The Ron Paul Hoax?
By Staff News & Analysis - September 05, 2012

The Incontrovertible Conundrum Of Dr. Ron Paul … Without apologies, this research and writing should in no way be misinterpreted as any form of support for the Federal Reserve System or the usury that supports its organized crime by myself, or that this is just some personal attack on Ron Paul … In short, this [audit the Fed] bill represents the ultimate power of misinformation and the controlled opposition that is beholden of it. We are a defeated people in all respects of our lives – from education to incarceration – from corporate politics to corporate religion – from financial usury to medical malfeasance… all of which is made possible by the actions and inaction of Congress. – Reality Blog

Dominant Social Theme: Ron Paul is an Austrian fraud.

Free-Market Analysis: The Reality Blog is written by "Clint Richardson," another anti-usury alternative media writer. Thanks to feedbacker Danny B. for drawing our attention to it.

Despite Mr. Richardson's erudition and good writing skills, we recognize areas of predictability. He claims to be a Ron Paul supporter of sorts but pretty much damns Ron Paul as a fraud.

He believes the government has a lot of secret money thanks to Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) research, though hard money economist Gary North has debunked CAFR numbers.

Mr. Richardson is also running light-heartedly for US president. He has a forceful platform, though unfortunately, it is anti-interest.

In our research we discovered that many who advocate alternative currencies are involved one way or another with United Nations programs and especially with green solutions. A leading proponent of alternative currencies is Margrit Kennedy who used to work for UNESCO.

You can see our articles here:

Why Is the UN Installing Mutual Credit/Pure Fiat Systems Around the World?

New Book Further Confirms Eco-Affinity of Alternative Currency Proponents

Paper Money and the UN Perfect Together? More Currency and Credit Exchanges Supported by the UN

Currency and Credit Schemes Blow Up … and Go Green

Are 'Green' Reciprocal Exchange and Credit Systems Part of a Larger Elite Promotion?

At least Mr. Richardson does not make the argument that the Federal Reserve is an entirely private entity. He points out that it is a government agency in terms of its charter, which is just what we've been arguing all along in these pages.

It is an important argument for Greenbackers, social crediters and Georgists who are making a determined case that the US Federal Reserve in particular is PRIVATE. Of course, it is private in terms of functionality but not in terms of charter.

Those who seek to preserve pure fiat monopoly money and discredit the ordinary man's use of gold and silver argue that the problem with pure fiat is that the "banksters" are in control. Mr. Richardson does us the service once again of pointing out that most clearly the Fed is a quasi-public institution.

Proponents of monopoly fiat money want to maintain the fiction that "banksters" are in charge of the Fed. This may be so but the reason the Fed has so much power is because it derives its authority from the US government.

Here's what Mr. Richardson writes in "Today's Creatures From Jekyll Island":

I am simply telling you the facts: The Federal Reserve System is a government agency that is politically independent (not naturally or lawfully independent), no differently than the Post Office or the Social Security System or many other independent agencies of government, and that it is government that holds the wealth and stock ownership of most corporations and banks.

There are no ownership shareholders of the Federal Reserve because the Federal Reserve does not offer ownership stock. Wallmart and Monsanto offer "public" ownership stock, for which people and government has been purchasing for decades. But government corporations do not offer public (ownership) stock, which means that government is not owned.

Thus, the myth that "corporations own the government" can also be dismissed here. It is quite the opposite, actually. The word "own" is the legal holding of stock of a corporation. So while there is very much a symbiotic relationship between corporations (including banks) and government, the fact is that government owns shares in corporations, and not the other way around. The reality is that at any time government, with the swish of a pen or the dumping of its collective stock, can indeed shut down or make insignificant any corporation it chooses to. On the other hand, no corporation can do the same to government.

Mr. Richardson makes good points here. We only wish he didn't want to use the awesome force of government to prevent people from engaging in private transactions – in this case, charging interest on money. So many interesting minds have adopted this formulation. They want freedom from Money Power but only in areas where they disagree. It is like being "a little bit" pregnant.

Mr. Richardson has a lot of other interesting ideas. He apparently believes Fedgov is a corporation. G. Edward Griffin has offered a debunking article on this point entitled, "Is the United States government a corporation? If True, So What?"

Ron Paul is not a big hero of Mr. Richardson's. On his blog he spends a lot of time debunking Ron Paul and especially his audit the Fed legislation. We have doubts about that legislation, as well. You can see them here.

Auditing the Fed Is a Sideshow: Who Audits the Auditors?

But we don't think Ron Paul is an out-and-out fraud. His life's history shows the same intellectual agenda for decades. If Paul was being set up as some sort of lynchpin in a power elite dialectic, it was a mighty patient process.

No, like the Austrian School itself, like the Internet, like numerous elements of society, Ron Paul's popularity was probably an accident. He was obviously shocked by it and so was the establishment. Money Power rushed to provide him handlers like Jesse Benton, apparently.

To put him at the center of some sort of vast power-elite conspiracy to re-establish a formal, state run gold standard is likely ridiculous. Right now, Paul's big campaign is to undo legal tender laws. He doesn't much believe in state power and has spent a career voting against it.

Mr. Richardson is a wonderful researcher but we don't much trust documentation these days. Nor media reports. We look for patterns that reveal dominant social themes. Then we try to evaluate the back-story to see if it confirms our perception.

We can apply this to almost any element of modern news. For instance, Israel is often damned as the controller of America. We know this is ridiculous because Israel is only 70 years old. The US has been under attack by Money Power for far longer than that.

Another possible canard is that China and Russia are becoming determined opponents of the US. First of all, there really ARE no countries, only people with varying agendas. Second, both "countries" use Western forms of economics and are partners in many elements of the West's globalist aspirations.

Money Power seeks to dominate both sides of a conflict. Thus, at the very top Money Power is possibly in partial or full control of both China and Russia. At least in many ways the powers-that-be work together.

As for Ron Paul, when we examine his historical personality, we have a great deal of difficulty believing he was part of some sort of Money Power "sleeper cell" going back 20 or 30 years. Doesn't make sense to us, though, of course, we always reserve the right to be wrong.

After Thoughts

Finally, we have these questions: How does government know how much money to print? In other words, how much is too much?

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap