Different Governments

If the democratic form of government (rule by a majority) does not protect the rights of the minority, is there a form of government mat does? If Democracies protect only the strong, is there a form of government that protects both the strong and the weak?

Various forms of government exist, but basically there are only two:
Rule by God: A Theocracy
Rule by man: Various Forms

Man has no control over whether or not God wishes to form a theocratic form of government. This is God's decision. God will create one, or not create one, depending on His plans. So this study of governmental forms will not consider this form of government as a viable alternative. There are various forms of government by man. Some of the more common types are briefly defined as:

Rule by no one: Anarchy
Rule by one man: A Dictatorship; Or A Monarchy
Rule by a few men: An Oligarchy
Rule by the majority: A Democracy

Anarchy is a form of government in transition between two other forms of government. Anarchy is created by those who wish to destroy one form of government so that it can be replaced with the form of government the anarchists wish. It too will be discarded as a viable alternative.

It is generally conceded that even a monarchy or a dictatorship is an oligarchy, or a government run by a small, ruling minority. Every monarchy has its small circle of advisors, who allow the king or dictator to rule as long as he does so in a manner pleasing to the oligarchy. It is doubtful that there has ever been a true dictatorship (rule by one person) anywhere in the world, except in some isolated instances, such as in a tribe or in a clan. Such is also the case with a democracy, for this form of government is traditionally controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. The people in a democracy are conditioned to believe that they are indeed the decisionmaking power in the government, but in truth there is almost always a small circle at the top making the decisions for the entirety. So the only true form of government throughout history has been the oligarchy, a rule by a minority.

As proof of these contentions, one has only to read the 1928 United States Army Training Manual, which defined a democracy as:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy, attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequence.

Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

A democracy, according to this definition, is actually controlled by a demagogue, defined as: "A speaker who seeks to make capital of social discontent and gain political influence." So demagogues are usually hired by those supporting an oligarchy as a form of government to create the anarchy or social discontent that the oligarchs convert into a true oligarchy. Democracies are converted to anarchy, where no one rules, as the oligarchs seek to control the government themselves. And anarchy ends with a dictatorship or a tyrannical form of government when the oligarchy imposes total control over all of the people.

The 1928 definition of a democracy was later changed by those who write Army manuals, however. In 1952, this became the definition of a democracy in the Soldier's Guide:

Because the United States is a democracy, the majority of the people decide how our government will be organized and run — and that includes the Army, Navy and Air Force. The people do this by electing representatives, and these men and women then carry out the wishes of the people.

(This is a strange definition to offer the American fighting man: that democratic policies manage the Armed Services. It is doubtful that enlisted men elect their officers or make decisions as to how to conduct the war.)

So if democracies are in truth oligarchies, where the minority rules, is there a form of government that protects both minority and majority rights? There is, and it is called a republic, which is defined as:

Rule by law: A Republic

In the republican form of government, the power rests in a written constitution, wherein the powers of the government are limited so that the people retain the maximum amount of power themselves. In addition to limiting the power of the government, care is also taken to limit the power of the people to restrict the rights of both the majority and the minority. Perhaps the simplest method of illustrating the difference between an oligarchy, a democracy and a republic would be to discuss the basic plot of the classic grade B western movie.

In this plot, one that the moviegoer has probably seen a hundred times, the brutal villain rides into town and guns down the unobtrusive town merchant by provoking him into a gunfight. The sheriff hears the gunshot and enters the scene. He asks the assembled crowd what had happened, and they relate the story. The sheriff then takes the villain into custody and removes him to the city jail.

Back at the scene of the shooting, usually in a tavern, an individual stands up on a table (this individual by definition is a Demagogue) and exhorts the crowd to take the law into its own hands and lynch the villain. The group decides that this is the course of action that they should take
(notice that the group now becomes a democracy where the majority rules) and down the street they (now called a mob) go. They reach the jail and demand that the villain be released to their custody. The mob has spoken by majority vote: the villain must hang.

The sheriff appears before the democracy and explains that the villain has the right to a trial by jury. The demagogue counters by explaining that the majority has spoken: the villain must hang. The sheriff explains that his function is to protect the rights of the individual, be he innocent or guilty, until that individual has the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. The sheriff continues by explaining that the will of the majority cannot deny this individual that right. The demagogue continues to exhort the democracy to lynch the villain, but if the sheriff is persuasive and convinces the democracy that he exists to protect their rights as well, the scene should end
as the people leave, convinced of the merits of the arguments of the sheriff. The republican form of government has triumphed over the democratic form of mob action.

In summary, the sheriff represents the republic, the demagogue the control of the democracy, and the mob the democracy. The republic recognizes that man has certain inalienable rights and that government is created to protect those rights, even from the acts of a majority. Notice that
the republic must be persuasive in front of the democracy and that the republic will only continue to exist as long as the people recognize the importance and validity of the concept. Should the people wish to overthrow the republic and the sheriff, they certainly have the power (but not the right) to do so.

But the persuasive nature of the republic's arguments should convince the mob that it is the preferable form of government.

There is another example of the truths of this assertion. It is reported in the Bible.

The republic, in the form of the Roman government, "washed its hands of the matter" after finding the accused Jesus innocent of all charges, and turned Him over to the democracy, which later crucified Him.

It is easy to see how a democracy can turn into anarchy when unscrupulous individuals wish to manipulate it. The popular beliefs of the majority can be turned into a position of committing some injustice against an individual or a group of individuals. This then becomes the excuse for the unscrupulous to grab total power, all in an effort to "remedy the situation."

Alexander Hamilton was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing: "We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy (or some other form of dictatorship.)"

Others were led to comment on the perils of a democratic form of government. One was James Madison who wrote: "In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger!" Another was John Adams who wrote: "Unbridled passions produce the same effects, whether in a king, nobility, or a mob. The experience of all mankind has proved the prevalence of a disposition to use power wantonly. It is therefore as necessary to defend an individual against the majority (in a democracy) as against the king in a monarchy."

In A Democracy then, Might makes Right.
In A Republic, Right makes Might.
In A Democracy, the law restricts the people.
In A Republic, the law restricts the government.

When Moses of the Bible carried the Ten Commandments down to the people, they were written on stone. The majority of the people did not vote to accept them. They were offered as the truth, and were in stone to teach the people that they couldn't change them by majority vote. But the people rejected the Commandments anyway, just as they can reject the principles of the republican form of government should they choose to do so.

