Ellen Brown on the Efficiencies of the State
and the Progress of Her Public Banking Vision

Original Interview by Anthony Wile
Commentary by James Jaeger

Daily Bell: Hello again. We've interviewed you before. But for those unfamiliar, please give us a sense of how you came to be interested in monetary issues and how you came to write Web of Debt.

Ellen Brown: As Mike Whitney says, I'm really just a writer in search of a good subject. My first degree was in English literature from Berkeley, but when I figured out that I couldn't make a living as a writer in my twenties I went to law school (UCLA). I married another law student, practiced civil litigation for 10 years in L.A. and had two delightful children.


Daily Bell: For those new to this subject, what is Web of Debt's main thesis?

Ellen Brown: The thesis is that the power to create money has been usurped...

James Jaeger: Usurped from who? The correct answer to this is, usurped from WE THE PEOPLE.

Ellen Brown: ...by a private international banking cartel, which issues our money as debt and lends it back to us at interest. The cartel makes it appear that governments are creating our money, and governments get blamed when things go wrong; but they are actually just pawns of the cartel.

James Jaeger: True. It does appear that the international banking establishment has governments in a compromised position, given their willingness to use the cry of "too big to fail" and their potential ability to bring down the entire world financial system, which they have now made interdependent through the tactic known as "globalization." On the other hand, as a friend I once had in the CIA used to always say after 5 or 6 beers: "The U.S. gov has the most nukes, so don't worry about anything Jim."

Ellen Brown: We the people can get back our government and our republic only by reclaiming the power to create our own money.

James Jaeger: This is a ridiculous statement Ellen. WE THE PEOPLE (not We the people) created the U.S. government and maintain power over it because we maintain the power of the SWORD as set forth in the Second Amendment. History shows, and people on the left ignore, the fact that ultimately "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" NOT out of a bank account. When push comes to shove, and it always does in history, the entity that is in CONTROL is the entity that maintains the right to "KEEP AND BEAR ARMS." Thus the proper "GUN CONTROL" is "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." WE THE PEOPLE do not get back our "government and our republic" (what you seem to view as two different entities) by reclaiming the power to create money, we get back our REPUBLIC by assuming the power 320 million of us ALREADY have vested in us by authority of the highest law in the Land, the U.S. Constitution. So unless you are denying that the Constitution has controlling legal authority over all statutes, executive orders and court precedents OR you have never read the Constitution, your words have no meaning. In summary: WE THE PEOPLE who maintain a well-regulated militia have the ultimate power and authority to establish ONLY the banking system that is allowed under the U.S. Constitution, unless it's amended. And in this banking system "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." This means the states may not issue their own sovereign currency, and they may issue no paper currency or credit or make any thing but gold and silver COIN a tender in the payment of debts. Thus your Bank of North Dakota is illegal, especially if it's issuing Bills of CREDIT.

Ellen Brown: We can use the same credit system that private banks use, but administered as a public utility, monitored and overseen by public servants on the model of libraries and courts.

James Jaeger: No we can't because the U.S. Constitution outlaws that. Also, any power not specifically granted to the General Government (what we today call the Federal Government) is retained by the states or the People. Thus the U.S. Federal government has NO authority to issue Bills of Credit, i.e., government-sanctioned, quasi-public Federal Reserve Notes. The Federal Reserve System thus violates the U.S. Constitution because it operates under the authority of the General Government and government can't issue Bills of Credit. In essence, what you want to do is remove monetary issue-authority from the Big Bad Private Bankers and give it to the Big Bad Government. If this happens, nothing will change or things will get worse.

Ellen Brown: To be a sustainable system, profits need to be returned to the community rather than siphoned off into private coffers.

