The Road to Authoritarianism is Paved with Fiat Currency

As a rule, US war reporting since Vietnam has been mostly mainstream media cheerleading the mission rather than digging beyond government war propaganda. After all, it was images of American boys coming home in body bags shown on the six o’clock news across America that finally galvanized mainstream opposition to that war.

The Pentagon learned its lesson by the first Gulf War, and it severely restricted up-close media coverage. Only “trusted” journalists were able to report from the front lines. Most of the press corps wrote up stories based on US military press releases from luxury hotels in Baghdad.

By the time of Gulf War II the Pentagon came up with the concept of “embedding” select journalists with the troops. This allowed the story to be framed by the Pentagon with the false impression that actual journalism was taking place. It felt authentic, because the journalist was with the troops and close to the action, but the story presented what the Pentagon wanted to be presented.

This is perhaps a long way of pointing out that US mainstream media coverage of the war in Ukraine leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, sometimes the truth does slip out in publications like the New York Times, which reported last week that in just the first weeks of Ukraine’s “counter-offensive” at least 20 percent of the weaponry and equipment donated by the US and NATO has been destroyed.

However, usually what the mainstream media serves up are Pentagon and neocon talking points. Russia is losing, they report. Russia has already lost, as Biden said recently. Most Americans don’t go out of their way to listen to actual experts like Col. Doug Macgregor, who from the beginning has been telling a very different story. Thus Americans continue to be fed propaganda.

There is a funny thing about propaganda, though. Sometimes it comes face-to-face with contradictory reality and is shown to be nothing but a pack of lies.

Take for example last week’s shocking report that President Biden has signed an order to mobilize 3,000 US military reservists for deployment to Europe in support of the 2014 “Operation Atlantic Resolve.” What is Atlantic Resolve? It was launched in the aftermath of the US-backed coup in Ukraine and the ensuing unrest under the US-installed puppet government.

So, if Russia is losing – or has already lost, as Biden said last week – why has it suddenly become necessary to call up US reserve forces? Well, in the midst of one of the most serious US military recruiting crises ever, it seems Washington does not have sufficient troops for its anti-Russia mission in Ukraine. So what is the mission and why does it seem to be creeping toward sending more Americans close to the battle zone? No one in the Administration seems interested in explaining it and no one in the US media or Congress seems interested in asking.

We are on a very slippery slope, with Biden’s neocons continuing to escalate in the face of massive Ukrainian losses and an apparent shortage of US troops. Make no mistake, if the US/NATO proxy war with Russia is not halted the next step will be to look at the US Selective Service. That means they are coming for your kids. How long before America wakes up and says “NO”?

Originally published by the Ron Paul Institute. 

Last year, Paypal corporation announced that it was going to "fine" users (i.e., steal their money) to the tune of $2,500 for "the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” which “promote misinformation.” Well, Paypal didn't "announce" the policy so much as try to sneak it into the fine print. When the company was caught in the act, however, management then claimed it was all just a big mistake. 

Sure it was. 

Unfortunately, Paypal is not the only financial organization that has shown an interest in punishing or "debanking" customers for political or ideological reasons. In 2021, The Hill reported on how the banking sector was showing a willingness to cut off entire industries from financial services to appease certain activists. These industries include fossil fuel extraction firms and gun manufacturers. 

Big banks have been shown to attack certain non-profits in this fashion as well. Earlier this year, Former US Senator Sam Brownback explained that JP Morgan Chase had shut down, without explanation, its account with Brownback's organization The National Committee for Religious Freedom. The bank demanded a list of the organization's donors before it would reinstate the account, although no such thing is required by law. JP Morgan's senior management is now fighting stockholder efforts to investigate why the bank shut down the account. 

These debanking efforts by activist bankers pose an enormous threat to ordinary people. Activist bankers could simply cut off dissident organizations from their money should these organizations sponsor the "wrong" event or publish the "wrong" opinion. 

This is a type of discrimination. Yet, the usual "answer" to discrimination pushed by social democrats—i.e., employing the Equal Protection Clause—is not something we can support. After all, a truly private organization ought to be free to discriminate against whomever it wishes. No respect for basic human rights (i.e., property rights) is compatible with claiming that the federal government can sue and shut down businesses for "discrimination." And yes, a truly private college should be free to discriminate in favor of non-whites if it wants. 