America's founding fathers, while not writing the laws in stone, did attempt to restrict man's ability to tamper with them. The rules for revising or amending the Constitution are rigidly set out in the provisions of the Constitution itself. George Washington, in his farewell address to the American people as he was leaving the presidency, spoke about the amending of the Constitution:

If in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional power be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution
designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

It was about the same time that a British professor named Alexander Fraser Tyler wrote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess (defined as a liberal gift) out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Here is outlined the procedure by which democratic, or even republican, forms of government can be turned into a dictatorship. This technique of subverting a democracy into a dictatorship was spelled out in a book in 1957 by Jan Kozak, a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. Mr. Kozak titled his book How Parliament Took a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism and the Role of the Popular Masses. The American version of his book is titled And Not a Shot is Fired, the Communist Strategy for Subverting a Representative Government. Mr. Kozak describes what has been called the "Pincers Movement," the method by which the conspirators can use the parliament, the "Pressure from Above," and the mob, the "Pressure from Below," to convert a democracy into a dictatorship. Mr. Kozak explained his strategy:

A preliminary condition for carrying out fundamental social changes and for making it possible that parliament be made use of for the purpose of transforming a capitalistic society into a socialistic one, is:

A. to fight for a firm parliamentary majority which would ensure and develop a strong 'pressure from above,' and

B. to see to it that this firm parliamentary majority should rely on the revolutionary activity of the broad working masses exerting 'pressure from below.'

What Mr. Kozak proposed was a five part program to seize control of a government.

The first step consisted of having the conspiracy's own people infiltrate the government (the "pressure from above.")

The second step was to create a real or alleged grievance, usually through either an action of government or through some situation where the government should have acted and didn't.

The third step consisted in having a mob created by the real or alleged grievance that the government or the conspiracy caused demand that the problem be solved by a governmental action (the "pressure from below.")

The fourth step consisted in having the conspirators in the government remedy the real or alleged sitiuation with some oppressive legislation.

The fifth step is a repeat of the last three. The legislation that the government passes does not solve the problem and the mob demands more and more legislation until the government becomes totalitarian in nature by possessing all of the power.

And total power was the goal of those causing the grievance. The plan is, as Nesta Webster wrote in her book World Revolution: "the systematic attempt to create grievances in order to exploit them." This technique was used, with a slight variation, by Adolf Hitler, who sent his own party loyalists into the streets (the "Pressure from Below") to create the terror that he blamed on the government (the "Pressure from Above.") The German people, told by Hitler that the government in power couldn't end the terror even though they passed oppressive legislation in an effort to stop it, listened to the one man who was offering relief: Adolf Hitler. He was in a position to stop the terror. He was the one causing it! And therefore he could end it! And he promised that he would end it when he was given the power of government!

The people believed Hitler and voted him into office. And once in office, he called in his party loyalists and the terror ended, just like he promised. Hitler appeared to be a hero: he did what he said he would.

There are some who saw this strategy at work in the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment ("Prohibition") to the Constitution. If the creation of an organized crime syndicate was the reason for the passage of this Amendment, then what happened makes sense. Anyone who knew human nature realized that the Amendment would not cause the drinking of liquor to stop: it would only make drinking illegal. And the American people responded by purchasing their liquor from those
willing to risk penalties and fines for selling illegal liquor. The more that the government clamped down on the illegal sale of liquor, the more they played into the hands of those who wished to create a crime syndicate. The more the pressure on those selling the liquor, the more the price went up. The more the price went up, the more unscrupulous became the seller of the liquor. The more unscrupulous the seller, the more crime in the streets. The more crime in the streets, the more pressure on the sellers of the liquor. Finally, only the most ruthless survived. And the price of liquor was raised even higher because of the risk involved in selling it. The American people thought that the crime syndicate that survived the government's pressure would cease after Prohibition was repealed. But they stayed, much to the continued distress of the American people. Some very well-known Americans benefited from Prohibition.
In fact:"Frank Costello, the so-called 'Prime Minister of the Underworld'... informed Peter Maas, author of The Valachi Papers that he and Joseph Kennedy (the father of the late President, John Kennedy) were partners in the liquor business." This startling connection between organized crime and the father of the late President was confirmed in an article in Parade Magazine on November 16, 1980. A more current example of this technique was used by those who wanted to prolong the Vietnamese War. This strategy was used throughout the war with extreme effectiveness.

One of the truths of the economic system under which America operates is that the name on the bottom line of the payroll check is the employer, and the name on the top line is the employee. As long as the employee continues to perform as requested by the employer, the employee continues getting payroll checks. When the employee ceases to perform as requested, the checks are no longer issued. The same principle applies in the funding of the public universities during the Vietnamese War.

A good percentage of the anti-government, anti-Vietnamese War protestors came from the college campuses in the United States. These schools were heavily financed by the very government that the college students were protesting against.

Yet the funding from the federal government continued. In other words, the employee (the schools) were producing a product (the anti-war protestors) that was pleasing to the employer (the federal government.) And as long as the schools kept producing a product pleasing to the employer, the checks continued. Is it possible that the government, acting as the "pressure from above," intentionally funded schools because it wanted these schools to produce antigovernment dissidents, the "pressure from below?" Is it possible that the government's purpose was to prolong the war? Is it possible that this was the method by which the American people were conditioned to support the "no-win" strategy of America's involvement in the war? The American people, until at least the Korean War, believed that our government should first avoid wars, but once in one, they believed the government should win and then leave. But the government's strategy during the Vietnamese War was never to win but to find ways to prolong the war, and the anti-war protestors were created for that purpose. The strategy was simple. The public was told by the major media that covered every meeting of three or more anti-war protestors, that to oppose the war was un-American. The protestors were to do everything to discredit the American flag, the nation, and the military. To do this they burned the flag, used obscenities, and carried the flag of the enemy, the Viet Cong. All of these activities were calculated to tell the American people that there were only two choices in the war:

1. Support your government in whatever action they might take in the war; or

2. Join the protestors in objecting to the war by burning the flag, using obscenities, and carrying the flag of the enemy.

Another slogan made popular during the war was: "Your country: love it or leave it."

There were only two options being offered: either support your government in its "no-win" strategy, or leave the country. The traditional goal of America's strategy in a war, victory, was not being offered as an alternative.

The most glaring, although not commonly understood, example of the "no-win" war strategy, was the use of the "peace" sign, made by extending the first two fingers into a "V." This gesture was first made popular during World War II by Winston Churchill who meant the symbol to mean "victory." (No one ever explained what the letter "V" had to do with the word "peace," but it didn't matter, as it was intended to cause the American people to think of "peace" and not "victory" in the Vietnamese war.)