James Jaeger: Granting issue authority to a government that is not firmly under the control of WE THE PEOPLE is NOT granting issue-authority to the "community". It's issuing it to potentially rogue elements in a government not firmly under the control of WE THE PEOPLE. Thus, until and unless we have better GUN CONTROL laws (i.e., the revitalization of a "well regulated" militia, as stipulated not only in the Constitution, but in the thousands of gun control laws already on the books in all of the states (something you as a lawyer should be aware of), citizens of the U.S. would place themselves at grave risk by allowing the government the power to issue money, or so-called sovereign currency. Any legally competent citizen knows such a government, a government that can't even respect the 'no standing army' implications of Article I, Section 8, is no government that will respect the gross over-spending on the military-industrial complex. Imagine the government expansion if it were give unfettered ability to print up its own Federal Reserve Notes ("Bills of Credit"). Where do you think Hitler got the money to build up his war machine. From the same plan you now propose, government, debt-free credit aka sovereign currency.

Daily Bell: Can you expand on debt-based money versus money that is issued into the economy without debt - and why the latter is preferable. Some would say the latter exercise comes with debt as well ...

Ellen Brown: I don't think debt is necessarily bad. The flip side of debt is credit, which is a very good thing. Inventing credit is probably the most innovative thing bankers ever did.

James Jaeger: This is total nonsense. Not only is the invention of debt a bad thing, it's possibly the most debilitating invention ever devised by homo Sapiens. See THE INVENTION OF DEBT for a full dissertation on what you call "the most INNOVATIVE thing bankers ever did." In short, here's the problem with debt. Although debt gives the illusion of advancing civilization, it does so only in the short-term, and only in the interest of the money-government-complex, i.e., the power elite. Debt -- often called "credit" by apologists of the system to soften the negative implications of the term -- is a financial device which reverses causality. It allows the borrower to "have" today, what the physical universe planned for him to have tomorrow with greater abundance. In the debt transaction -- actually a pact with the "devil" -- the borrower is granted energy from the lender, such energy literally stolen from the future productivity of the entire civilization. The lenders, known as bankers, have devised, over the centuries, a mathematical form of slavery. This slave system -- known by various names, such as the "Federal Reserve System," "Globalization," "New World Order," etc. -- has done away with the ostensible barbarism of former slavery and replaced it with an insidious system of servitude that is almost imperceptible to the layman as he goes about his daily life being a "good tax-paying, law abiding citizen." Little does this citizen know that "monetary scientists," as G. Edward Griffin calls them, have engineered the "perfect" system of slavery, a system based upon the invention of debt. So DEBT is ALWAYS a bad thing, no matter how much lipstick one tries to put on it.

Ellen Brown: But because the Italian bankers who first came up with that scheme were on a gold-based system, they had to do it essentially by cheating, pretending to have more money than they actually had. There would be periodic runs on the banks and the system would collapse.

James Jaeger: And this system is known as "fractional reserve banking." Why not NAME it, Ellen?! It's unfortunate that your new sovereign currency system would also use and condone fractional reserve banking, even if it acknowledges it.

Ellen Brown: A public banking system would acknowledge credit to be just a legal agreement to pay over time.

James Jaeger: Rape is still rape even if the rapist tells the victim that he is raping. No? So fractional reserve banking is still rape even in your system because, in your system, the gov is still creating money out of thin air and lending it out as DEBT, I mean "credit." They will still be inflating the currency, but under this system, instead of a bunch of greedy bankers getting the unjust enrichment, a bunch of greedy politicians or trusts will get it.

Ellen Brown: Creditworthy borrowers would get credit. Their access to credit needn't be contingent on someone else's agreement to give it up.

James Jaeger: Under today's fiat-money-driven, fractional reserve system, credit is not contingent on someone else's agreement to give it up, the Federal Reserve System simply adjusts the reserve requirements or monetizes additional debt instruments. Only when bankers were warehouse attendants who stored citizens' gold would both of the conditions in your statement be necessary and sufficient.

Ellen Brown: The system would be mathematically sustainable.

