As you know, the so-called “national debt” is actually $20 trillion in deposits at the Fed Bank.

An article in the Wall Street Journal by Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) says that, “Governing by crisis is irresponsible, especially considering the $20 trillion national debt.”

“Congress should be preparing for future disasters. It is only a matter of time before the U.S. faces the next catastrophe. But for some reason, the government does not budget with this in mind. Instead Congress waits for a crisis to happen and then hurries to pass an aid package afterward. Ideally the federal government should run a surplus each year and put the extra money into a rainy-day fund.”

Ouch. This garbage is in the Wall Street Journal, which has won 40 Pulitzer Prizes, and which I presume is popular with Wall Street thieves. But I wonder…do the thieves actually read this trash? If so, do they actually believe it?  One article says that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Barack Obama read the Wall Street Journal every morning.

Actually it doesn’t matter whether they believe it or not. They read the Wall Street Journal for things like the following, which appears a bit farther down….

Congress should pay for these emergency packages by cutting spending in other areas that are less of a priority.

Yes! That’s what loyal readers like to see. “Other areas” is code for programs that help average people. Certainly politicians will never cut spending for war, weapons, and Wall Street bailouts.

In short, people who read the Journal do so because they enjoy its codes.

Republicans control the White House and Congress, but this does not mean the national debt can be forgotten. House Republicans worked hard over the past year to pass a budget that balances in 10 years. That blueprint includes cost-cutting measures and reforms that could be added to the aid bill to cover its cost.

This is code for, “We must resume scolding the peasants about the fake ‘national debt crisis,’ or else the peasants may stop believing our lies.”

Republicans need to find the political courage to take the hard path by voting to offset fully the emergency spending.

“Offset spending” is code for, “The ever-increasing hurricane disasters gives us an opportunity to reinforce the lies that we use to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. We’ll tell the peasants that all social programs must be privatized, since all federal dollars are consumed by the disasters.”

Critics may claim this call for fiscal responsibility is insensitive to disaster victims. The cries for help are being heard. But equally clear is lawmakers’ obligation to future generations.

This is code for, “We’ve been talking so much about disaster victims that the peasants may stop believing our lies about the national debt and its ‘threat’ to the children, who are the true victims.”


No proof is needed

In today’s society, men can easily be destroyed with a mere accusation of sexual misconduct. No proof is needed.  In fact, it is “sexist” to ask for proof or evidence. It is “sexist” to ask, “If this allegedly happened thirty years ago, why are you only now accusing him?”

If a woman merely accuses a man, she is automatically a “victim.” If a man merely asks for proof, he is automatically a “sexual predator” who is “further victimizing” her.

Since women need not furnish any proof or evidence, and need not face any penalty for making false accusations, once a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment, countless other women suddenly say, “He harassed me too, forty years ago!” The sheer number of women who jump on the bandwagon (with no proof) is “proof” of his alleged “crimes.” It is “sexist” to wonder if any of them are lying, or distorting, or are exploiting the imbroglio.

Some women resist this hate-filled hysteria. They do not exploit the brouhaha and the commotion. They do not seek to use accusations of sexual harassment as a form of gold digging. They wonder about the accusers. However they dare not say anything, since they will be accused of betraying the “sisterhood.”

Once hate and hysteria go on the warpath, they look for more and more targets. They can never get enough. The more they destroy, the more they claim to be “victims,” and the more they demand that everyone supports their jihad. Amid the feeding frenzy, many women who had never felt harassed suddenly “realize” that they had been “harassed.”

Meanwhile there are always people eager to increase the hysteria and exploit it, such as media pundits, or men who advance themselves by coercing a woman into falsely accusing a male rival.

Longtime Fox host Bill O’Reilly was fired after it was revealed that he had paid off at least five women who had merely accused him of sexual harassment. O’Reilly paid them because he knew he could be destroyed by mere accusations (and eventually he was). Society takes this as “proof” that O’Reilly did in fact sexually harass them.