The strategy worked. The American people allowed the various administrations involved to wage the war without the goal of a victory, and the war continued for about ten years.

It is a well known fact that the quickest and surest path to victory in any war is to deny the enemy the materials he needs to wage the war. In 1970, the world's largest petition drive focused on the fact that America was supplying Russia with strategic military items while Russia was supplying eighty percent of North Vietnam's war materials. This petition drive was supported by the signatures of around four million Americans, yet it hardly received any press coverage. As the petitions were assembled, they were sent to U.S. congressmen and senators, but nothing was done, and the aid and trade to Russia continued. There was no question in the minds of those who circulated the petitions that the war would have been over in a very short time if this aid and trade stopped.

The strategy worked. The American people, no longer offered a victory as an alternative, and turned off by the protestors who urged them to end the war, supported their government's "no-win" strategy, and the war kept grinding on, killing and injuring scores of American fighting men and women, as well as countless Vietnamese on both sides of the war. Others have become aware of Kozak's strategy and have used it in a beneficial manner. One such individual explained the method in 1965:

1. Non-violent demonstrators go into the streets;
2. Racists unleash violence against them;
3. Americans demand federal legislation;
4. The administration initiates measures of immediate intervention and remedial legislation.

The author of those words was Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote them in an article in Saturday Review.8 It appears that Mr. King somehow had heard of Jan Kozak's book, as the methods are nearly identical. Those who have studied Mr. King's background before he became America's Civil Rights leader are certain that Mr. King was in a position to have read and studied Kozak's book itself. The Augusta, Georgia, Courier of July 8, 1963, printed a picture of Mr. King at the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee during the Labor Day weekend of 1957. This school had an interesting history. After King visited there, the school was closed by the Tennessee Legislature in 1960 after having conducted hearings into its true nature. The school was cited as being a "meeting place for known Communists and fellow travelers," and as a "Communist Training School."

Mr. King's association with the Communists and the Communist Party was not restricted to just those he met during the weekend at the Folk School, as Communists virtually surrounded him as he planned his civil rights activities. The Reverend Uriah J. Fields, the Negro clergyman who was King's secretary during the early stages of the bus boycott that made King famous, wrote this about those associated with him: "King helps to advance communism. He is surrounded with Communists. This is the major reason I severed my relationship with him during the fifties. He is soft on communism."

Another who supported the assertion that the Communists were involved in the activities of Mr. King was Karl Prussion, a former counterspy for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Prussion testified in 1963 after attending Communist Party meetings in California for five years: "I further swear and attest that at each and every one of the aforementioned meetings, one Reverend Martin Luther King was always set forth as the individual to whom Communists should look and rally around in the Communist struggle on the many racial issues." So Mr. King certainly had the opportunity to read the book by Jan Kozak, and he was surrounded by those who certainly should have been familiar with the method of this Communist strategist. And King even put the strategy on paper for all to see.

The purpose of the Civil Rights movement was best summarized by a comment made by two of the past presidents of the American Bar Association, Loyd Wright and John C. Satterfield. They once wrote the following about the Civil Rights Bill, one of the major "accomplishments" of the Civil Rights movement: "It is ten percent civil rights and ninety percent extension of Federal executive power. The 'civil rights' aspect of this legislation is but a cloak; uncontrolled Federal Executive power is the body."

So King's major purpose was to increase the role of the government in the everyday lives of the American people.

Thanks you "A Ralph Epperson" for your help in research.

Socialism = Communism

It has been fairly well established by traditional historians that Karl Marx was the founding father of Communism. This is, in addition, the official position offered by the Communists themselves. Their position is that this previously unknown young man suddenly rose out of obscurity to write the Communist Manifesto and thereby launched the Communist movement.
However, the truth is that this explanation is only partially correct. And the truth is far more interesting than the partially correct story.
To understand why this is so, it becomes important to first examine Karl Marx, the individual. Marx, born in 1818, went to Paris, France, in 1843 to study economics, and while at a university met Frederick Engels, the son of a wealthy Lancashire, England, cotton spinner. Marx soon learned the joys of possessing unearned wealth, for Engels constantly assisted Marx, and later Marx and his family, with an income from his father's cotton mills in England. Marx didn't care for the traditional forms of labor to earn the necessities of life, relying instead on the largess of his friend Engels to keep himself alive for nearly all of his adult life.

Marx frequently made appeals to Engels for more money because he
said his daughters "must have a bourgeois education so they can make
contacts in life."
Traditional historians have not dwelt much upon this relationship
between Marx and Engels. Those that do find it strange that Marx, the
"champion of the oppressed and the downtrodden workers" would spend
nearly all of his adult life living off the profits acquired from a "capitalistic" cotton mill in England. Engels' father, if consistent with the charges against the "propertied class" of the day, was "exploiting the working class, those who produce all of the capital of the world." Yet Marx continued living off the income provided by Engels' share of the cotton mill.

If Marx had been true and consistent to his principles, he would have
rejected this money and lived by the earnings of his own labors. Yet the only official job Marx ever had was as a correspondent for a newspaper for a short time.

In his early youth Marx was a believer in God. But while at the university Marx changed his views. He once wrote that he wished to avenge himself "against the One who rules above."

It was no coincidence that his change in his basic belief came after he
joined the highly secret Satanist Church. As evidence of his membership in this sect, Marx grew a heavy beard and let his hair grow long. These outward manifestations were "... characteristic of the disciples of Joana Southcott, a Satanic priestess who considered herself in contact with the demon Shiloh." By 1841 his conversion was nearly complete as a friend of his had observed: "Marx calls the Christian religion one of the most immoral of religions."

Not only did Marx attack the Christian religion, but the Jewish religion
as well. In 1856 Marx wrote in the New York Tribune: "Thus do these
loans... become a blessing to the House of Judah. This Jew organization of loanmongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners."

But generally Marx took out his anger against religion itself: "The
abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of man is a demand for their real happiness." The reasons for Marx's bitterness against religion are numerous: Marx saw religion:

1. as the mechanism of the wealthy to keep the poor, downtrodden
worker in his state of poverty;
2. as the teaching that one man's property did not belong to another;
3. as the teaching that man should not covet another man's property;
and
4. as the teaching that each man should be self-sufficient and earn his
own sustenance.