James Jaeger: The system might be mathematically sustainable in one sense, but it would still be fundamentally wrong in another because such a system would still promote unjust enrichment. If I am a banker, in your system, and I can take time deposits but then make loans by granting lines of credit, such lines based upon some fraction my time deposits, I am still creating additional money out of thin air. When money is created out of thin air and interest is charged for the loan of such money, the effective interest rate is infinity. Thus, in another sense, the system is NOT mathematically sustainable: for how long will a society permit some of its members to generate money with no human effort (at infinite interest rates) when the rest must work (slave) for a living?

Daily Bell: Let's back up. You believe that gold and silver only circulated as money once government got involved? True? Can you expand on this?

Ellen Brown: I think that's true by definition. Webster's dictionary defines a "coin" as "a usually flat piece of metal issued by governmental authority as money." Wikipedia says: "King Croesus, ruler of Lydia (560-546 BC), began issuing the first true gold coins, . . . with a standardized purity, for general circulation. They were quite crude, and were made of electrum, a naturally occurring pale yellow mixture of gold and silver."

Daily Bell: What about ancient archeology showing drowned cities off the coast of India?

Ellen Brown: I made an effort to look that up, since you asked; but I could find nothing to support your contention. If you would point me to some specific research, I could formulate a better answer. My research indicates that Indian gold coins came in later, and like coins generally were issued by the government. Here's what came up on a quick search:

"Although the world's first coins were Greek coins made in Lydia about 640 BC, it seems clear that India and China both invented coins independently within a few centuries of the Lydians. The earliest Indian coins were silver, and it was not until about 100 AD that the Kushan emperor Vima Kadaphises introduced the first Indian gold coin, which was a gold dinar bearing the image of Shiva."

Daily Bell: What makes you think that gold and silver, mined together as electrum, were not a store of value prior to the temple period?

Ellen Brown: Define the temple period please. The Sumerian temple period? That would be the third millennium B.C. The Sumerians did not use coins as money. Rather, they had what could be characterized as the first public banking system, based on accounting entries on cuneiform tablets. To say gold and silver were a store of value is a bit vague. Gold wedding rings are a store of value, but I wouldn't classify them as money.

James Jaeger: The above discussion -- whether gold and silver or electrum circulated as money before government got involved or after -- and its appeal to authorities, is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because the answer can be found by simple intuition and reason, something we have lost in this current positivism-mad "civilization." Even though governments usually fuck their way in and commandeer money supplies, money always starts out representing the products and services of the People, as there are always more people in a given civilization than government officials and those government officials don't produce anything (except war and destruction). Thus it does not matter what Webster's or Wikipedia says. That's point one. Point two is: many different THINGS have been used as money down through the millennia. It happens that GOLD and SILVER have been used the most because they have been found to have the most attributes that facilitate such use. Thus, all money starts out, not only as a TOOL of the masses (as opposed to the few government officials "in charge"), but as a commodity, a THING, as the U.S. Constitution calls it. So, the true story of money is simple: People establish what the money is and Big Gov or Big Bank take it over and attempt to exploit it for their own ends. It's as SIMPLE as that folks! Money in PRIVATE hands is good so long as the "private hands" aren't a PRIVATE or quasi-private BANKING cartel. Money in GOVERNMENT hands is bad because that is money that is NOT in PRIVATE hands. And trying to worm your way around this fact by implying that THIS "government" is the "community" -- well only a lawyer would try something like this. :)

Daily Bell: Why do you believe that government is superior to the free market?

Ellen Brown: Why do you believe that I believe government is superior to the free market? I believe government is necessary to have a free market. Otherwise you have the law of the jungle, the exploitation of the weak by the strong.