Last year, Roger Ailes resigned as Fox News chairman after being accused sexual harassment.

Forty years ago, Roman Polanski was convicted of statutory rape. Today conviction is automatic. Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, etc. are merely accused, but that is enough. And the number is exploding, since no proof is needed.

This always happens with political correctness. One segment of society (in this case, males in Hollywood) uses charges of “racist” and “sexist” and “homophobe” as a weapon against their rivals, and against society as a whole, so they can rise above society. Then their monster turns around and eats them.

So it wasn’t the Russians after all. The ultra-corrupt and sociopathic Hillary Clinton now claims that she lost the election because of “misogyny,” which she claims is “endemic.” (I think she means pandemic, meaning everywhere.)

Trump is a buffoon, but Hillary is insane.

Coming soon to your town

Before we get going, let me say that it’s hard to decide which is more insulting: media attacks on Trump (i.e. Russia-gate) or Fox News’ defense of Trump.

The Fox article above refers to the North Korean government’s billion-dollar makeover of the seaside town of Wonsan, an industrial port city with a popular beach (pop. 360,000)  The city is being transformed into three sections: a financial district, entertainment and sports area, and a tourist destination with a vacation beach resort for the public. Shipyards and an automobile plant will be moved to a different city.  Plans for this were announced in 2014.

The Fox article wants you to think that Kim Jon Un is building a private “Mar-a-Lago” estate like Trump’s.

North Korea’s government is building a new airport, ski resort and five-star hotel. The government hopes to increase the number of tourists (foreign and domestic) by 1 million people each year, eventually bringing in between 5 million to 10 million in the foreseeable future.

(The U.S. government forbids American tourists to go there, because the government wants to starve North Korea of foreign currency.)

Fox News claims that the only reason why the government is doing this for the people is to ensure the survival of the “brutal dictatorship.”

As for proving that the North Korean people are “starving,” the article doesn’t even mention this.


The neoliberal Concord Coalition is a political advocacy group that demands the elimination or  privatization of social programs like Medicare and Social Security, and anything else that helps average Americans.

For 20 years they have toured various cities to falsely claim that the so-called “national debt” is “unsustainable,” and that if we don’t privatize Social Security (i.e. if we don’t give it to Wall Street thieves) our taxes will have to be quadrupled.

One of the Concord Coalition’s favorite lies concerns the interest paid on the “national debt,” which is currently about $270 billion a year. The Concord liars claim that it will soon rise to $768 billion, which they claim is more than the military budget.

Nonsense. Let me explain this for the umpteenth time. When you buy a CD at a bank (certificate of deposit) you deposit your money in an account for an agreed-to period of time for an agreed-to rate of interest. A CD pays higher interest than a regular account, because you agree to not touch your money, which you have lent to the bank. If you withdraw your money out early, you lose the interest. While your money is on deposit, the bank does not need to “pay you off.” Your money just sits there in an account. It is a loan to the bank. The bank “pays off” your loan when your CD matures, since it gives you back your money plus interest.

Buying a Treasury security is exactly the same. A T-security is simply a CD with the Federal Reserve Bank. You deposit your money in a Fed savings account for an agreed-to period of time for an agreed-to rate of interest. If you withdraw your money early, you lose the interest. Since you cannot spend your money while it is in your Fed savings account, your money is called “reserves.” (Hence the Federal “Reserve” Bank.) When your T-security matures, the Fed moves your money from your Fed savings account to your regular checking account, plus interest.

The Fed creates the interest money out of thin air, simply by adding it to the numbers in your checking account. So even if the aggregate interest rose to $768 billion a year, it would not be a “crisis” for anyone. The $768 billion is itself dubious, since the Fed decides what interest rate it will pay on T-securities, and how many T-securities it will offer for sale.

There is $20 trillion deposited in Fed savings accounts. Since that $20 trillion is on loan to the Fed, it is called a “national debt.” The “debt” never needs to be “paid off,” since each T-security is paid off as it matures.

