EDITORIAL
A Realistic Economic Bill of Rights Is Not Possible
By Anthony Wile - November 12, 2011

Is an economic bill of rights possible? Ellen Brown thinks so. And her newest article, "Now Is the Time for an Economic Bill of Rights," is the lead story of the new Occupy Wall Street news feed at OWSnews.org.

As with everything written by Ms. Brown, it is lucid, passionate and even convincing. That doesn't stop me from having problems with it! But I'll get to Ms. Brown's Bill of Rights in a moment. First let me put it into context.

Start with the Daily Bell itself. We stand for something as best we can at DB: Freedom. Freedom from government regulation. Freedom from high taxes. Freedom from government manipulation of money.

We believe in free markets, what we call private justice and letting the Invisible Hand provide the discipline government now fails to give. Government doesn't work. It can't work. Some may make a case that at unobtrusive levels it is necessary. But the bottom line is that every government regulation and law FIXES A PRICE.

And a price fix ALWAYS transfers wealth from producers to those who haven't created it and don't know what to do with it. That's why lottery winners so often lose their funds. And why governments are ordinarily so spendthrift and wasteful.

But there's more. Government is a kind of "promotion" in this day and age. Democratic governments around the world have been set up to give people the idea that they have a voice and can "make a difference." But unfortunately, this seems to be inaccurate.

If we look at the arc of government over the past 50 years, we can see that governments around the world – democratic or not – have in many ways become more intrusive, more demanding and more authoritarian.

Governments have also become bigger – that is, at the top level they have tended to expand their sway in places like Europe, where the leaders of a single Union run out of Brussels are now attempting to build a "United States of Europe." It would seem that such a union is a stepping-stone to an even more extreme centralization of power via global governance.

All the elements of global governance are in place: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the World Health Organization, the Bank for International Settlements. And NATO, of course – global government's military arm.

We're supposed to be believe that all of this happened by accident, that this entire infrastructure "evolved" naturally. But it didn't. Over and over when one looks into how this happened, one finds the same names, the same organizations, the same strategies employed.

Step by step, "they" are building what some have called a "new world order." And who are "they?" We know that, too.

Governments, in fact, in this modern age, are run behind the scenes by very powerful people. We've identified these people many times – as have many others – as being part of a handful of great families that control central banks along with their religious, corporate and military associates and enablers. In aggregate, we call this group the Anglosphere power elite.

This is the group that seeks world government, and in this age of the Internet — as they are being increasingly exposed — they have seemingly gotten more aggressive about achieving it. The more the alternative 'Net media "outs" them the more forceful their activities become.

What are they doing? They are using every resource at their disposal to move ahead with their evident and obvious plans. They use Western intelligence agencies, military establishments and civilian private and public mechanisms to promote their end game.

Our self-imposed "brief" here at DB has been to analyze the WAY that the power elite "promotes" its agenda. It does this via what we call dominant social themes, fear-based promotions that frighten the middle class into giving up wealth and power to the global instrumentalities that have been constructed as waiting receptacles.

One way to confront the coming world order is to try to have nothing to do with it. One can "drop out" of the current system. One can also refuse to participate in movements that aggrandize governments and propose that governments in this day and age can be made to "work better" and to "take the people's side."

To combat this growing realization, the power elite is launching many false flag events. Each one of these seeks to frighten people in order to make the point that government IS important. The power elite NEEDS government because that is how it manipulates society — through mercantilism, the strategy of using government to create laws and regulations that seem to benefit "the people."

Seeking to use government to solve modern problems is likely a dead end. Governments at this point – especially Western governments – are at least partially controlled by the power elite. When one petitions government for "solutions" to current economic, military and regulatory problems, one is essentially trapping oneself in a cul-de-sac.

Modern government at the top (federal) level does not offer anyone a way out … It cannot because basically all those who work in government at any level are probably controlled to one degree or another by the elite's Money Power.

This is the other key point. The elite's ability to put dominant social themes into play is supported by the ability to print money-from-nothing using modern central banks. They have virtually unlimited wealth at their disposal. Central banks are the engine of one-world government.

But central banks are immensely destructive. No one running them EVER knows how much money to print to feed an economy. Inevitably, central banks print TOO MUCH money and this leads to tremendous booms and horrible busts. Today, we are in the midst of a growing depression because of the activities of central banks and their bankers. Behind the banks, of course, stands the power elite itself.

In order to confuse and distract people about these basic facts, the elites regularly start wars and encourage economic chaos. But lately, as the Internet has continually exposed these manipulations, the elites are going a step further and trying to create false flag events that seem to endorse the alternative media's perspective regarding the one-world order but are in fact working to further consolidate elite control.