James Jaeger: In some sense Ellen is right here. The paradox in free market capitalism is this: free market capitalism is great, but it's often populated by risk-averse weenies. I know this for a fact because, as a motion picture producer, I am always dealing with free-market capitalist investors. Most of them are weenies, meaning they don't have the guts to invest in things that don't have a "track record" yet every successful motion picture ever made never had a "track record." The reason for this is because all motion pictures are prototypes, especially successful ones, because they are "original" works of art. The story for these motion pictures has never been exploited in the market. People don't go to the movies to see prototypes. They go to the movies to see the NEW and DIFFERENT. But investors don't like to invest in the NEW and DIFFERENT because it's scary and they are weenies. They like to invest in things that have an "established business model." Yes, that's the exact term the free-market capitalist investment houses around here in the Weenie-delphia area used on me when I came to them in 1995 with a business plan for something I named: "movies-on-demand." They told me they didn't want to invest because there was no "established business model" for sending MOVIES over the Internet. Of course we all see these people as the assholes that they are now, but back then it wasn't very funny. What I should do is publish their letters of rejection all over the Net so you folks can see what a bunch of weenies they were and probably still are today as "free-market capitalists." In summary, free-market capitalists would NEVER have taken us to the Moon. There was no "established business model". And of course free market investors did NOT start the Internet, a free market capitalist "only" started the World Wide Web. And if you don't know the difference between the Net and the Web, then you deserve to be spun all over the place by the propaganda spewed out by BOTH.

James Jaeger: Thus what we have here is the following conclusion:

1. There are BIG problems with BOTH Big Gov and Big Corps (i.e., free market monopoly capitalists).

2. Big govs will start high-risk ventures like walks on the Moon and the Internet, but ONLY for strategic military reasons. In other words, Big Govs like to spend their sovereign money -- or money they can get from ANYWHERE (Fed, taxes, sovereign money, historic takings) -- on their OWN security, but always in the name of the PUBLIC'S security. And this fact of life is, of course, why the Framers said it was "necessary" to keep and bear arms as a militia. The right to keep and bear arms is obviously NOT just for hunting or shooting female congressmen, as MSNBC or CNN would have you believe. It's to keep rogue politicians and tyrannical governments off WE THE PEOPLEs' butts. The FACT that the mainstream media can be OBSERVED to almost NEVER mention this, is PROOF that they are duplicitous with the treasonous power elite that is now attempting to take over the United States by tampering with or minimalizing its Constitutional rights and sovereignty. Of course this scum will eventually be indentified and brought to justice, hopefully not just shot at public rallies or in their offices.

3. Big Corp (what I refer to as CORPORATE FASCISTS in my documentary) masquerade as free market capitalists however they are entities that are every bit as dangerous as Big Gov with all its laws, onerous/ridiculous regulations and military threats. Big Corps attempt to commandeer the power of the state and use it for THEIR means. Happily, their means and the goals of the state often coincide: both like to use force to rape and pillage resources, as in the Iraq exercise. And nothing is sweeter than full use and access to the U.S. standing army than the ability to make endless PROFITS off the military industrial complex that BUILDs and sustains this standing army. Yes, there is nothing better than making money by killing and blowing away people and all their frivolous ideals, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

4. Big AND small corporations -- operating in a so-called free-market capitalist society -- are guilty of suppressing innovation. The Wright Brothers were even laughed at when they tried to get investors for their so-called AIRPLANE. There was no "established business model." And look at what the very top of the investment-banking-government capitalist complex did to Nikola Tesla. They chewed his innovations up and spit him out. This is what ATLAS SHRUGGED is all about and why it's selling over 50 million copies 50 years after Ayan Rand, the founder of Libertarianism, wrote it.

James Jaeger: So the bottom line is: anyone who thinks either BIG GOV or BIG CORP are the good guys is mental. Both BIG GOV and BIG CORP want control over the ISSUE of money. Double Duh! The Federal Reserve System is thus a PARTNERSHIP of BIG GOV and BIG CORP, more accurately a criminal banking cartel. That's why everyone is fighting over what's the best new monetary system, they know it's only a matter of time before it goes down. Ideologues who want the Gov to issue money point to Fed-as-PRIVATE-entity and how they screw up. Ideologues who want Bank Corps to issue money point to Fed-as-GOV-entity and how THEY screw up. Stop it. Pleeze. This is the same game that's being played with the DemoPublicans and why nothing changes. See SPOILER at http://www.SpoilerUSA.org/trailer.wmv

Daily Bell: Do you believe that government is effective at all levels big and small?

