Among the tall tales told, Paulson said that the “unpredictable nature” of the crisis means that it is necessary to ensure that the bailout money is not diverted to other uses (exactly what he proposes to do with it).

Moreover, when you are in the midst of something, you are not faced with “predicting” its nature; you are faced with ascertaining its already-evident nature — and that nature of course is the very thing Mr. Paulson hopes to evade most, because even divulging the nature of the problem in the course of relevant, intelligent, and productive discussion, would mean the end of the exploitation which he and his co-conspirators across the world intend to perpetuate, even despite their graft’s terminal consequences.

Paulson nonetheless trudges through a transparent facade of authority, telling us his objectives in asking Congress for the “financial rescue package” were:

1. to first stabilize the “financial” (exploitation) system on the verge of collapse;

2. and then to get lending going again, “to support” American consumers and businesses.

Thus he betrays a hundred years of lies, which pretended among other things that thanks to Milton Friedman, Mr. Bernanke knew (already) how to avoid *causing* another Great Depression. If such protections were in place of course, we wouldn’t be here.

But neither then did Mr. Friedman identify or solve the fundamental causes of the First Great Depression, because the fundamental cause is itself a privatized currency, which is no accident of the men Mr. Friedman slept with. From its very inception, and to this very day, that form of currency was to be imposed for the very purpose of exploiting production and wealth to ever greater degrees, by inherently multiplying artificial sums of debt upon the unwitting, subject populace.

While he too feigns protecting us of course, Mr. Paulson only likewise intends to protect that system of exploitation from revolt by its heretofore unwitting subjects.

Merely swapping his intentional abuse of terminology for more applicable terms, what Mr. Paulson really means then is:

1. his intentions are first to perpetuate the system of exploitation;

2. so that the imposed, private “Federal” “Reserve” System (and the rest of the “central banks” around the world) can continue to publish our promises to pay *each other* (which we could and would instead publish ourselves, without cost), and so that intended system of exploitation can continue subjecting those obfuscated promises to a process of unearned profit, which inherently and irreversibly multiplies debt into the very terminal sums of debt before us.

Next in this little facade, Paulson claims the so called rescue money should not be used to purchase “troubled” (insoluble) “assets” (debts), as was originally proposed. Of course, only fools would buy such things — unless they intended to do so on behalf of fools, for further unearned gain to themselves. But then again, isn’t this exactly what Mr. Paulson asked for?

He then merely states that a different approach than he so recently intended with equal due authority, “will do more” to prevent foreclosures. He provides no argument, no process, no qualification whatever; and only fools will not know why, for if whatever new tack was such a good idea, why *hasn’t* it *prevented* foreclosures already — versus ostensibly providing a *future* prospect of “doing more” to prevent foreclosures, instead even of virtually preventing them altogether, as a just “economy” would?

What kind of people so negligently lay idle, while the very prospect of sustainable industry is artificially destroyed, leaving them jobless, homeless, and saddled with vast, insoluble sums of debt, heaped upon them so that they might only hope to own their own production?

What great people particularly, would allow themselves to be dispossessed of their own industrial means, to suffer a wholly artificial, potential world-wide monetary failure, while they remain capable and willing as ever to incorporate resources into production?

 1  |  2