None of this has anything to do with the U.S. government’s ability to continue creating money out of thin air by simply changing the numbers in bank accounts.

The Concord Coalition liars don’t want you to understand this. They want you to give Medicare and Social Security to the thieves of Wall Street.

Last Tuesday (10 Oct 2017) they went to Drake University in Des Moines Iowa and staged one of their exercises in which they give people a pen and paper and ask what they would do to reduce the “national debt.”

BELOW: 60 participants at Drake University sat at 12 round tables and voted as a small group on each of 41 spending or revenue items. Each choice was assigned a dollar figure representing its effect on the budget deficit over 10 years.

The Concord Coalition switched back and forth between talking about “federal deficits” and the “national debt” as though they were the same thing, which they are not. The Coalition does this to keep its victims confused and submissive.

The Coalition claims that every deficit dollar adds to the “national debt.” This again is false, since the U.S. government does not borrow its spending money from anyone. Nor does the U.S. government rely on tax revenue. The government creates its spending money out of thin air.

By the end of the 90-minute exercise, every group had cut at least $1 trillion from the deficit. Some though they had cut the $1 trillion from the “national debt.” As I said, they were utterly confused. The Concord Coalition had done its work.

If I had come to the Drake University event and explained the facts, the participants would have called security and had me ejected, while Concord Coalition members stood and laughed at their ignorance.

Penis panic

Mass hysteria is  always present in society, although it continually changes its form and intensity.  Remember last year’s wave of “clown sightings” across the USA?  Police departments actually took that nonsense seriously. How about “alien abductions” and phantom epidemics? (Bird flu, swine flu, Zika, etc.)

How about war? This too is mass hysteria.

Hysteria causes hallucinations, and sometimes it manifests physically on people’s bodies as stigmata and weird ailments. We develop scars where the extraterrestrials “probed” us, or where “killer clowns” scratched us, or where invisible Russians “attacked” us with death rays. Mere delusions cause us to see “Nazis” or “Communists” or “anti-Semites” behind every tree, but hysteria makes us physically ill.

A penis panic, for example, is a mass hysteria in which large numbers of men suddenly imagine that their genitals are getting smaller, or are vanishing. Penis panics occur around the world, most notably in Asia and Africa. They cause men to injure themselves with needles, hooks, fishing line, and shoe strings to prevent the imaginary “disappearance” of their penises. One epidemic struck Singapore in 1967, resulting in thousands of reported cases. Government officials ended that hysteria by imposing a media blackout on it. (In Western nations, penis panic manifests as rumors of drastically lowered sperm counts.)

In 1962, women workers in a textile factory were suddenly overcome with numbness, nausea, dizziness, and vomiting. A rumor spread of a mysterious insect in the factory that caused this. Sixty two employees fell ill. Some were hospitalized. The news media reported on the case. But no such bug existed. It was mass hysteria.

Hysteria can affect any group in the lower economic classes, male or female, young or old, white or black, educated or uneducated. For example, in 1994 Gloria Ramirez of Riverside CA was rushed to a hospital for cervical cancer. Corporate media outlets dubbed her “the toxic lady” after the medical staff claimed to be sickened by exposure to Gloria’s body. Doctors fainted. Nurses screamed. Swat teams mobilized. Helicopters buzzed overhead. Gloria’s body supposedly exuded a fruity smell, and her blood supposedly contained flecks of a strange substance like paper. Again it was mass hysteria. The “illnesses” were all psycho-somatic.

I could give countless other examples (the Internet is full of them) but I note that the mysterious “death beam” in Cuba is, once again, a case of mass hysteria.

(I suspect that the claims of being raped by Harvey Weinstein are also hysteria. They are multiplying exponentially with no proof or evidence.)

The corporate media outlets thrive on hysteria, and they constantly lie in order to create and sustain it. For example the Associated Press (AP) claims that the video below is a recording of a “sonic attack” in Cuba.

Where did the AP get this “recording”? They don’t say.

Who “recorded” it? They don’t say.

Exactly where was it “recorded”? They don’t say.