Ellen Brown: Without meaning to be rude, I have to say I'm slapping my forehead at some of these questions. Government can be effective at a variety of levels. Not all government is effective. Some government is very ineffective. It depends largely on the political structure.

James Jaeger: The political structure?! By this I assume you mean say Communism vs. a Republic. Yes, all govs are not structured alike, but all govs have the same basic MO: a special class that has access to the borrowed-money-produced weapons for the purpose of "protecting" the people and to "ensure the greatest good for all of them." What harm could a government possibly do, especially one that prints up endless money for "infrastructure."

Daily Bell: Do you believe in central banking so long as it is publicly controlled? By "publically controlled" I assume you mean that the militia of the several states has been revitalized, otherwise meaningful "public control" is not possible. That's what the entire U.S. Constitution is all about.

Ellen Brown: A publicly-owned central bank can be very effective in serving the people.

James Jaeger: I love this term "publically controlled" as if it means something.

Ellen Brown: The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is my favorite model. Not all publicly-owned banks, however, are effective for that purpose. I often hear British money reformers complaining that the publicly-owned Bank of England is still serving the interests of the private banking establishment, just as when it was private. It is public in name only.

James Jaeger: I rest my case. Again, if the Federal Reserve were suddenly "publically controlled" nothing would change. Instead of being a private-gov partnership, it would be a gov-private partnership. Ho hum!

Daily Bell: Do you believe that government was responsible for a good deal of mayhem in the 20th century?

James Jaeger: Chewed up 7 empires, no?

Ellen Brown: Sure, but somebody manipulates governments into wars and other mayhem.

James Jaeger: That's right, They were known as the Rothschild Banking Complex, the same folks that invested in and got Rockefeller's Standard Oil going, a monopoly that later morphed into Chase Manhattan Bank and CitiBank, our friendly neighborhood banks.

Ellen Brown: I believe a government could be structured so that it actually served the people;

James Jaeger: Actually. Just like they mostly come out at night ... mostly.

Ellen Brown: but first, it would have to recapture control of its monetary system.

James Jaeger: And the only way THAT can be done is to first revitalize the militia of the several states and reaffirm their compliance with the thousands of state laws that are currently on the books so they are at the disposal of each state's governor and/or the president to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. THEN, under this condition of Constitutional respect, we are in a position to "recapture control" of the monetary system. Ellen, you really think the power elite that runs the world banking system out of the Fed and the BIS is going to simply let you turn all their operations and money over to the g-men.

Ellen Brown: Few governments are in that position today.

James Jaeger: And none obviously WILL be except for America's government. So the rest of the world better start praying, or be prepared to be high-tech slaves. Again, if you don't know what I mean, watch Edwin Vieira's lecture entitled THE PURSE AND THE SWORD. This, imo, is the most important lecture ever done on the U.S. Constitution. Dr. Vieira is an immense resource to this nation and when one studies this lecture, which is about 8 hours long, it's easy to see that he has put in the time to recover the Founders' original intent.

Daily Bell: Do you believe in the Invisible Hand? Do you believe in Misesian human action. How can you reconcile it with your preference for government decision-making.

Ellen Brown: You'll have to define your terms. I'd say the Invisible Hand that is at work right now is chiefly the hand of Goldman Sachs.

James Jaeger: Yes, there are good invisible hands and bad invisible hands. Adam Smith is the good hand but Ellen is right: the pig invisible hands at Goldman Sachs are always machinating on how to dominate the gov and world. That's a given, and anyone that calls themselves a "free-market capitalist" better not tell me that Goldman Sach's-type capitalists are anything less than fascists. Goldman would have told the Write Brothers, not only that there is no "established business models" for their airplane, but to "go fuck themselves, if man were meant to fly, he would have wings." This is the exact same mOron-mentality that uses the line: "Oh we have too many problems here on Earth to spend money on going to the Moon." If you ever want to come to an understanding of what an embarrassing statement that last is, read a book entitled ENTERING SPACE by Robert Zubrin. Why will people that say things like: "Oh we have too many problems here on Earth to spend money on going to the Moon" be embarrassed? Because eventually the entire human race will realize that these are the same mentalities that wanted "negroes" to ride in the back of the bus.