Marx saw this unequal distribution of wealth as the cause of man's
unhappiness. If only property could be equally divided, man would be
happy. And the vehicle that kept man from acquiring his fair share of the property was organized religion that taught that one man could not take the property of another by force: "Thou shalt not steal." Religious teaching also included the commandment that it was wrong to desire more property than you were able to acquire by your own efforts: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods." Marx reasoned, therefore, it was the religious system that kept man in poverty, as if the ownership of property was the only requirement for human happiness. It men followed, according to Marxist logic, that the capitalist system had to be destroyed because it encouraged every individual to produce his own necessities through his individual labor.
Therefore, the happiness of man was contingent upon abolishing not
only the religious system but the "Capitalistic" system as well.
One of Marx's friends, Mikhail Bakunin, once wrote mis about Marx:
"Since Marx rejected the idea of God, he could not explain the 'human
condition' as the result of sin. He blamed all evil, both moral and psychological, on the economic system which he said had to be overthrown by revolution so that the society of man could be restructured."
But even the abolishment of religion and the Capitalistic System was
not enough for the Marxists. Marx himself wished to abolish "all social
conditions," not just the church and the free enterprise system. Marx wrote:
"The Communists... openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."
Marx wrote frequently on these subjects. He wrote the following about
the subject of the family: "The bourgeois clap trap about family and
education, about the co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting... And on nationality: "The working men have no country. We cannot take away from mem what they have not got." Marx realized mat the main vehicle to be utilized in the destruction of these values was the government, and he was correct. Take, for instance, the following newspaper article that appeared in 1980:

FAMILY LIFE HARMED BY GOVERNMENT, POLL SAYS

Pollster George Gallup said Friday nearly half of those who
responded to his organization's 1980 survey on the American
family believe that the federal government has an unfavorable
influence on family life.
Ideas on how the family unit can be further damaged are now being
offered by a variety of people. One, an assistant professor at a college, offered this thought on the subject: "... the fact that children are raised in families means there is no equality. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them."

To show their individual contempt for the traditional view of family
life, both Frederick Engels and Marx had affairs: Engels with the wife of a friend, and Marx with his maid. (When Marx married Jenny von Westnhalen, the daughter of a rich and respected Prussian official, her mother gave the couple a maid as a wedding present. Marx showed his appreciation by getting his gift pregnant.) Marx further showed his contempt for his family by allowing two of his six children to starve to death, because Marx's contempt for industrious labor frequently failed to provide for his family's sustenance. In addition, two of his other children later committed suicide, perhaps because of their wretched existence as children. Marx's views on marriage and the family were consistent with the way he lived his life, but in other areas his hypocrisy was very evident. For instance, in June, 1864, "in a letter to his uncle, Lion Phillips, Marx announced that he had made 400 pounds on the stock exchange." Here Marx, the great champion of the working man against the "exploiting capitalists" (those who make their money on the stock exchange,) admits that he himself had made a profit on the stock exchange (in effect admitting that he considered himself a member of this class.) Notice that this was eighteen years after he urged the proletariat (the working class) to overthrow the bourgeois (the wealthy class), those who make profits on the stock exchange.

On one occasion, he wrote to Engels asking for the final settlement of
the Wolff legacy. He said: "If I had had the money during the last ten days, I would have been able to make a good deal on the stock exchange. The time has now come when with wit and very little money, one can really make a killing in London."

The Wolff legacy referred to in Marx's letter was the remains of an
inheritance left to Marx by Wilhelm Wolff, an obscure German admirer. The total legacy inherited by Marx was 824 pounds, when the annual income of the "exploited working class" was approximately 4.5 pounds. In rough equivalents today, that would mean that Marx inherited approximately $365,000 assuming that the average wage of an American workman in 1980 was $20,000.
It was not as if Marx could not have earned an adequate living by his own efforts. Mr. Marx was indeed Dr. Marx, as he had earned a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Jena. With this degree, he could have been employed by a European university and made a comfortable living. (Marx never actually attended the university. He purchased his doctorate through the mail.)

In about 1846, both Marx and Engels joined a group calling itself The Communist League which "sprang from what was known as the League of the Just. The latter, in turn, was an offshoot of the Parisian Outlaws League, founded by German refugees in that city. After a turbulent ten-year period, the League of the Just found its 'center of gravity' as Engels put it, in London where, he added, a new feature came to the fore: 'from being German' the League became international."
After the Illuminati was discovered in Bavaria, Germany, its members scattered throughout Europe. The League was an "off-shoot of the Parisian Outlaws League, founded by German refugees." One can only wonder if those refugees were the scattering Illuminati. In any event, at the Second Congress of the Communist League (the official title of the Manifesto, in German, is Manifest der Kommunistichen Partei. (History has translated "Partei" variously as "Party" or "League.") Marx and Engels were selected to write a party platform. Apparently both encountered delays in achieving this result, and the two writers "caused the Central Committee of the League to serve notice sharply that if the manifesto was not ready by February 1, 1848, measures would be taken against Marx and Engels. Results followed."

So Marx and Engels were given the task of writing a party platform for an already existing international group. The Manifesto was not the work of an inspired nobody by the name of Karl Marx (or Frederick Engels, for that matter,) who suddenly sprang up from obscurity. Both were hired by an already existing group that now felt its power was strong enough for them to come out from the "smoke-filled" rooms and make their organization, and its platform, known to the people of Europe.

But why was it so important for the manifesto to be completed by the first of February? Because the "spontaneous revolutions" that had already been planned all over Europe could "spontaneously" erupt on schedule. In fact, these "spontaneously planned" revolutions started on March 1, 1848 in Baden followed by others in Vienna on March 12; Parma, March 13; Venice, March 22; London, April 10; Spain, May 7; and Naples, May 15. Sixty-four revolutions "spontaneously erupted" all over Russia during the year as well.

So the Manifesto of the Communist Party was issued in London, England, on February 1, 1848, as an explanation of the cause of the revolutions already planned. Fortunately for the people of Europe, nearly all of these revolutions failed.
Because of these failures, the name of the manifesto was changed to the Communist Manifesto and the name of Karl Marx was added as its author. This event occurred in 1868, twenty years after its original publication. What, then, did the Communist Party want Marx and Engels to write? Marx saw the proletariat (the working class) wresting "... by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie (the propertied class)... by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property."
This meant that Marx and his contemporaries had to develop a program that would slowly destroy the rights to private property in the society until one day the working class would own all of the property. This would not require the use of force, just the action of an increasingly powerful government which would steadily expand its role in the affairs of the society. Marx and Engels wrote the following for the Communist Party:
"These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."