Where are the 22 people who were “attacked”? They don’t say.

What proof do they offer that it is not fabricated? None. Hysteria is strongest when there is no proof.

To strengthen the hoax, the AP claims to have sent the “recording” to the U.S. Navy for analysis.

Below, CBS News gets in on the childishness…

BELOW: Using the wonders of modern technology, I have located the source of the mysterious sonic attacks in Cuba…

$21 trillion

Catherine Austin Fitts was managing director and member of the board of directors of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc.

She was also Assistant Secretary of Housing and Federal Housing.

She was also a Commissioner at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush Administration.

She was also the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., an investment bank and financial software developer.

Today she is the president of Solari, Inc., and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services, LLC.

Her web site says that $21 trillion dollars is missing from the US government. The web site includes federal documents to prove it.

The Fed and their member banks are transacting government money outside the law. So are the corporate contractors that run the payment systems. So are the Wall Street firms who are selling government securities without full disclosure. Would your banks continue to handle your bank account if you behaved like this? Would your investors continue to buy your securities if you behaved like this? Would your accountant be silent?

The Solari Report has been covering the missing money since 2000 when Catherine Austin Fitts began to warn Americans and global investors about mortgage fraud at the US Department of Housing and Development (HUD) and the engineering of the housing bubble that lead to trillions more dollars in bailouts.

That missing $21 trillion is buried on federal agencies’ books as “undocumented adjustments” –- i.e. entries inserted without receipts or other documentary support, just to balance the books. It represents money that rightfully belongs to the American people.

$21 trillion.

The average American shrugs his shoulders about this, because there is nothing he can do about it. Besides, the federal government can create infinite money out of thin air.

However if you ask the average American to support Universal Medicare, you get this…

Do I understand this correctly?

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Affordable Care Act will give $705 billion in federal subsidies to insurance companies in FY 2017 alone.  The U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation agrees on this figure.

That $705 billion is in addition to money collected from insurance premiums.

(That $705 billion is also $102 billion more than the U.S. government will spend on Medicare in 2017. And no one asks, “How will you pay for it?”)

The insurance giants claim that without this gift of nearly $1 trillion-a-year in federal subsidies, they will raise their insurance premiums even higher than they are now.

(And yet the insurance giants increase their premiums every year anyway.)

Yesterday Trump signed an executive order that will supposedly end this gift of nearly $1 trillion a year in federal subsidies to the insurance giants.

Everyone is screaming that Trump’s order will cause the insurance giants to raise their premiums even higher, even though the insurance giants keep raising their premiums ever-higher anyway.

Ironically the loudest screams are coming from the (so-called) left, who claim that if we don’t keep enriching the insurance giants, the world will end.

For example, Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote on Twitter that, “There is no justification for putting healthcare out of the reach of some of our most vulnerable populations.”

If Rep, Grijalva is correct, then Grijalva could use this moment to push for Universal Medicare.

Grijalva is already one of 120 co-sponsors of John Conyers’ Medicare-For-All-Act.

But no, Grijalva is weeping for the insurance giants.

From the New York Times: “Mr. Trump has made clear that he detests the payments and sees them as a bailout for insurance companies.”

The attorneys general of multiple states claim that they will sue the White House to restore the endless trillions in federal subsidies for the insurance giants. (In reality no one can sue or prosecute a president while he or she is in office. The U.S. president can only be impeached by the U.S. Senate.)

To repeat: the loudest screeches are coming from the left. Liberals are screaming that if we don’t keep making the rich insurance giants even richer, we will all die.

The insurance giants have used this nearly $1 trillion a year in federal subsidies to become larger than ever, giving them more monopoly power than ever. Much of Trump’s executive order is devoted to boosting competition and reducing this monopoly power. Quoting from the order…

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has severely limited the choice of healthcare options available to many Americans and has produced large premium increases in many State individual markets for health insurance. The average exchange premium in the 39 States that are using in 2017 is more than double the average overall individual market premium recorded in 2013.

