GOLDMAN SACHS AND THE REST OF THE CON ARTISTS
Max Keiser takes offense to Goldman Sachs story: Part 1 of 2
Max Keiser takes offense to Goldman Sachs story: Part 1 of 2
I agree with Max Keiser on many things he says and teaches. I have learned from him about many details about how the system works. He is completely mistaken though about the need for gold backing a currency because gold is fiat on its own level, meaning it is a psychological value only (other than when employed in productive things). Any so-called tangible thing can be so valued simply by the agreement of those who will hold the thing as being their agreed upon medium of exchange. The point here though is that the currency not backed by gold can itself be that thing. In my book, honesty is the only currency of value, and honesty means unselfishness. It too is psychological and has no tangible thing, as tangible is commonly understood, backing it up. It has rather God backing it up, which goes to the heart of Max's obvious concern about integrity. He does want a system he can trust. Those who hold gold though can be every bit as untrustworthy as those who hold paper currency only or simply create "money" by adding a number to their checking account without having worked an honesty moment, such as the private national bankers, the sole owners of the privatized national bank, the money-creation monopolists, the owners of the Federal Reserve System that does not most directly include but a handful of oligarchs and plutocrats, including many behind Goldman Sachs.
Also, Moncef Cheikh Rouhou, Professor of International Finance, HEC Paris Business School, is completely wrong that the Goldman Sachs bonuses don't matter in the vast configuration of things. If that compensation or some other compensation had not been there and would not be there now or in future, those at Goldman Sachs would not have done what they did, would not be doing what they are doing now, and would stop and leave, albeit perhaps to try to do it elsewhere. However, if there were thorough public, independent audits and reporting, they wouldn't be able to. Were it only that they would not want to do the wicked things without mankind having to look over their shoulders.
Self-centered compensation is the whole point for them. The minions of Goldman Sachs do the dirty work for compensation. Without them, Caesar stands alone and cannot beat the masses, the common people, those who simply want to be decent people toward one another but are repressed in that regard by the very Goldman Sachs types and Federal Reserve types in the world.
Goldman Sachs was bailed out by the hard work of those who paid their taxes. Goldman Sachs was bailed out primarily via being allowed to convert against the law overnight into a regular bank so Goldman Sachs could be bailed out via taxes. They were also bailed out primarily via obtaining some $13 billion that went to AIG that should not have gone to AIG. It went to AIG because Henry Paulson, who was given a platinum parachute by Goldman Sachs, made sure, along with all his accomplices in this the current Global Depression, the largest mundane financial-crime in history, that the whole deregulation scheme (mostly started via Ronald Reagan) went through and that AIG would be allowed to participate in wholly unregulated Credit Default Swaps (CDS's) and other so-call derivatives and then be bailed out by the taxpayers when it should have fallen and been replaced by honest enterprises, which it surely would have been, although there would still have been blood-seeking sharks in the waters. Goldman Sachs was lauded for not participating directly in the CDS's; however, it did position itself such that AIG would be beholden to it were the very crash that has happened to happen. The important thing to understand here, and Max no doubt would agree completely, is that had the system been transparent all along, meaning had there been public banking and financial auditors of the New Deal variety able to verify that a scam was not being allowed to unfold and were the New Deal legislation not to have been rolled back by Phil Gramm and his band of crooks in cahoots with Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and all the others, including Larry Summers, none of what has happened that is now the Global Depression would have happened.
How much money did Henry Paulson make as the head of Goldman Sachs?
- 2006: $163,987,000
- 2005: $3,963,422
- 2004: $12,260,000
("Mega-Million Dollar CEO Payouts: See How Much These Big-Name CEOs Took Home Each Year," by Zunaira Zaki. ABC News.)
Three years compensation: $180,210,422 (and that's only what's publicly known). It pays for a while to sell your soul to the devil. Do you think he wouldn't do what's best for that system rather than what's best for you?
This was all sleight of hand that is documented in the public record but ignored by the likes of Moncef Cheikh Rouhou who is a witting propagandist for those who are simply continuing the global scheme.
We also know that people, such as those at Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, attempt to make people believe that because Henry Paulson doesn't own any of Goldman Sachs, something they don't actually know, that he is therefore not criminal in obviously favoring his alma mater in the football game or more importantly, since it is not mere nostalgia here, that he won't be further handsomely rewarded by the system he helped to create and sustain for the very reason that has transpired, namely the huge Ponzi scheme that is Wall Street and the Federal Reserve System and the Bretton Woods System, etc. It is a school of pariahs and must all go so the children may swim without being eaten alive.
On The Christian Commons, money isn't needed. It is what was meant by Isaiah when he prophesied in his real liberal manner, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isaiah 55:1 KJV)
It is what Jesus understood too. It's irrefutable.
The United States is a system, however, that tries to have it both ways. It is a ridiculous cobbling together of coercive measures that has always resulted in a net loss when all things are taken as the big picture. The false-demigod Founding Fathers did everything but the right thing. The commons was there when the first White people, after the Vikings, set foot on the continent. The Calvinist Puritans couldn't make it work because their hearts were too self-centered. Even to this day, the laissez-faire capitalists point to the Calvinists' failure as proof that the commons is a tragedy and cannot work. Well, yes, the Commons cannot work were people are selfish. What's new? It has always been so. However, where people are not self-centered, the commons did and still does work. It's that simple, only the laissez-faire obfuscators ignore those hundreds of thousands in the world who are now living the commons way. I often point to the Hutterites as a case in point because they defy the so-called laws of economics of the atheist Austrian School and all the antichrist schools of thought.