Marx had written elsewhere in the manifesto: "You are horrified at our intending to do away with your private property. Precisely so, that is just what we intend." So the first plank of the Manifesto was in keeping with the rest of the philosophy of Marx, although this plank only dealt with property in the form of land.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Here Marx adds the income tax as a method of taking property from the "propertied class" to give it to the "working class." This plank is in accord with Marx's statement about the obligation the wealthy have to the poor: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Government was to become the great income distributor. It was to take from the producers (the "haves,") and give it to the non-producers, (the"have-nots.")

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance."

Not only was the producer of capital goods going to find out that, as his efforts increased his rewards would decrease, but, whatever was left after the government took what it felt was needed for the poor, could not be left to his heirs. Property was to become only the temporary possession of the producer.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

Those who wished to leave the Communist state would have to forfeit their property to those who remained, and those who opposed the government would have their property confiscated.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."

The Communists told Marx to make certain that only the Communists would have the sole power to create inflation. This power would grant them the ability to destroy the private property rights of those citizens who kept their property in the form of cash.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state."

The state would restrict the citizen's right to speak out against the state by controlling his access to a mass audience, as well as control the society's right to freely disburse the goods they produced.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan."

The government would own all of the capital goods and the state would determine what was to be grown on the land.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture."

All capital goods, including the labor force itself, were to belong to the state. An industrial army would be formed, capable of being moved by its commander to whatever area the state felt needed workers, especially in the agricultural area.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of population over the country."

The ultimate capital good, man himself, would lose his ultimate freedom: the right to live where he chose. Possibly Marx envisioned the growth of the labor union as a vehicle to combine "agricultural and manufacturing industries."

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production etc., etc."

The State would assume the responsibility for the education of all of the children in the society. It is presume that Marx would not have tolerated a private school where parents could teach their own children what they felt was appropriate. If the state were the only educator, it could teach the children whatever it wanted.

The ultimate goal of the state would be to set the values of the society through the public school system. It is also presumed that Marx envisioned the ultimate abolition of the family itself, as the state assumed not only the role of the teacher in the life of the child but the role of the parent as well. The ten planks of the Communist Manifesto were written in 1848. It is interesting to see just how far these programs have advanced in the American society since that date.

1. Abolition of private property in land:

The United States government now owns 33.5 percent of the land of the U.S., completely in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Article I grants powers to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government.
Section 8 of Article I grants the power: "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, became the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other useful buildings."
That means that any land owned by the government in excess of Washington D.C. and the necessary military bases is owned in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And the government owns over one-third of the land in the United States.

In addition, that land which the government does not own is controlled through such controls as land use regulations, governmental bureaucratic edicts, zoning laws, etc. Rent controls are not normally imposed by the federal government, but by local governments, but the effects upon private property are the same. The government controls the land and property of its citizens by controlling the prices the property owners may charge for the rental of their property. (Fascism was defined as control, but not ownership of the factors of production.)

2. Progressive or graduated income tax:

The United States government passed the Graduated Income Tax in 1913, after several previous attempts had failed.

3. The Inheritance Tax:

The United States government imposed the Inheritance Tax upon the American people in 1916.

4. The confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels:

In 1980, Congress took a giant step towards confiscation of property of emigrants when it passed H.R. 5691, which makes it a crime to transport or even to attempt to transport "monetary instruments" totalling five thousand dollars or more into or out of the country without filing the required reports with the government.

5. Centralization of credit; a national bank:

The United States set up its national bank, the Federal Reserve, in 1913.

6. Centralization of communication and transport:

The United States created the Federal Trade Commission in 1916, and me Federal Communications Commission in 1934.

7. Factors of production owned by the state:

Amtrak, the federal government's railway system, is a recent example of the intrusion of the government into those areas traditionally operated by the free-enterprise system. However, other governmental intrusions into the affairs of the American businessman take the form of governmental controls of the factors of production (Fascism) rather than direct ownership. (The 1980 loan to the Chrysler Corporation was a good example.) In addition, government bureaus of every form and shape issue edicts for the privately owned business to follow.

8. Equal liability to labor:

The American government has not moved into this area as yet, but has moved into the position of being the employer of last resort through such programs as the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the draft, and a proposal known as the Universal Military Service, where all of military age are obligated to serve their country in some capacity.

9. Forced distribution of the population:

Very little has been done in this area of Marxist thought except in rather isolated instances, such as the call for "Urban Renewal."
Under this proposal, the government forces people out of low rent areas in the name of renewing urban decay. Few of these people return to the renewal area after completion of the housing projects.

10. Free education in public schools:

The United States government took a giant step, albeit without constitutional authority, towards controlling America's system of education, by funding colleges and universities after Russia orbited the artificial satellite called Sputnik in 1957. Another step towards this goal occurred in 1980 when the Department of Education was established as a separate governmental department.
Students of Marx have noticed that he wanted the Communists to use both the Graduated Income Tax and the Central Bank as a means of making "inroads into the property of the bourgeoisie."
An understanding of how these two instruments of destruction work together will follow in subsequent chapters of this book. To show how close some of the Marxists are in everyday life to abolishing the right to private property, the communists in the Democratic Party in Oregon passed a rather revealing platform plank at their annual statewide convention in 1972. It read: "Land is a common resource and should be held in public ownership."

The Communists are getting closer.

Quote:Democracy is the road to socialism. - "Karl Marks"

Note: If you think Karl Marks was a communists wait until read about "Adam Weishaupt."