James Jaeger: Yes, there is only one thing more weenie than an investor, and that's a banker. At least SOME small or mid-sized investors HAVE taken risks on airplanes and movies but almost never the big boys. Gates, when he went to then big boy-IBM with his new-fangled idea called the PC, was told there is "no business model" -- so today IBM is a shadow of its former self, thanks to the free market, which ultimately doesn't like weenies. Then Gates went to BRITANNICA with his idea for an on-line encyclopedia. He was told to take a hike by the big boy. Now encyclopedia Britannica is not read that much, and ENCARTA is. So the free market does have its revenge moments and that's grand. But there are so many examples where viable entrepreneurs are turned down by people that call themselves "free-market capitalists" -- AND even more so by risk-challenged, eunuch bankers -- that it's almost ridiculous. Let me put it this way: I have never observed one (1) anecdote on network TV or Internet TV or in any book where an inventor or an entrepreneur of an ultimately needed and wanted new product was accepted until AFTER scores, if not hundreds, of sloppy and mindless rejections.

James Jaeger: This brings me -- a guy who fully believes in unfettered, free-market capitalism -- to the following SOBER conclusion: SOME HUMAN EFFORTS WILL NEVER HAPPEN UNLESS THEY ARE INITIALLY FUNDED BY A GOVERNMENT. Why? Because free-market capitalists are motivated mostly by PROFIT. Thus any start up enterprise for which there is no "established business model" -- code for "how will it make money for me so I can stuff my face" -- will receive NO financial support, OR the financial support will come in dribs and drabs -- as J.P. Morgan did to Tesla -- OR the financial support will come in a screw-you deal -- as J.P. Morgan also did to Tesla -- OR the financial support will take so long to come, all of civilization will have slipped back into the Dark Ages a little more while waiting for the check. Ask Tesla.

James Jaeger: So, eunuch-bankers and weenie-capitalists can usually only get it up when they smell PROFIT. Governments, on the other hand, can usually only get it up when they smell BLOOD -- the opportunity to cripple the masses with some new weapon is more than most gov-psychopaths can resist. Welcome to today's world. No wonder there is the Fermi Paradox; who the hell out there would WANT to contact us?!

James Jaeger: SOLUTION: The people emit and own the money. They allow a government, under THEIR absolute CONTROL to tax them (NOT borrow from them). The government takes this public money and spends it on risky projects such as Moon Walks and Internets (NOT Vietnam wars and resource-grabs like Iraq). When Moon Walks and Internets prove VIABLE, the government bows-out and turns ALL of it over to the weenie capitalists. The weenie capitalists, and their eunuch-bankers, then tweak it all up to make it smaller and available in more colors than just BLACK.

Daily Bell: OK, what are some triumphs of big government in your opinion?

Ellen Brown: National highway systems, bridges, waterways, dams,

James Jaeger: All of these things have "established business models," thus what is government doing involved with them? It should not be involved. See above. Roosevelt and his NEW DEAL can go rot as it has caused this country to rot under projects that free-market capitalists should have had the balls to invest in.

Ellen Brown: FDIC insurance,

James Jaeger: Stupid thing for the public to pay for, FDIC insurance. Your real insurance that the banks will be safe is the fact that they will go BANKrupt if they fail to provide needed and wanted services and HONEST money. This is called the free-market, a concept that the FDIC-challenged don't seem to grasp.

Ellen Brown: Medicare and social security, to name a few. If you doubt the latter two, consider what life was like in the depression of the 1890s, when there was no Medicare or social security, and people froze in the fields or starved. My grandmother, for whom I was named, died in Detroit during the Great Depression at age 42, trying to self-abort her eighth child, at a time when my grandfather was an unemployed auto worker and they could barely feed the other seven. My father was the oldest child and supported the family on a paper route. He never really recovered from that traumatic period. I suspect he is hovering about and prodding me on.

