Someone writing under the pseudonym “dog-move” posted the following comment on my blog (adask.wordpress.com):
“Richard Kelly Hoskins stated in his book War Cycles Peace Cycles that open immigration has always been a practical economic necessity in a debt-based usury system. That the immigrant became more valuable than the indigenous population of a nation because the immigrant was better able to borrow needed money/debt into existence. I have not heard anything on this particular reason in any current report of the escalation of mass immigration happening now, worldwide.”
I am also previously unfamiliar with Mr. Hoskins’ hypothesis. Nevertheless, his argument sounds fascinating.
“Dog-move’s” brief description implies that once a nation embraces a debt-based monetary system, that nation will be mathematically compelled to bring in more immigrants to support the debt-based monetary system. Left unchecked, that influx of immigrants may destroy the nation. Apparently, the people in power think that national destruction is a small price to pay–or may even be a desirable outcome.
So, assuming Mr. Hoskins’ hypothesis is correct, I’m left to wonder whether our leaders subjected us to a debt-based monetary system because:
1) they were bankrupt and desperate;
2) they were greedy and stupid; or,
3) they’ve intended for decades to destroy America?
If Richard Kelly Hoskins’ contention that debt-based monetary system demands more immigrants is correct, that could explain why our past several presidents have not only refused to stop illegal aliens from entering this country, but also encouraged those illegals to enter.
If Mr. Hoskins’ contention is correct, then it follows that the use of gold or silver asset-based monetary system is not merely necessary for economic reasons–it’s necessary to preserve the nation.
If so, demanding a gold and/or silver based monetary system is an act of patriotism and national preservation. Gold isn’t merely about buying a new Cadillac; it’s also about Liberty and national survival.
• Suppose Mr. Hoskins is correct in contending that a debt-based monetary system compels the need for immigrants. Suppose his book contains sufficient research and evidence to prove his contention. Suppose that evidence can be accumulated to prove that rampant immigration will lead to the ultimate destruction of The United States of America.
If so, there’d be sufficient basis to charge any member of government or the Federal Reserve that helped sustain the fiat, debt-based dollar—and/or officers or employees of Wall Street banks that helped artificially suppress the prices of gold and silver to support the apparent value of the debt-based dollar—with treason.
If Richard Kelly Hoskins is right, our debt-based monetary system is helping to destroy this nation. That which helps destroy our nation is treasonous.
• In fact, for the past 44 years, since we adopted a pure fiat currency, America has been playing the same game that Greece has been playing for the past six years. Unable to pay its debts and unwilling to file for bankruptcy, Greece has suffered six years of “austerity” that have nearly destroyed the Greek nation.
The U.S. government has been technically bankrupt since it stopped redeeming its foreign-held dollars with gold in A.D. 1971. Like Greece, we couldn’t pay our bills and we didn’t want to declare bankruptcy. We wanted to have our cake and eat it, too.
Result? Our economy has been stagnant for most of 40 years. Our average standard of living hasn’t increased since the 1970s. And, sooner or later, we’re going to face a national, political and economic catastrophe that could cause national destruction.
And why? Because We the People have been dumb enough to accept the unconstitutional, debt-based monetary system that’s been imposed upon us by our treasonous Democrat and Republican leaders.
So long as we remain more afraid of national bankruptcy than national destruction, we guarantee that national destruction is our national destiny.
• All of this implies that if we want to preserve The United States of America, the first order of business is to compel the U.S. government to file for bankruptcy, invalidate all of the U.S. government’s debt and start fresh with no debt and with an asset-based monetary system. That course of action would result in so much economic pain for several years that trying to gain sufficient political support to make it happen is virtually impossible.
But on the bright side, the recent economic pain for Iceland ended just two years after Iceland filed for bankruptcy. Similarly, the economic pain that haunted the City of Detroit for at least a decade, ended or at least diminished dramatically just one year after Detroit filed for bankruptcy.
There’s no guarantee, but there’s a high probability that if the U.S. government filed for bankruptcy, repudiated virtually all of its debts, and started up again debt-free (and with an asset-based monetary system), that we might suffer through two to five bad years, but then begin to regain our prosperity.
Our National Debt is too big to be repaid.
Why try to maintain the illusion that we will, somehow, someway, someday, repay the National Debt.
Our attempts (or at least promises) to do the impossible (pay the National Debt) are lies that can’t be true. I believe those lies, and all the economic and financial gyrations that are required to support those lies, are killing this country.
Why waste time, energy and wealth trying to achieve the impossible?
Practical reality suggests that we shall probably continue to hope that, somehow, we will escape our debt predicament without any of the pain of bankruptcy. We shall probably persist with our debt-based monetary system in order to avoid the pain of bankruptcy
But, if we continue on the present course designed to avoid the temporary pain of filing for national bankruptcy, we will risk exposing ourselves to the more permanent pain national destruction.
Bankruptcy. It’s not a perfect solution. It’s not a good solution. It’s guaranteed to be a temporarily excrutiating solution.
But national bankruptcy is infinitely better than the alternative: national disintegration.