As Occupy Wall Street Anniversary Approaches, Debt Emerges as Widespread Occupy Grievance … Playfully infusing a familiar Occupy Wall Street chant with the mindless noshing of zombies, last month around 100 costumed protestors undertook a small but significant "Night of the Living Debt" march around the New York University campus and Washington Square Park. The event was organized by All in the Red, an initiative of student activists which grows out of the nocturnal marches that began last month in solidarity with the massive popular mobilization in Quebec against austerity-related tuition hikes. Equipped with an 22, 2012 … The young organizers — recent graduates of the OWS Summer Disobedience School training program — undertook the first coordinated march in New York to translate student-specific struggles surrounding tuition and education debt into a broader discourse concerning the perpetual condition of indebtedness in which the 99 percent currently finds itself. – Truthout
Dominant Social Theme: This debt money has got to stop! George Soros has a plan to fix it …
Free-Market Analysis: Why are we not surprised? We've been predicting this for years one way or another. In many of our analyses of public banking, we've indicated that it is a popular-seeming solution – that if the power elite can print endless amounts of money, "the people" should be able to do so as well.
And now we see that debt-money – currency actuated by usury according to those who want to impose yet another limitation on people, money and markets – is becoming a big deal in the OWS movement.
What's especially ironic is that OWS is, in one way or another – as many in the alternative media have now reported – funded by George Soros and the even deeper pockets, no doubt, behind him. In other words, OWS is likely a kind of Money Power charade, just as we've suggested that certain paper-money solutions are.
Public banking (as purveyed by such eloquent spokespeople as Ellen Brown) along with Georgism, mutual credit, etc. are all monetary schemes that use the awesome force of government to shove people in a certain direction.
Because all these schemes rely on government power, we've never had any doubt that there was at least some power elite involvement. The topmost elite cannot exist without government. They retain and expand their power via mercantilism, by pulling the levers of government power secretly behind the scenes.
One of public banking's prime proponents, Ellen Brown, is close to the Occupy Wall Street movement. We've written about that here: "Elite Psyop? Public Banking and OWS Converge to Provide Mass 'Public' Solutions."
This article, written in April of this year, analyzed Ms. Brown's celebratory narrative as regarded twin meetings of Occupy Wall Street and her own newly established Public Banking in America group. Now we can see this partnership is extending itself further.
Not only is OWS (in aggregate anyway) up in arms over the lack of control "the people" exercise over their own banks but another strand of indignation has been added – these same banks control people through onerous debt. Here's some more from the article, excerpted above:
With its necromantic pop-cultural reference, the march suggested that zombie-like servitude to Wall Street creditors is a basic condition of life for the majority of the population — a point driven home with a cathartic "debtor's die-in" at the conclusion of the event.
The Night of the Living Debt march was just one sign that debt is emerging as a connective thread for OWS organizers and their allies as they begin to build toward the movement's one year anniversary of September 17, variously known as S17, Black Monday and Occupy Year One.
More than just a commemorative ritual or one-off day of action, many organizers in OWS plan to use the media spotlight surrounding the day and its buildup as what Sandra Nurse calls a "launching pad" for a new kind of political movement in the United States — a movement of debtors identifying themselves as such.
Oh, boy. We can hardly wait.
Soon denunciations of usury will echo from coast to coast. And yet it will never occur to any of these earnest people – at least the more mature ones with jobs – that what they pay in federal, state and local taxes probably outweighs the dreaded debt money against which they are suddenly protesting.
Not only that, but no one HAS to borrow from a bank. But one certainly has to pay taxes. These issues will be generally mislaid, however, as the furor builds to bring "bankers" to justice and to subsume "private banking" under the government's political umbrella.
It will seem to be a triumph for the "people" but, of course, it will not be. It is far more likely that it is one more weary manipulation of the power elite.
These dynastic families, in fact, could not care less about interest as a means of control (though presumably it's handy to have). They care not a whit whether banking is public or private. They only care that GOVERNMENT functionality remains and is strengthened.
You see, if YOU could print all the money you wanted when you wanted, you wouldn't care much about interest, either. You wouldn't even care that the "democratic process" transferred the control of money printing from "private" entities to "public ones."
The idea of interest-free money from public banks has been promoted tirelessly in the past few years. We've watched it build methodically, almost mechanically. We're not at all sure that it's legitimate movement anymore than we believe OWS to be an un-manipulated one.
For one thing, many of the tenets of public banking, Georgism and mutual or social credit are the same as what was used by those in charge of national socialist pre-war Germany, which was a kind of proving ground for many of the fascist practices today being applied in the US and the West generally. See "Poison of Neo-National Socialist Public Banking."
If this weren't suspicious enough, most of the arguments against a free market in money and pro-government control of money turn out to be spurious. Bill Still was wrong about tally sticks, either because he was purposefully shading his argument or because he just didn't know. You can see that article here: "Central Banks Won't Produce Natural Interest."
Gary North and others have demolished Ms. Brown's contention that Lincoln was a heroic Greenbacker who was shot only because he intended to stand up to the bankers of Europe. In fact, the assets behind Greenbacks were likely intended to saddle post-war America with a good deal of debt.
Beyond this, how can Lincoln be a hero when he was a tool of European monied interests and initiated the slaughter of close to a million of his own people? You can read articles on Lincoln here:
Lincoln Must Have Worked for Money Power
Did Jefferson Davis Work for Money Power? … Was the Civil War a Gigantic False-Flag?
OWS is surely manipulated opposition. Fortunately, what we call the Internet Reformation has thoroughly exposed the one-world elite conspiracy and, as we have predicted, is bringing down its dominant social themes as well.
The elites are striking back any way they can. They seem to be providing a controlled opposition that is intended to provide the impression of destroying the modern economy when it is only recasting it for further but less obvious control.
The only way out of this conundrum is to shrink government and shrink it radically. Then take control of money away from government and return it to the private sector where no one group can control it.
Gold, silver, free-market money of any kind – competing currencies – can get the job done as was proved in pre-Civil War America, which had perhaps the freest currencies in modern, recorded history.
It is PRIVATE money and PRIVATE market that the elites are most worried about. Without government, there are no levers to pull and no mercantilism.
Those proposing public banking, anti-usury laws and other forms of government control are doing us no favors. Let the markets decide and provide. Let people bank as they choose, charge interest if they choose, use money as they choose.
What is so hard to understand about free markets and freedom?
