • • • 5 6 7 8

The massive amounts of money individual Americans have invested in IRAs, mutual funds, stocks, and other financial investments, all to increase their “personal financial wealth.” The rampant practice of real estate speculation and the “flipping” of houses, all to make “money.” The sad truth that almost all populist and “patriotic” publications and websites are rife with advertisements for schemes on “how to get rich in the depression.” The nation-wide proliferation of legalized gambling, lotteries, and other get-rich-quick quackeries.

As is indicated in recent statements emanating from both J.P. Morgan and the Bank of International Settlements In truth, for Smith and his co-thinkers, nations are subservient to the “free market,” and governments must beg and grovel to the money lords for loans and other crumbs. This scenario is very familiar for nations currently subject to IMF “conditionalities.” A vestige of this philosophy is the current usage, prevailing in many Commonwealth nations, of the term "Wealth Creators" to describe individuals who are really just vulture capitalists. The North American Water and Power Alliance. See http://larouchepac.com/files/20120403-nawapaxxi-forweb_0.pdf

Whether it is a U.S. Congressman, your next door neighbor, or yourself, almost everyone believes that there is money “out there” in the marketplace, and the problem is in figuring out how to get it. This belief in “money” as a magical means to pleasure and comfort is a form of mental illness. Consider that the notion of VALUE is commonly held to be what people are willing to pay for a particular item or service. If American citizens were thinking clearly, and not suffering from the crippling delusion of the belief in “money,” they would easily comprehend that the real value of an economic practice is not located in what it can be bought or sold for, but in a tangible process that leads to the increased productivity of society as a whole. Mathematics Is wealth determined by a "mathematical formula?" The Empire's money system is a financial matrix governed by linear mathematical rules, and the history of the money system has been a continuous effort by the oligarchy to impose just such an entropic statistical mathematical system on the human species. All money systems are based on such linear mathematical models. Beginning with the works of Galileo Galilei, Giralamo, Cardano and Abraham de Moivre, the money empire has attempted to devise many different mathematical approaches to keep the monetary empire afloat. It hasn’t worked, and the history of the last 200 years is one of the money system staggering from crisis to crisis as each mathematical model implodes. Yet, despite this history, this mathematical approach to economics is now hegemonic among accredited and professional “economists.” Perhaps the most famous monetary-mathematical analysis of the past century is the the famous IS/LM (Investment Saving/Liquidity preference Money supply) model developed by John Maynard Keynes. More recently we have witnessed such absurdities as the notorious Black-Scholes formula, which allegedly allowed one to make risk-free options and hedge fund investments. It is all about money, and statistical-mathematical methods are used to manage that money system, and to devise ways of “turning a profit.” In reality, none of these so-called "profits" derived from “buying” and “selling” have anything whatsoever to do with real wealth. There is no "profit" from these financial practices, since true societal profit, i.e., real wealth, is derived solely from science-driven increases in the overall productivity and cognitive abilities of the population, increases which are only possible under a Credit System. What the financial oligarchy has attempted to do is to impose an entropic mathematical system on a negentropic universe, a universe which both requires and demands willful creative human intervention. Such an imperial approach, left unchecked, guarantees eventual human extinction. Death vs. Life In the 1650s the Dutch political leader Jan de Witt invented the modern insurance industry when he mathematically calculated the money value of a human life. It should come as no surprise that today the Netherlands and Belgium are leading the way in legalizing the practice of euthanasia, included the forced euthanasia – by lethal injection – of young children. 9 The Money System kills. It is grounded in a pernicious self-hatred of the human species. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and the rest of their ilk oppose all scientific development. They demand population reduction. They demand subservience to the money system no matter what the cost in human life. The only pathway out of this hell is to implement Glass-Steagall as a required first step to a return to the American Credit System of Alexander Hamilton, Quincy Adams, Nicholas Biddle, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. The difficulty is not objective; it is in what has been subjectively lost in our national culture. Under the first & second United States Banks our nation reached its apex as a sovereign constitutional credit system. The only way to understand the species-difference between that Credit System and the Imperial Money System is to grasp the absolute difference in INTENT between the two systems.10 College students are taught that there is no subjective intent in economic processes, that it is all Adam Smith’s free marketplace. That view is an outright lie. The intent of the American Credit System is to implement the use of 9 See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/20/dutch-consider-euthanasia-children-relieve-sufferi/ 10 The difference between the American Credit System and the oligarchy's central banking system is one of intent, not form. Both the Bank of England and its junior partner, the Bank of France, have been “nationalized” several times, for extended periods, throughout their history, but they have always continued to operate as vehicles in service to the oligarchical Money System.

credit – as a transformative action – in a manner which is coherent with actual noetic human nature, resulting in the increasing – future oriented – power of our species, thus extending the reach of the human mind into the processes of the universe. It is human creativity which defines the real issue of economics. Examining the Imperial Money System is like dissecting a cadaver. by Robert Ingraham Selected Bibliography: What was actually genius?: Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler & Shakespeare, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, June 21, 2013 The Gold Standard, Its Causes, Its Effects, and Its Future, by Wilhelm von Kardorff, Henry Carey Baird & Co, Philadelphia, 1880 The Third British Empire, by Alfred Zimmern, New York: Oxford University Press, 1926 History of the Bank of England , by Andreas Michael Andreades, London, 1909 The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830–1970 , by John Darwin , Cambridge University Press Central Banking at the Crossroads , by Karl R. Bopp , The American Economic Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, (Mar., 1944) The Development of Central Banking after Bagehot , by R. S. Sayers , The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 4, No. 1 (1951) The Modern Anglo-Dutch Empire: Its Origins, Evolution & Outlook, by Robert Ingraham, 2004, available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/115494297/The-Modern-Anglo-Dutch-Empire-2004