So, I have been watching this group closely and I am really glad to see some like minded people out there fighting the corrupt banking institutions. I will definitely participate in the next anti-fed demonstration in a month. I will likely go to SA or Dallas. In the below post I copied and pasted some from an email to a friend to save time. So if there is any redundancy or information in there that is already common knowledge by ETF activists then forgive me.
That being said, I like the fed demonstration idea but I think it needs to be expanded. What I mean by this is that it is targeting the wrong thing. Yes, the fed allows the banks and our government to rip us off and that needs to stop. But who and what is the fed?
The answer to that question is simple. The fed is a cartel composed of member banks who control the government and the money supply. I came to a revelation about a year ago about our country. There is a sort of food chain of who runs this country. At the bottom you have the government. The government is there to A. make the people feel like they have some sort of voice and give the illusion of freedom of choice. B. Take the blame for all the things that go wrong in our country, and C. give the authority to the elite to carry out their sinister plans.
The government really doesn't control anything, they just institute the orders of their higher ups. For all intents and purposes we can look at the government as one huge executive branch that is there to carry out the orders that are given by big corporations and finance oligarchs. That brings me to the second piece of the food chain: publicly traded corporations. They own the government by paying off all the candidates and owning both sides of our bi-partisan system. They also control the people by holding their jobs and the economy hostage. At a first glance, it would appear that we have reached the top of the food chain and we in fact have fascist system of government. But there is one more step to be bridged.
That is the banks. The banks are at the top of the food chain. The banks not only control the fed, they are the fed. So if we got rid of the banks, the fed would collapse too. The banks also own the corporations. They do this by lending money to major corporations and when the corporations take losses (as all corporations do) and can't pay their dividends then the banks offer to take stock in exchange for loan payments. This is a very tempting offer since the corporations have to either default on their loan, or not pay their shareholders otherwise which would cause stocks to plummet. So they give up some stock. Soon, after doing this a couple times the bank has a significant portion of the company's stock and then wants to place one or more people from the bank on the board of directors of the company which owes them money and they have stock shares in. Soon they have an inside agent or two who A. Get the company to take more loans from the bank, and B. Give insider trading information so the bank can cheat with their shares on the market.
That is why the stock market is entirely rigged these days. The banks control the corporations who are just puppets on strings for them. They can make money through the shares and cheating on the stocks, and force the government and its people to do their bidding in this way. If one of their vested corporations starts failing all they have to do is run it completely into the ground and get a government bailout to cover all the bad loans they made with taxpayer money.
Point is though, the banks control the three enemies of the people: the corporations, the fed, and the government. The banks are our real enemies. If we take the banks down it is like cutting the head off of our enemies.
So the banks are at the top of the food chain. That being the case, if we can collapse the banks we will get what is left of the corporations and our government back.
Collapsing the banks is really rather easy since the system they set up is rather fragile. But the thing is we have to all move at once or else they will just be bailed out by the fed. As most of you probably already know, modern banking runs on a system called fractional reserve banking. In this system the banks lend out 10 times as much money as they actually have. They want to lend out as much money as possible since that is where their profits come from. The fed was set up so that the banks could make very risky loans with no worry. That is what the bailouts are for. If the loans are defaulted on, the taxpayers cover the losses.
But here is the thing. That whole system is dependent upon the assumption that a large percentage of people will not withdraw money at the same time. If this were to happen, then the banks would not be able to cover it all and would collapse. This is what is known as a bank run. A bank run almost always ends in the collapse of the bank. The only time it does not is when the bank is bailed out by a federal agency. In this case I am talking of collapsing every single bank in unison which would be way too much for the fed to bail out. On top of that, the collapses would be so quick that the banks would fail entirely before the fed even had a chance to bail any of them out (which they inevitably would try with Chase, Citibank and Bank of America since those are the two biggest banks of the cartel).