Some aspects of anti-discrimination law are exactly right, however, and these we can support. For example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, for instance, protects people from discrimination (based on race, color or national origin) in programs or activities that receive federal money. Or, put another way, this prevents organizations from stealing from taxpayers and then denying those taxpayers the use of services taxpayers were forced to pay for. 

This is applicable to the problem of "debanking" because much of the banking sector is heavily reliant on federal assistance, and many of today's major banks likely wouldn't even exist if it weren't for federal banking bailouts and easy money from the central bank (a de facto federal agency). Federal largesse for America's big banks has become nearly constant, in fact. These banks' portfolios are propped up by Federal Reserve purchases of mortgage-backed securities and Treasurys. In recent months, the federal government has also helped shore up banks' solvency by effectively guaranteeing all deposits, far in excess of the statutory limit of $250,000. The claim that the FDIC is an "insurance" program makes less sense than ever. It's now simply a mechanism for helping big banks hold on to depositors. And then there are the bailouts. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the federal government granted enormous loans to virtually all of the nation's big banks while buying up bank stock to bail out the industry. Since then, bankers have also received (from the Federal Reserve) enormous sums in interest payments on bank reserves. This has created larger tax bills for taxpayers and higher inflation rates. 

READ MORE: "Yes, the Latest Bank Bailout Is Really a Bailout, and You Are Paying for It" by Ryan McMaken]

Without these bailouts, many of these banks would have ceased to exist altogether. Their assets would have been auctioned off, and housing prices would have fallen. First-time homebuyers would not now be looking as astronomical housing prices so that billionaire bankers can keep collecting a handsome return on housing securities propped up by federal spending. To this day, however, bankers will peddle their official propaganda line that this wasn't a bailout because the banks paid back these special sweetheart loans. This is a dishonest way of spinning it, however. The purpose of the loans was to keep the current crop of incompetent bankers in business so that their firms would not go bankrupt. That would have allowed smaller, more efficient entrepreneurs to take over the failed bank's assets at lower prices. This would have benefited all consumers by reducing prices and cleaning out the old crop of failed bankers. Instead, the bailouts ensured the same cronies remained in power even as their firms failed. Those same people (or their friends) continue to be in charge today. 

What this all means is that bankers at the big banks have been protecting their riches on the backs on taxpayers. Yet, these same bankers have the chutzpah to also think they ought to be able to discriminate against their own customers should those customers engage in politically "objectionable" activities.

Since many bankers believe it's perfectly fine to steal from taxpayers while also attacking taxpayers who won't toe the regime party line, Congress should make it clear that discrimination under Title VI includes discriminating against people or organizations based on their political or ideological views. Thus, organizations like the big banks that are on the dole and benefit from taxpayer exploitation can no longer refuse service to any customer because that customer makes guns, or questions the official covid narrative, or owns an oil well. The same would apply to the major airlines the auto companies, AIG, Fannie Mae, and any other organization that sucks the taxpayer dry every time there is a recession or financial crisis. 

Of course, an even better solution would be to end the entire federal and financial apparatus that keeps today's plutocratic banker class in power. Federal banking regulations overwhelmingly favor huge banks at the expense of smaller community banks. The total number of banks in the US is shrinking as banks like JP Morgan Chase gain ever-greater monopoly power. Banks that try to introduce more sound banking practices, like Custodia bank, are denied federal approval while large federally-favored banks enjoy fast-tracked access to federal policymakers. The feds' too-big-to-fail doctrine ensures ever more capital flows to only the largest banks.

The result is less market competition and less choice for consumers, which allows woke bankers to more effectively silence those with "incorrect" ideological views. 

The United States and other countries are debating whether to admit Ukraine into NATO which, of course, would virtually guarantee an all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia. I’ve got a better idea: Dismantle this old Cold War dinosaur, or at the very least, the United States should withdraw from it, which would undoubtedly lead to its demise anyway.

NATO was formed after World War II to ostensibly protect Western Europe from an invasion by the Soviet Union. The organization was part of the overall Cold War campaign of anti-communist fear-mongering that was used to convert the United States to a massive national-security, military-intelligence nation. 