The PPACA has also largely failed to provide meaningful choice or competition between insurers, resulting in one-third of America’s counties having only one insurer offering coverage on their applicable government-run exchange in 2017.

All true.

After signing the executive order, Trump tweeted, “The time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health ins across state lines – creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring costs way down & provide far better care.”

Liberals complain that the ACA subsidies give too much power to the insurance giants.

And yet liberals scream when anyone suggests cutting the subsidies.

Perhaps I totally misunderstand this issue. If so, I would like it explained to me.

Power and religion

Weinstein has not been convicted of anything. There are only rumors, hearsay, and unproven accusations.  And yet the entire nation is screaming.  Why? Why is this alleged scandal suddenly boiling over now? Weinstein is only the trip of the Hollywood iceberg. Why is he being singled out?

Has Hollywood’s political correctness and SJW mania backfired, such that women are attacking the men who made them rich and famous? Or is something else going on?


Anyway that’s not relevant to this post. I will explain the reason for this post below, after a few paragraphs.

Have you ever wondered why Communist nations usually outlawed churches? It wasn’t because those nations were atheistic. (They weren’t.)

No, the reason is that organized religions almost always side with whoever has power in a given nation. Down through the ages, almost all religions, at least the large organized ones with sacred writings, have supported the existing states and ruling classes, either directly, or by counselling passivity and withdrawal.

If a nation is a plutocracy, then organized religions support the plutocrats against the lower classes. Powerful churches (or mosques or temples or whatever) pretend to care about the lower classes, but only to keep the lower classes under control (just like Democrats pretend to care about average Americans in order to keep them under control).

If a nation has a National Socialist government (e.g. Nazi Germany) then the local religions align with the Nazis, since the Nazis are in power. On 20 July 1933 Eugenio Pacelli (who later became Pope Pius XII) signed the Reichskonkordat treaty with the Nazi government which guaranteed the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, in return for the Catholic Church staying out of German politics.

In 1800s Mexico, rich oligarchs owned everything and everyone, and they lived on vast latifundias (Latin for “farm estate”; hacienda in Spanish). Latifundia systems are slavery systems, and they have existed in many nations and historical epochs. In Mexico, local people were forced at gunpoint to work on vast estates to make rich oligarchs richer. Average Mexicans became so hungry and impoverished that in 1910 they began a ten-year-long revolution. The Catholic Church opposed them, and sided with the rich oligarchs. This in turn led to the Cristero War of 1926-29. “Cristeros” were people who fought for the church against the populist revolutionaries. Eventually the Cristeros lost. Today in Mexico the Catholic Church is back in power.

In Venezuela the Catholic Church has always sided with the rich oligarchs and the neoliberal Empire against the lower classes and against the quasi-socialist “Bolivarian Revolution.”

There have been a few local exceptions to this rule in Latin America, but they are not supported by the central church authorities. For example, “Liberation Theology” emphasizes a concern for the liberation of the poor and oppressed. The Vatican has never supported Liberation Theology, and has often opposed it.

In the USA there is “Black liberation theology.”

In 1800s Russia, the Orthodox Church supported the oligarchs against the lower classes, and was deeply integrated into the autocratic state, enjoying official status. Therefore the 1917 Revolution banned the Church.

In 1700s France the Catholic Church (i.e. the Gallican Church) sided with the crown and with the aristocrats against average people. Therefore after the French Revolution of 1789, the Catholic Church came under increasing pressure, and was finally banned in 1794.  Later, Napoleon Bonaparte brought back the Catholic Church and used it as an instrument of state. The Vatican supported Bonaparte, because the Church almost always supports whoever happens to be in power (except for the cases where the church is banned).

I say almost always, because during the War for American Independence, some churches supported the rebels, while others supported the British.

All organized religions do this; not just the Catholic Church. Which brings me to the reason for this post.