Note: Watch this video of North Korea controlled by communists "Kim Jong IL"
National Geographics In North Korea - Video

Money & Gold

The Bible teaches that the love of money is the root of all evil. Money by
itself is not the root. It is the love of money, defined as greed, that motivates
certain members of society to acquire large quantities of money.
It becomes important, then, for the members of the middle class to
understand what money is and how it works. Money is defined as: "anything
that people will accept in exchange for goods or services in a belief that they
may in turn exchange it for other goods and services."
Money becomes a Capital Good. It is used to acquire Consumption
Goods (and other Capital Goods as well.) Money also becomes a method of
work avoidance. Money can work for its possessor: "When money was put to
work, it worked twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred
and sixty five days a year, and stopped for no holidays."
So the desire to acquire money to reduce a need to work became the
motive of many individuals in the society.
The first man was self-sufficient. He produced what he wanted and
stored what he needed for those times when he was unable to produce. He
had no need for money until other humans appeared and joined him in the
acquisition of Consumption Goods. As populations grew, specialization
grew, and certain individuals produced Capital Goods instead of Consumption
Goods. Man soon discovered that he needed something as a store of
value to enable him to purchase Capital Goods when he was not producing
Consumption Goods.
Durable commodities, those that didn't spoil with the passage of time,
slowly became that store of value, and in time the most durable, a metal,
became the money of society. The ultimate metal, gold, became the final
store of value for a variety of reasons:

1. Gold was universally accepted;
2. it was malleable, and had the capacity to be minted into small quantities;
3. it was in short supply and difficult to locate: the quantity of gold couldn't
be increased rapidly, thereby
reducing its ability to be inflated;
4. because of its scarcity, it soon acquired a high value per unit;
5. it was easily portable;
6. gold also had other uses. It could be used in jewelry, in art, and in industry;
7. lastly, gold was extremely beautiful.

But as the producer of gold saw the need to set this money aside for
future use, problems arose as to how and where it should be stored. Since gold
had a high value in what it could purchase in both Capital Goods and
Consumption Goods, it became a temptation to those who were willing to
take it from the owner by force. This led the owner of gold to take means to
safeguard his holdings. Certain individuals, already experienced in the
storage of non-durable goods, wheat for instance, soon became the storage
facility for gold as well.
These warehouses would take the gold and issue the gold owner a
warehouse receipt, certifying that the owner had a given quantity
of gold in storage at the warehouse. These gold receipts could be
transferred from one person to another, usually by writing on the
back of the receipt that the owner was transferring his claim on the
gold in the warehouse to another person. These receipts soon became
money themselves as men accepted the receipts rather than the gold
they represented.


Example of a US $100 gold certificate from the late 1920's.

Example of a US $20.00 Gold certificate.

Example of a US $1.00 dollar Silver certificate.

Since gold is scarce and the quantity is limited, it was impossible to
make counterfeit money. It was only when the warehouseman realized that
he could issue more gold receipts than there was gold in the warehouse that
he could become a counterfeiter. He had the ability to inflate the money
supply, and the warehouseman frequently did this. But this activity only
acted temporarily because as the quantity of gold receipts in circulation
increased, because of the economic law known as inflation, the prices would
rinse. The receipt holders would start to lose confidence in their receipts and
return to the warehouseman to claim their gold. When more receipt holders
showed up than mere was gold in the warehouse, the warehouseman had to
go bankrupt, and frequently he was prosecuted for fraud. When more receipt
holders ask for their gold than there is gold in the warehouse, it is called a
"run," and is caused because the people have lost faith in their paper money
and have demanded that the society return to the gold standard where gold
becomes the money supply.
The people's check on the warehouseman, i.e. their ability to keep the
warehouseman honest by constantly being able to redeem their gold receipts,
acted as a restraint to the inflation of the gold supply. This limited the greed
of the counterfeiters and forced them into looking for alternative methods of
increasing their wealth. The next step was for the counterfeiter to ask the
government to make the gold receipts "Legal Tender" and also prohibit the
receipt holder from redeeming the receipt into gold. This made the paper
receipt the only money able to be circulated. Gold could no longer be used as
money.
But this posed an additional problem for the counterfeiter. He now had
to include the government in his scheme to increase his personal wealth. The
greedy leader of the government, when approached by the counterfeiter with
this scheme, often decided to eliminate the warehouseman altogether ("off
with his head") and operate the scheme himself. This was the final problem
for the counterfeiter. He had to replace the leader with someone he felt he
could trust and who would not use government to remove the counterfeiter
from the plot. This process was costly and extremely risky, but the enormity
of the long-term wealth that could be accumulated by this method was worth
all the extra hazards.

A classic example of this entire scheme occurred between the years of
1716 and 1721 in France. These events were set in motion with the death of
King Louis XIV in 1715. France was bankrupt with a large national debt of
over 3 billion livres. A seedy character by the name of John Law, a convicted
murderer who had escaped from Scotland to the continent, saw the plight of
the French government and arranged with the newly crowned King to save
his country. His plan was simple. He wanted control of a central bank with
an exclusive monopoly to print money. (France at the time was under the
control of the private bankers who controlled the money supply. However,
France was on the gold standard, and the private bankers were unable to
inflate the money supply through the issuance of more gold receipts than
there was gold.) John Law was granted his wish by the desperate king. He
was granted the exclusive monopoly and the king decreed that it was illegal
to own gold. John Law then could proceed with the inflation of the money
supply and the people couldn't redeem their decreasingly worthless paper
money for gold. There was a short term prosperity, and John Law was hailed
as an economic hero. The French debt was being paid off, necessarily with
paper money of decreasing value, but that was the cost of the short term
prosperity. And the French people probably didn't understand that it was
John Law who was causing the loss in the value of their money.

However, the king and John Law got greedy and the number of receipts
increased too rapidly. The economy nearly collapsed with the increasing
prices, and the desperate people demanded an economic reform. John Law
fled for his life, and France stopped the printing of worthless paper money.
This printing of paper money, unbacked by gold, is not the only
method utilized by the counterfeiters. Another method is more
visible than the paper method and is therefore less popular with
the counterfeiters. It is called Coin Clipping. Gold is monetized by the
bank's minting of the gold into coins. This process involves the melting of the
gold into small, uniform quantities of the metal. As long as the coins made
are pure gold and all gold in circulation is minted into coins the only method
of inflating the gold coinage is to either locate additional supplies of gold
(that is, as discussed earlier, difficult, especially as the amount of gold available
to the miner is decreasing) or by calling in all of the gold coins, melting
them down, and men increasing their number by adding a less precious
metal into each coin. This enables the counterfeiter to increase the
number of coins by adding a less expensive metal to each coin.
Each newly minted coin is then put back into circulation with the same markings
as the previous coins. The public is expected to use the coin exactly as before,
except that there are now more coins in circulation than before, and as surely as
economic law, the increase in the money supply causes inflation, and prices rise.