The Soviet Union, which — let us not forget — was a partner and ally of the United States during World War II, was totally devastated by the end of the war, owing to the massive deadly and destructive invasion of the country by Nazi forces. Thus, the notion that the Soviet Union intended to invade Western Europe was always ridiculous, especially since it was a virtual certainty that the United States would come to the defense of Western Europe. Why would the Soviets want to go to war against the only nation that had nuclear bombs and the willingness to use them against populated cities?

The notion that the Soviets were going to invade Western Europe was based on the refusal by the Soviet Union to terminate its brutal military occupations of Eastern Europe and East Germany. What U.S. officials conveniently forgot is that President Franklin Roosevelt had agreed that the Soviets could maintain control over those countries in order to serve as a buffer against future German invasions of their country. 

Regardless of where one stands on the Cold War racket that so greatly benefited the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA with ever-increasing power and taxpayer-funded largess, one thing is crystal-clear: When the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union dismantled, the justification for NATO came to an immediate end. At that point, the old Cold War dinosaur should have been put down.

But as everyone knows, that’s not what happens with big, long-standing bureaucratic entities. Instead, they will fight tooth and nail to remain in existence, desperately searching for new justifications for doing so. That’s what NATO, which, of course, was operating under the control of the Pentagon, did.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the NATO-Pentagon bureaucrats were not willing to settle for mere continued existence. They were dead-set on reviving their old Cold War racket, especially since they knew that their new “war-on-terrorism” racket was likely to begin fizzling out down the road. 

That’s when they began using NATO to absorb former members of the Warsaw Pact, which would enable them to install U.S. military bases, missiles, troops, and armaments ever-closer to Russia’s borders. They knew that at some point, Russia would react and — voila! — they would have their old Cold War racket back, along with all the anti-Russia hatred and fear-mongering that they would, once again, inculcate into the minds of the American people. 

No one can deny that that has been one great big new Cold War “success” story. The only thing missing is another anti-communist crusade. But, hey, don’t fret — they have Red China for that. 

Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Earlier this week Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr delivered a speech called Holistic Capital Review, sharing thoughts on the banking sector's existing capital requirements imposed by the Fed.

He firmly stated:

… the existing approach to capital requirements is sound.

Illustrated through nondescript mentions, despite this alleged soundness, he did find some ways to improve the fatally flawed system:

With respect to risk-based requirements … The international standards were developed through a rigorous, lengthy process, have been under discussion for nearly a decade and will improve on the extent to which capital requirements fully reflect the risks posed by different banks engaged in a variety of activities.

There is a pattern of first mentioning that everything is fine followed by ways to make improvements:

With respect to stress testing, I believe that the stress capital buffer framework is sound. At the same time, I believe that the stress test should continue to evolve to better capture risk. 

It’s all part of the plan, literally! They call it the Basel III Endgame, explained by the Vice Chair:

An important aspect of my proposals will be to implement the changes to the risk-based capital requirements, referred to as the Basel III endgame, which are intended to ensure that our minimum capital requirements require banks to hold adequate capital against their risk-taking.

It comes off rather vague. But central bankers could force banks to have stricter capital requirements, such as holding more cash, or attempting to get banks to engage in less risky behavior, as defined by regulators.

In the eyes of the regulator, banking failures such as Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) seem more to do with the bank's faulty capital structure than problems caused by the Fed. As explained:

Some industry representatives claim that inadequate capital had nothing to do with those bank failures. I disagree. It was an unsuccessful attempt by SVB to raise capital that caused uninsured depositors to look more closely at how the bank was capitalized.

He went so far as to say:

If SVB had enough long-term debt outstanding, it might have reduced the risk of a run by uninsured depositors…

When it comes to diagnosing problems within the banking system, we cannot trust a central banker to blame the organization paying his salary. However, the takeaway from this would be the continuous need for regulatory and supervisory enhancements in the system. We are expected to believe these improvements in capital structure will ensure the prevention of future bank failures, as if this will mark the final implementation of rules for time on end.

Whatever they decide, they should not call it an endgame, as this game is not meant to end.