The other thing that can destroy a bank is toxic assets. We have already seen how this works in real life with the recent episode with the bailouts last November. That debt for the toxic assets was shifted to the taxpayers in order to avoid the banking collapse that was about to ensue. This is why the bankers were unconcerned about making risky loans in the first place as they knew that the taxpayers would take the loss not them. As it is, all of those toxic loans were paid off, but the debt was not written off so the banks are going to make a handsome profit off these and be paid twice for them in most instances. That was the plan all along.
So my plan uses both of the above mentioned methods of collapsing a bank at the same time. Since the people with mortgages have the power to simply not pay, and people with money in the banks have the power to simply withdraw their funds, if both of those things happened at the same time it would undoubtably be fatal for the banks. So I estimate that 1/5 of the banks' customers probably possess over 10% of the liabilities of the bank (money deposited is called liabilities, and money loaned is called assets in banking). So if we could convince 20% of the banks' customers nation wide to A. Withdraw all of their money, and B. stop paying their loans/mortgages it would likely collapse all of the banks within a matter of days. What is even better is that by withdrawing the money and collapsing the banks the value of the money in circulation would skyrocket since most existing loans would dissolve entirely, and a lot of the money that was in these banks would be lost (the losses would go to the people who refused to go along with the plan). The result of all the loaned money and deposits being removed from circulation would be a vast increase in the value of the dollar.
Now admittedly there is are upsides and downsides to this plan. The upsides are that we will dissolve the banks and therefore the power structure that has been set underneath them. The result is that we the people will get their country back. The NWO goons would all go home since the banks would no longer have anything to pay them with. What is even better is those that did withdraw their money would find themselves holding roughly twice as much money as they originally withdrew do to the sudden increase in purchasing power. That money would likely only go up in value since the dissolution of the banks would start a domino effect collapsing the majority of the major corporations in the united states with them. In fact, there is a good chance ALL of them would collapse since they are all entirely dependent on the banks. Since the average person would have no idea how to make money without working for the corporations, most people would be out of work which would cause a deflationary depression. The less money is circulated the more valuable it becomes. This is the undisputed main axiom of economics: more money in circulation decreases monetary value, while less money in circulation increases monetary value. So all of the people who are without jobs will no longer be spending as much money, if any at all. This will result in deflation. The great depression was a prime example of this.
Now the downside to this is obvious. 1. It will cause a HUGE economic collapse. 2. A very large portion of the depositors would lose their money. 3. We would have to build a new economy from the ground up. 4. Our troops will be stuck in Iraq, Afghanistan, and various places around the world. 5. A lot of people who are entirely dependent on the system would starve.
But here is the thing, I think if we don't initiate a banking collapse 1-5 will happen regardless. In the case of #1 more people would lose their money through inflation if we did not carry out the plan. So there really is nothing to lose. The only exception to that would be on #5 if the government decided to repatriate the troops before the full on collapse happened. However, I think that is very doubtful. They have the troops right where they want them. The last thing they want is a huge group of well armed patriots inside the country to contend with. Our best bet for protecting ourselves is to get the police and national guard on our side, and form militias.
The other positive thing about my plan that could POSSIBLY save the troops is that we would all know for sure that the collapse is coming. Mark Dice of resistancemanifesto.com has a number of different methods for getting info to the troops abroad. Perhaps if the troops were sufficiently warned of the upcoming collapse then they could jointly decide to mutiny, confiscate the military aircraft, boats, etc. and make their way back to the states. I do admit, however, that this is highly unlikely to occur.
Now all of that being said, I have ideas for how to execute this plan as well. Obviously this could not be a secret plan. In order to gain 20% support for such a thing it would have to be public. This does create a severe disadvantage however, since the establishment would have plenty of time to prepare before it actually happened. I am not sure what they would do to prevent it. My guess is they would try and collapse the economy quicker to prevent it. But if they did that, then they would also wake up every American. The best way to expose a tyrant is to make them act like one. Either way, it would be a hell of a lot harder for them to carry out their plans. If the plan succeeded then I daresay they would be defeated. Other countries would find out what happened and repeat, thereby freeing the world from the global banking oligarchy entirely.