The early Roman Empire practiced this coin clipping in what has
become a classic example of the coin clipping method. Early Roman coins
contained 66 grains of pure silver, but, due to the practice of coin clipping,
in less than sixty years their coins contained only a trace of silver. Coins
clipped of their value by the addition of less precious metals soon drove out
the silver coins that remained, in keeping with another economic law, called
Gresham's Law, which states: "Bad money drives out good."
As an illustration of this law, the clipped coins minted during the
middle 1960's and placed in circulation by President Lyndon Johnson's
administration have forced the silver coins out of circulation.
America's founding fathers were concerned with the practice of coin
clipping and tried to keep this power out of the hands of the counterfeiters.
Unfortunately, they did not completely restrict the government's ability to
clip the coins when they wrote the following Congressional power into the

Constitution:
Article 1, Section 8: Congress shall have the power...
to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and fix the standards
of weights and measures.
There are several interesting thoughts contained in that simple
sentence.
First, the only power Congress has in creating money is in the coining
of it. Congress has no power to print money, only to coin it. In addition,
Congress was to set the value of money, and the power to coin money was
placed together in the same sentence as the power to set the standard of
weights and measures. It was their intent to set the value of money just as they
set the length of a 12 inch foot, or the capacity of an ounce or a quart. The
purpose of this power was to set constant values so that all citizens could rely
on the fact that a foot in California was the same as a foot in New York.
A third way to inflate the gold standard consists in calling in all of the
gold or silver coins and replacing them with coins made of a more plentiful
metal, such as copper or aluminum. The most recent example of this activity,
called "coin substitution," occurred during the administration of Lyndon
Johnson when the government replaced silver coins with ones made of
strange combinations of more plentiful, and therefore less expensive, metals.
For the counterfeiter who finds such methods less than perfect, the surest
course to the acquisition of great wealth through inflation, is for him to get
the government off the gold standard altogether. Under this method, the gold
standard (the requirement that the government issue only gold coins, or
paper directly issued on a one-for-one basis to gold as money) is eliminated,
and money is printed without any backing, with the official sanction of the
government making it legal.

By dictionary definition, such a money is called: Fiat Money: paper
money of government issue which is legal tender by fiat or law, does
not represent nor is it based upon gold and contains no promise of
redemption. One can see the transformation of America's gold standard
into the fiat standard by reading the printing on a one dollar bill.
The early American money carried the simple promise that the
government would redeem each gold certificate with gold simply
by the surrender of the certificate at the treasury.
The Series of 1928 dollar had changed this promise on the front of
the bill to: "Redeemable in gold on demand at the U.S. Treasury or in
good or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank."
There are those who question the true nature of this dollar if its
holder can redeem it for "lawful money" at a Reserve Bank.
Does it mean that what the holder was trading in was "unlawful money?"
In any event, by 1934, the one-dollar bill read:

This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private and
is redeemed in lawful money at the Treasury or at any Federal
Reserve Bank.

And in 1963, this wording had again changed to: "This note is legal
tender for all debts, public and private." This bill was no longer redeemable
in "lawful money" so the question of whether the previous money was
"unlawful money" is now moot. But even more importantly, the bill was
now a "note." This meant that this dollar had been borrowed from those
who have an exclusive monopoly on printing paper money, and the
ability to lend it to the U.S. government. The bill identifies the source of the
borrowed money: The Federal Reserve System (the top line of the bill reads
"Federal Reserve Note.") America was on the gold standard until April, 1933,
when President Franklin Roosevelt ordered all Americans to turn their gold
bullion and gold coins into the banking system. For their gold, the American
people were given irredeemable paper currency (Fiat Money) by the banks
who turned the gold over to the Federal Reserve System.
President Roosevelt called in America's gold without benefit of a law passed
by Congress by using an unconstitutional Presidential Executive Order.
In other words, he did not ask Congress to pass a law giving him the authority
to call in America's privately owned gold; he took the law into his own hands
and ordered the gold turned in. The President, as the Chief of the Executive Branch
of the government, does not have the power to make laws, as this power constitutionally
belongs to the Legislative Branch. But the American people were told by the President
that this was a step to end the "national emergency" brought about by the Great Depression
of 1929, and they voluntarily turned in the majority of the country's gold.
The President included in his Executive Order the terms of the punishment if this order was
not complied with. The American people were told to turn in their gold before the end of
April, 1933, or suffer a penalty of a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 10
years, or both.
Once the majority of the gold was turned in, President Roosevelt on
October 22, 1933, announced his decision to devalue the dollar by announcing
that government would buy gold at an increased price. This meant that
the paper money that the Americans had just received for their gold was
worth less per dollar. One dollar was now worth one thirty-fifth of an ounce
of gold rather than approximately one twentieth as it had been prior to the
devaluation.
Roosevelt, when he announced this move, made the following statement
in an attempt to explain his action: "My aim in taking this step is to
establish and maintain continuous control... We are thus continuing to
move towards a managed currency." (It is rather ironic, and also extremely
revealing, that Democratic candidate Roosevelt ran on a 1932 Democratic
platform that supported the Gold Standard!)
However, not all of the American gold was turned in: "By February 19,
gold withdrawals from banks increased from 5 to 15 million dollars a day. In
two weeks, $114,000,000 of gold was taken from banks for export and another
$150,000,000 was withdrawn to go into hiding."
The gold was being called in at $20.67 an ounce and anyone who could
hold their gold in a foreign bank only had to wait until the price was raised
by the government to $35.00 an ounce and then sell it to the government at
a rather substantial profit of approximately 75%.

A similar profit was made by a Roosevelt supporter, Bernard Baruch,
who invested heavily in silver. In a book entitled FDR, My Exploited Father-
In-Law,2 author Curtis Dall, Roosevelt's son-in-law, recalls a chance
meeting with Mr. Baruch in which Baruch told Mr. Dall that he had options
on 5/16ths of the world's known silver supply. A few months later, to "help
the western miners," President Roosevelt doubled the price of silver. A tidy
profit! (It pays to support the right people!)

There were some, however, who saw the sinister purposes behind these
maneuvers. Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House
Banking Committee, charged that the seizure of gold was "an operation run
for the benefit of the international bankers." McFadden was powerful
enough to ruin the whole deal "and was preparing to break the whole deal
when he collapsed at a banquet and died. As two assassination attempts had
already been made against him, many suspected poisoning."
A giant step in the direction of remedying this dilemma, of returning to
a gold standard, occurred in May of 1974, when legislation was signed by the
President allowing the American people to once again legally own gold.
This legislation did not put the United States back on the gold standard, but
at least it afforded those concerned about inflation an opportunity to own
gold should they choose to do so.
However, those who purchase gold have two generally unknown
problems. One is the fact that the price of gold is not set by the free market,
where two parties get together and arrive at a mutually satisfactory price. It
is set: "... twice a day on the London gold market by five of Britain's leading
dealers in bullion. They meet in the offices of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, the
City Bank, and agree upon the price at which all are prepared to trade in the
metal that day." So the price of gold is not set by the free activity of buyer and
seller but by five bullion traders.
Even though the purchaser of gold still thinks that the gold he purchased
belongs to him, the American government still may call it in. There
is a little known provision of the Federal Reserve Act that reads: "Whenever
in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to
protect the currency system of the United States, the Secretary... in his
discretion, may require any or all individuals... to pay and deliver to the
Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold
certificates owned by such individuals." So if the government wants to recall
the gold of the American citizen, it has but to use this law and the force of
government, and it will be called in. And the only options the gold owner has
to surrender his gold or face the penalties of the judicial system.
But the government also has the power to call in paper money by
destroying its value through a rapid increase in the money supply. This
process is called "hyper-inflation."