James Jaeger: My mother and father went through a similar thing, lost everything in the Great Depression so I am not insensitive to this. All I can say is the conditions that allowed your family to suffer like this were the products of the MONOPOLY CAPITALISM that was rampant during that time. As I have stated a million times, both BIG GOV and BIG CORP are the villains that will cause most of the above hardships. They will cause at least 80% of these hardships -- and maybe even 100% when they are working together, such as in the Federal Reserve System. The Robber Barons of the past could never have "accomplished" the raping and pillaging of this nation were they NOT able to utilize the power of the state. THUS, THE PIVOT OF ALL THE DEBATE BETWEEN THE FREE-MARKET THINKERS AND THE THINKERS THAT WANT GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO A GREATER OR LESSER DEGREE IS AT THIS EXACT POINT.

James Jaeger: I have thus come to the conclusion that an exact balance is what we all must strive for. Once found, iron-clad mechanisms MUST be invented to make sure neither BIG GOV or BIG CORP later merge, covertly or overtly, directly or indirectly. At some point economies of scale -- the primary justification for consolidation -- yields diminishing returns to society. We must find the calculus of this intersection, only then can the argument between big and small, rich and poor, scarcity and abundance, freedom and slavery be resolved. The consideration is: what mathematical construct or philosophical methodology will inform us as to the exact size of government, per capita. In other words, for every citizen, how many government employees should there be in a free-market, democratic society? This ratio, known, will open the door to the appropriate size of government, hence the cost of government. The cost of government will then lead to its place on Society's P&L. This will lead to a comprehension of society's other financials. And with one system working properly, all the other systems in the world can follow the "established business model." By systems I mean units of population or countries.

Ellen Brown: Daily Bell: Do you still believe the DARPA and the US federal government invented the Internet.

James Jaeger: DARPA established the first amorphous, peer-to-peer, self-repairing packetized computer network, ostensibly to survive nuclear attacks. Then, I believe Timothy Berners-Lee and his free market colleagues took the idea, which was probably stagnating in the defense industry, and invented the World Wide Web with the creation of the hyper-text link, today known as the Uniform Resource Locator or the URL. So, here is a perfect example that a ballsy gov can interact, pass off the baton to the weenie investors and eunuch-bankers and come up with more colors than just black. By black, remember when your Bell telephone company was all that was. Thus, corporate monopolies are just as bad as governments in that they stifle competition and innovation.

Ellen Brown: So says Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet. I read an interesting article that I can't find now called something like, "The Government Does Some Things Right," I think in the L.A. Times. It said the inventor of the internet went from one major private company to another and got rejected for funding. Only the government was willing to do research for its own sake, just because it was a good idea, simply to see what could be developed from it.

James Jaeger: Yes, I agree with this. Again, as I stated above, weenie investors won't invest in anything unless they smell profit. This means little NEW will get STARTED in the private financial world until and unless investors find some other motivation for the allocation of capital than PROFIT. The profit-motive is thus as stifling as it is progressive. Again, what is the effective gov-private nexus? If the anarchists are correct, NO gov is the optimum. But if that system were the optimum, we would have evolved it over the past 50,000 years of "civilization." If the total free market system were the optimum, likewise, we would have evolved THAT over the past 50,000 years. The fact that we still have a world system comprised of many systems of both govs and free-enterprise, and this has been true for the past 50,000 years, is strong evidence that a balance of distributed intelligence (free enterprises systems) and centralized intelligence (governments) is the way nature tends to work -- at least organic nature as we know it on this world.

James Jaeger: With the advent of superintelligent AI we will see that centralized government will be come more possible, but at the same time, the advent of the ultra mass communication internet makes distributed intelligences also more possible. Thus we're right back to the critical balance between the two systems: central vs. distributed, also known as totalitarianism vs. free-market democracy. This is the question of the decade, perhaps the Age. Everything else is trivial.