Additionally, such movements seek to blame the private sector for the deceitful mechanisms of central banking. One such movement may be Occupy Wall Street.

The people involved in Occupy Wall Street are sincere about their frustration. But there is plenty of evidence (already available on the Internet) that at the very top of the movement, there are people associated with US Intel agencies and with the State Department. These are the people who seem to be driving Occupy Wall Street in a certain, pro-government direction.

These are likely the same people that helped organize the "Arab Spring" youth rebellions via such groups as AYM. If you analyze these movements, the powers-that-be behind them are actually setting up an Islamic crescent that is intended to serve as a further "enemy of the West." Almost every "springtime" will eventually result in some sort of Islamic state. This is what the elite wants. It seeks enemies.

We are supposed to believe that OWS is a movement of "all the people." But we've regularly charted the positions that those involved with OWS seem to take – and many of them seem quite "progressive." That is, they call for more federal government action in order to address the many problems of society.

This is the hallmark of a controlled movement. It is reminiscent of the populism of the 1930s and the 1960s, when the elites used the same strategies to undermine legitimate grievances. Create or penetrate movements and then call for MORE government intervention to "solve" the problems of the protestors. This is EXACTLY what's going on today with Occupy Wall Street – or so it seems.

We've been charting the government solutions that Occupy Wall Street is proposing (even if those involved claim that there are no agreed-upon proposals.) Over time a pattern builds up.

Occupy Wall Street to Protest Tax Cuts in March on Washington

Occupy Wall Street Seeks Global Warming/UN Accord

Occupy Wall Street's Bill Black Seeks Bigger Regulatory State

Occupy Wall Street Plots Next Big 'Net News Service

You see? Is this simply a coincidence? No matter the problem, those involved at Occupy Wall Street seem to want government – domestic and worldwide – to do something about it. They want elite-controlled entities to solve the very problems the same elites have created!

Ellen Brown, it seems to me, is proposing more of the same. She is a fine writer with an elegant voice and is increasingly influential, which is something we have predicted. And even though her former husband was apparently involved with American intelligence, Ms. Brown has claimed emphatically that she is not, and we certainly believe her. [Ed Note: Clifford Brown has written to us (see thread, below) to state emphatically that he did not work for the CIA but for USAID, an agency that had nothing to do with the CIA.]

But by standing so emphatically for further government involvement in the economy, she is only giving the powers-that-be MORE tools. In fact in this latest article she endorses the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt whose misguided policies kept the Depression running a good five to seven years long than it needed to run. Here's something from her article:

In his first inaugural address in 1933, Roosevelt criticized the sort of near-sighted Wall Street greed that precipitated the Great Depression. He said, "They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and where there is no vision the people perish." Roosevelt's own vision reached its sharpest focus in 1944, when he called for a Second Bill of Rights.

He said: This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights…. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

He then enumerated the economic rights he thought needed to be added to the Bill of Rights. They included: The right to a job; The right to earn enough to pay for food and clothing; The right of businessmen to be free of unfair competition and domination by monopolies; The right to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education …

What was sufficient for a simple agrarian economy does not provide an adequate framework for freedom and democracy today. We need an Economic Bill of Rights, and we need to end the privatization of the national currency. Only when the privilege of creating the national money supply is returned to the people can we have a government that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people.

At their most extreme, FDR's polices were actually seeking to regulate how much money individuals could charge for their services. Fortunately, he was stopped by the Supreme Court of the day – a court he promptly "packed."

Unfortunately, Ms. Brown and others are calling for a return to the worst and most repressive of FDR's policies. This is increasingly a kind of dominant social theme in my view. Barack Obama has often invoked FDR and now, with the economic situation worsening, other pro-FDR spokespeople are emerging. We wrote about it here:

Occupy Wall Street and Webster Tarpley – We're all LaRouch-ites Now

It is not possible for government to provide the rights that Ms. Brown speaks of any more than it is possible for government officials to know how much money to print if they come to run a national central bank. It is impossible to know. Only the free-market can tell you via money competition and the circulation of gold and silver.

Ms. Brown's article appeared on the new OWS website and is the lead article this morning. No doubt Ms. Brown is both dedicated and sincere about her solutions. And perhaps a nationalized central bank would be a marginal improvement over what we have now.

But it seems to me the elites would take over that bank even more easily than they took over the Federal Reserve. The elites WANT government involvement. They SEEK it. That's how they run things, via mercantilism. Anything that makes government grow only increases the hold that a handful of people have over Western economies.

Want to make a real change? Reduce the power of government, don't enhance it.

Posted in EDITORIAL
loading