It is a flat out lie that the Commons cannot work. The so-called Founding Fathers didn't choose it not because it can't work but because there is no coercion in it, only peace. They didn't choose it because they wanted more for themselves apart from what is best for each and all. They were hardhearted, and I do not admire them for what they did. I hate what they did and rightly so. They did not free their slaves. The Goldman Sachs of the world still have not freed the slaves. They have simply enslaved via financial flimflam. They are confidence men and women in the highest and must be cast down and repent.
If Henry Paulson and the others had any sense, they would sit in proverbial sackcloth and ashes.
Now, there are laissez-faire capitalists who don't want the Federal Reserve System or any world system that is simply a continuation of the scheming but rather want United States Notes that are interest free and used to pay off the National Debt. I agree with that but only for that mundane system. It is not the Commons, which is vastly further along on the path to perfection.
United States Notes do not need to be backed by gold. In fact, backing them with gold is a terrible idea. Furthermore, the volume of USN in circulation needs to be tied exactly to real productivity — no speculation at all. Then there would be zero inflation or deflation.
These measures would eliminate the National Debt and eliminate the portion of income taxes going to pay interest on the National Debt.
In the end, we owe the bankers nothing. They exist solely out of the spirit of selfishness that devised the wicked, unrighteous thing that is mammon called money all to steal the rightful inheritance of all.
All true Christians will be glad to support bringing forth the Christian Commons.
Understand here that the spirit of unselfishness is the same spirit of harmlessness. If it is harmful in the end (the logical conclusion), it is not Christian. This is why the Commons is a place where there is only total pacifism although to be that Commons the violent won't be tolerated there. That's no irreconcilable paradox. Jesus cleaned the temple to show it. The Commons is a place where there is only giving and sharing all with all of the Commons and from where such giving and sharing emanates to the poor as an example and for the real feeding of them and others. It is a place (the place) were there are no sexually harmful and misleading emotions, thoughts, words, or deeds. If it is harmful, it isn't to be.
This then is a hard sell to the hardhearted who refuse to receive it all at once in one place within and to reject all else as unworthy.
Militarism, greed, capitalism (the desire to be a capitalist who is the private owner of the means and capital), and sexual depravity that does include the error of homosexuality are not allowed in the Commons, else it would not be the Commons but a lower condition, a lower ordering of things, a more fractured thing.
The Commons from here is directly through the strait gate and on the narrow way of Jesus leading to the perfection that is God. It is not humanism where God is not the whole. It is not usurpation of God, ever. It is by definition exactly to be to the best of our abilities Heaven on Earth unfolding as the New Heaven and New Earth where Jesus will be received and will serve all in all.
It is one soul and the only thing that is ultimately right and healing.
The militarists try to point to the words of Jesus as indicating that Jesus held with violence. Driving the moneychangers out and the animal sacrificers out and turning over their tables and putting the fear into them did not harm a soul. No one was made more fractured by his actions.
The capitalists try to point to the words of Jesus as indicating that Jesus held with the selfish system of money. Jesus spoke in parables of a landowner or king that the capitalists interpret for evil effects as being Jesus himself and not analogies that actually when all the parables and stories and sayings of Jesus are taken together, point out that Jesus and his God and my God is not that landowner or that king in the spirit of the capitalists' misinterpretation. If Jesus were a capitalist, why would he clean them from his father's symbolic temple or house that Jesus holds out as being the whole of creation? Don't say that the moneychangers were not capitalists. They most certainly were.
The militarists too attempt to point to those same landowners and kings as a sign that God is evil, offensive, violent, greedy, selfish, and hardhearted. It is a total misreading. The sons of man include the militarists, the capitalists, the coercive socialists, the atheists, the utterly depraved, all manner of men and women. Jesus warns against all the spirits that are not the direct opposite of the spirits of the militarists, capitalists, coercive socialists, atheists, and utterly depraved.
This truth is missing from the Bishops' understanding.
The homosexuals try to do the same thing. They selectively interpret words here or there and also say that Jesus never said he was anti-homosexuality. They say Jesus was welcoming and affirming of them. He was not. He called them to repent. He told the adulteress to go and to sin no more. He didn't list out every sin. He did though marvel and amaze them when he said that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood. Many, the hardhearted, took it literally as in mundane cannibalism and vampirism. He said to be as harmless as the doves of his day. Homosexuality is not harmless. Neither is necrophilia, but he never said "don't have sex with dead bodies." He did speak of unclean bones though. How can one then not sin by having sex with a dead body? He didn't say, "don't be a pedophile" in the way homosexual literalists demand. He did say, But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6 KJV). What is it to offend there?
Well, read all of the places where Jesus speaks of offense to see that selfishness is offense. Sexually lusting after a child is an offense. Right now, many of the homosexuals claim to be offended by that idea too. Where are the voices of the pedophiles? They are waiting for the homosexuals to have opened the floodgates for them. They are in their closets waiting. Where are those of incest? Where are those of bestiality? Where are those of orgies? Where are those of swapping spouses? Many of them have already made inroads into the hearts and minds of large masses of people. Many of those people have cast their votes within the mundane, coercive system to force their way in. It is for that reason and others that I stand firmly against coercive democracy. It is an error. The ancient Greeks are not to be lauded for giving it to the Western world.
Demos and demons are closely associated.
The Christian Commons, contrary to the system of the United States, is a place of consensus of the Holy Spirit that is only consistent with Jesus's revelation. Unanimity of the Holy Spirit is required in Heaven.
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. (Isaiah 52:15 KJVR). What have I written here but that which must be fulfilled?
Jesus dwells within.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)