So under that assumption, then we just have to operate as if the plan is fool proof. It isn't but either way it is severely damaging to the new world order. So considering that the plan must be public anyway, I think the best way to raise awareness on this issue is take the fight directly to the banks. We need to organize protests at the physical locations of the banking branches. The fed protests are good too, but they don't target the people who can really help us: The Banking Customers!. But if we were to organize massive protests that would be divided into groups of about 20 people at each branch of say JP Morgan Chase nation wide (or hell, even city wide!) then we could get our message to the bank customers who actually have the power to make a difference and could possibly be sympathetic. Actually, I would say that about 1/5 or more would be sympathetic. What we would do is go there with signs, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and pamphlets exposing the banks as the frauds, thieves, and tyrants that they are. I already have some ideas on that. How about Paracitibank T Shirts?
This plan would be especially effective since it would be incredibly hard to corral every single group of demonstrators. They would be spread all over the place, and there would not be near enough police and riot control to suit up and send out to every single branch location of Bank X. Further more sending full on riot control groups out for very small groups of protesters would look incredibly bad on the news. Also, it would be practically impossible for agent provacateurs to incite violence amongst the peaceful protesters. Those techniques only work with large crowds. A group of 20 peaceful protesters would be pretty hard to stir up in such a manner. Even if they did somehow accomplish this then it would only be at one location, and would be meaningless in the larger picture of things.
So, obviously there are too many banks to cover all at once. What we could do is do Chase one week, then Bank of America the next, then Wells Fargo third, and so on. We mostly want to hit the largest banks, and then if we have time we will hit the smaller ones and credit unions. If we can take down the largest banks, that will likely be enough to collapse the whole industry. Chase is the largest, but even with that all we would need is about 100,000 protesters to cover 20 at each branch. Ron Paul's campaign for liberty alone has millions of supporters. These protests would be near everyone since there are chase branches EVERYWHERE! So time and travel would not be an issue.
Another thing we are going to want to do is let the banking customers know that we are not asking them to stop banking with their bank. We are only asking them to pledge to withdraw all available funds at a certain time and date. Once we get enough pledges we will set the time and date and make it happen. However, our protest of the banks may make some people think twice about banking with these companies which may cause a lot of accounts to close. I am fine with that since any weakening of the banks will in the mean time limit their ability to fight us. But we shouldn't encourage people to do that since the only way to truly get rid of the banks is deal them one solid death blow.
That's all I got so far, but I am still developing the plan. After some tweaking this plan should be presented to the offices of the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and Ron Paul's Campaign for liberty. I think those three organizations will be the most supportive of this idea. There are probably a few other organizations that I have yet to think of as well. Perhaps the Greens and Nader would even get in on it. I know Nader passionately hates the banks as well. If we get enough organizations working together for this plan, I think it could really happen.
I am thinking numbers in the 20-30 range are perfect since the crowds would be small enough to not appear menacing in any way and justify any form of riot control or police intervention, but just large enough to make a powerful statement. That coupled with the fact that there would be 20 at each location there would HAVE to be SOME media attention. If it wasn't covered by the media, that would be even better since the average person would have to wake up to the fact that the mainstream media is entirely under corporate control. Either way, we win!
Finally, I think we need to collect and disseminate information on how to live without the banks and underground bartering in our protests, online, and elsewhere. This would be a vital part of the plan since anyone who is approached with the plan needs to know that they DO have a viable alternative to submitting to the banks. If we could be proactive and get a barter system in place already before the collapse then the collapse will not be so bad. We need to get together people that have massive amounts of land that they are not using that could be farmed out so that when people lose their jobs they have a place to go where they could be given a small piece of land to farm, provide for their families, and pay the land owner in produce, and use the rest of the excess to barter with or sell. We would have to have volunteers that would go around teaching people farming techniques who have had no other experience with it. This part of the plan would get people used to producing instead of consuming like they have been trained to do for so long. WHAT A CONCEPT! By the time we rebuild the economy, America would have her work ethic back once again! We would once again be the hard workers that we used to be renowned for! The other positive thing is that people will get healthy from working hard and eating organic produce. It would really be something!
So, any questions or comments?