On June 4, 1963, John F. Kennedy signed a virtually unknown Presidential
decree, Executive Order 11110 , a mere four months before his assassination
on November 22, 1963. This decree returned to the U.S. Federal government
the Constitutional right to create and "to issue silver certificates against
any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury."

As a result, US$4,292,893,815 of new "Kennedy Bills" were created through
the U.S. Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve System.
In 1964, Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, stated that, "Silver has become
too valuable to be used as money." The Kennedy bills were removed from circulation.

Below are examples of the $2 and $5 dollar denominated "Kennedy Bills"
(also known as "Red Seal Bills"). Note the 1963 date and words "United States Note"
at the top instead of the familiar "Federal Reserve Note" wording.



The importance of these bills is not to be underestimated.
The regular Federal Reserve Notes are created through the
Fed who exchanges them for an interest-paying government bond.
These "United States Notes" were directly created through the U.S.
Treasury and backed by the silver held there.

There was no interest to be paid on these bills by the government
(or more correctly, by the tax-payer) to the Federal Reserve.
Perhaps the classic example of this method of calling in the paper
money occurred after World War I when Germany destroyed the value of the
German mark by printing large quantities of nearly worthless new marks.
After the end of World War I, the peace treaty signed by the belligerents,
called the Treaty of Versailles, required that the defeated German nation pay
war reparations to the victors. The Treaty: "had fixed the amount that
Germany must pay in reparations at two hundred and sixty nine billion gold
marks, to be paid in forty-two annual installments...
The entire process was initially set into motion when the Reichsbank
suspended the redeemability of its notes in gold with the outbreak of the war
in 1914. This meant that the German government could pay for their
involvement in the war by printing fiat money, and by 1918, the amount of
money in circulation increased fourfold. The inflation continued through
the end of 1923. By November of that year, the Reichsbank was issuing
millions of marks each day.
In fact, by November 15,1923, the bank had issued the incredible sum of
92,800,000,000,000,000,000 (quintillion) paper marks. This astronomical
inflation of the money supply had a predictable effect upon prices: they rose
in an equally predictable manner. For instance, prices of three representative
household commodities rose as follows: (in marks):

----------------------------------------------------------- Price in
Commodity --------------------1918 -------------- November, 1923

lb. potatoes . ------------------12 ----------------- 50,000,000,000
One egg . -----------------------25 ----------------- 80,000,000,000
One pound of butter . ------ 3.00 -------------- 6,000,000,000,000

The value of the German mark fell from a value of twenty to the English
pound to 20,000,000,000 to the pound by December, 1923, nearly destroying
trade between the two countries. It is apparent that Germany decided to print
their way out of the war reparations rather than tax their people for the costs
of the war for several reasons. Obviously, taxing the people is a very open and
visible method of paying for the war debt, and certainly is not very popular.
The result of the printing press is not visible in that the people can always be
told that the price rises are the result of the shortages of goods caused by the
war, rather than the increase in the money supply. Secondly, those candidates
for high office in government who promise to end the inflation if and
when elected are capable of doing so because the government controls the
printing presses. So the middle class, who suffered the greatest during this
inflation, looks for solutions and will frequently seek the nearest candidate
who promises a solution. One such candidate was Adolf Hitler: "It is
extremely doubtful whether Hitler could ever have come to power in
Germany had not the inflation of the German currency first destroyed the
middle class... ."
Hitler certainly was given an issue to attack the German government
with. He could blame the current government for the hyper-inflation and all
German citizens could know what he was saying, because the price rise
affected nearly all of the German people.
Even more thought provoking is the possibility that there were those
who actually wanted Hitler, or someone like him, to come to power, and
who structured the Treaty of Versailles in such a manner as to force Germany
to turn on the printing presses to pay for the costs of the reparations. Once
these conditions were created and the printing of large quantities of paper
money began, it was possible for a Hitler to promise that he'd never allow
such a travesty to occur under his administration should he be given the
power of government.
As John Maynard Keynes pointed out in his book The Economic
Consequences of the Peace, there are those who benefit by hyper-inflation,
and these individuals are the ones most likely to benefit by the rise to power
of a Hitler who attacked the government for allowing such a thing to occur
no matter what the cause. Those who controlled the money supply could
purchase Capital Goods at a reduced price (measured in pre-inflation marks)
because they had unlimited access to unlimited quantities of money. Once
they had acquired as many Capital Goods as they desired, it would be to their
advantage to have the economic situation return to normal. They could turn
off the printing presses.
Those who sold property prior to the hyper-inflation were the greatest
losers, for they were paid in marks worth far less than when they created the
mortgage. A mortgagee could not go into the market place and buy a similar
piece of property for the price of the mortgage just paid up. The only ones
able to continue buying property were those who controlled the printing
presses.
Is it possible that the German hyper-inflation was intentionally caused
to eliminate the middle class? That certainly was the result of the printing
press money, according to Dr. Carroll Quigley, the noted historian, who
wrote: "... by 1924, the middle classes were largely destroyed."

Some economists understand this damaging process and have taken
pains to point it out.
Professor Ludwig von Mises, for one, lived in Germany
during the hyper-inflation and wrote:

Inflationism is not a variety of economic policy.
It is an instrument of destruction; if not stopped very soon, it destroys the
market entirely.
Inflationism cannot last; if not radically stopped in time, it
destroys the market entirely.
It is an instrument of destruction; if not stopped very soon, it
destroys the market entirely.
It is an expedient of people who do not care a whit for the
future of their nation and its civilization.

Thanks "A. Ralph Epperson" For His Research From The Book: "The Unseen Hand"

Get your real money Gold & Silver back into your hands call for a free dvd & packet of information:
www.swissamerica.com