From here on I shall paraphrase an article by Andre Vltchek…

In the early 1960s the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) was the third largest in the world after those of the Soviet Union and China. Indonesia was a true internationalist nation, and was one of the proud founders of the Non-Aligned Movement. President Sukarno and his progressive government sought to build a proud, artistic and productive nation. Sukarno once even humiliated the US Ambassador in front of a huge crowd at a packed stadium, telling him, “To hell with your aid!”

He did not need any Western aid. He was presiding over potentially one of the richest nations on Earth.

In 1965 the PKI was going to win the elections, comfortably and democratically, and was fully supported by President Sukarno. Their manifesto was anti-imperialism, social justice and land reforms.

However they were opposed by the largest landowners in Indonesia, which were the religious leaders. Those leaders, together with the military and corrupt elites, decided: that, “This must be stopped! No justice. No internationalism. No socialism. No equality!”

On 30 Sep 1965, the Indonesian military, obeying orders from religious leaders, and from foreign powers (mainly the US and the UK), overthrew the progressive and anti-imperialist government of President Sukarno, and exterminated between 1 and 3 million men, women and children (including almost all members of the Communist Party of Indonesia – PKI).

This was done with the direct help of almost all the major religious organizations (Muslim, Protestant, Catholic and Hindu). The bloodshed continued well into 1966, and the “Rivers were choked with corpses and ran red from blood. All the hopes for a socialist and egalitarian motherland were wasted.

Indonesia has been a sewer of poverty and corruption ever since.

There was mass slaughter, mass rape, cutting off of female breasts, torture, and overflowing prisons and concentration camps. Around 40% of all the teachers of Java were executed. The military was substituted into the school classrooms. Film studios and traditional theatres were shut down. Writers were sent to Buru concentration camp. Western-style turbo-capitalism was introduced.

All with the blessings of religious leaders, who became richer than ever.

Unable to produce anything of substantial value, Indonesia began plundering its own natural resources on behalf of foreign conglomerates. The entire beautiful and naturally rich, enormous islands, like Borneo (the largest island in Asia and the second largest in the world), Sumatra and Papua, were converted into devastated, poisoned and fully privatized ecological and social nightmares.

Today the three main pillars of the Indonesia’s corrupt and oppressive regime are oligarchs, the military, and religious leaders. Whenever it suits them, they start warning that Communists are behind every bush, and are bent on enslaving Indonesia. Indonesian children are taught that socialism is evil and is anti-Islam. (87% of Indonesians are Muslim. In fact, most of the world’s Muslims live in Southeast Asia.)

Whoever dares complain about social inequality, the lack of medical care, lack of affordable education, housing and other basic services, gets branded a “Communist,” and is physically attacked, or legally sanctioned. This includes members of parliament, and even the president, Joko Widodo.

Rich and corrupt religious leaders targeted the popular, effective and left-leaning Mayor of Jakarta, ‘Ahok’, throwing him in prison for ‘insulting Islam’ – on thoroughly bogus charges. His biggest ‘sin’ appeared to be his determination to build a mass public transportation system (instead of forcing people to use private vehicles), creating green public areas, building drainage, and cleaning clogged and polluted canals. Such populist and egalitarian ideas are not acceptable to the oligarchs or the corruption religious leaders.

“Ahok” is of Chinese origin, a great ‘crime’ in the racially intolerant Indonesia. President Widodo is not, yet religious leaders repeatedly accuse Widodo of being a “Communist” because he addresses issues related to social justice.

Among average people, Islamists call President Widodo a “Communist,” which in Indonesia could  mean a death sentence. The Islamist peasants hold marches shouting , “Death to the PKI!”

I talked to a dozen “Communism-haters” and saw that they knew absolutely nothing about the subject they were screaming about. Some were clearly paid to be there. Some had nothing better to do. Some were scared about the emptiness of their lives in present-day Indonesia, and they needed to cheer each other up with hate speeches so they wouldn’t feel so helpless and alone.


There’s a lot more in Andre Vltchek’s article and I encourage you to take a look at it if you have time.

The bottom line is that I do not have a high opinion of large, organized religions.