Daily Bell: You've used China and India as examples of public central banking in a positive sense. Yet both these countries have terrible inflation now. (As in too much money.) How do you respond to that?

Ellen Brown: China and India are the fastest growing economies in the world. They are hot investor targets, so money has been flowing in, both as foreign currency and as credit expansion for new projects. This is largely speculative investment, which has driven up prices because goods and services have not increased in tandem.

Ellen Brown: As Max Keiser observed recently, India is suffering more from inflated prices in commodities than we are because food and staples are a substantially larger proportion of the average Indian's budget than of ours. Commodities are going up for a variety of reasons, including (a) heavy competition for these scarce goods from developing countries, whose economies are growing much faster than ours; (b) in the case of soaring food prices, disastrous weather patterns; (c) the flight of "hot money" from the real estate market, which has nowhere else to go; (d) speculation, which is fanning the flames; (e) the growth of ETFs, which have made it easy for ordinary investors to jump in and out of commodities; and (f) the U.S. dollar carry trade created by the extremely low interest rates made available by the Fed to its banking constituents following the credit crisis of 2008.

James Jaeger: When money is elastic (the purpose for the Fed) it causes all the insanity you see in the current market place. This is why Murray Rothbard maintains that any money supply, once established as a widely circulating currency, is sufficient. The brilliance of Rothbard still escapes many, but buried in his economic philosophy is the key to human abundance. I have written exhaustively on this for Jaeger Research Institute.

Daily Bell: Define inflation.

Ellen Brown: There are two types of inflation, price inflation (an increase in prices over time) and inflation of the money supply (an increase in the amount of money circulating in the economy). These are often confused. Individual prices may be going up (as commodities are today), yet the overall money supply may be falling (as it is today). Many factors can be involved in price inflation. An excess of demand (money) over supply (goods and services) is one possibility; but price inflation can also result from an increase in costs (including interest costs, scarcity of raw materials, etc.) or from speculation, with "hot money" rushing from one investment to another and competitively driving prices up.

James Jaeger: Many, including myself, will argue that there is only one definition of inflation: the expansion of the money supply. An expansion of the money supply causes prices to rise because the purchasing power of each monetary unit decreases. This idea of inflation is analogous to waves on the ocean. In the ocean there are waves on top of waves. The largest waves, the ones that move the tides in and out, are analogous to the money supply. The Fed can expand or contract this money supply thus causing waves with enormous power. On the other hand, there are smaller waves floating on these monstrous waves. These waves are analogous to the individual prices of commodities, various goods, services and/or raw materials. All of these things are the little waves, the little things that cause prices to rise and fall: all the crap pundits and "experts" try to put your attention on on the horseshit-tube. But just like the little waves that ripple all over the place, these things are relatively insignificant. Again, they are used only by apologists of the "fiat money," "elastic currency" system to confuse the public and obfuscate that fact that certain power elites are in the background manipulating the supply of money to their advantage. This power elite is comprised of the elite banker and his accomplices in the government, i.e., the Federal Reserve System or the Government Reserve System you want to create with sovereign currency. Actually, if the government started issuing currency, it would have to name itself the Private Reserve System in order to keep up the tradition of misnaming those things private as federal and those things federal as private.

Daily Bell: Is it monetary?

Ellen Brown: The question needs to be refined. "Monetary" means pertaining to money, which inflation obviously does.

Daily Bell: Is the US money supply shrinking in your view?

Yes. According to the New York Times of September 2010, it is shrinking at the fastest rate since the Great Depression. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/opinion/12bove.html

James Jaeger: Actually true. But if the banks started loaning and spending the $2 trillion they have stuffed in their reserve vaults, we would start seeing the inflation manifest.

Daily Bell: Why is that?

Ellen Brown: Per the NY Times, it's because banks are making fewer loans, largely because capital requirements have been raised.

James Jaeger: I think the capital requirements should be raised to 100%. If banks can't make it without fractional reserve lending, then let them go out of business. Who needs four banks on every street corner in America?

Ellen Brown: My proposed solution would be to supplement the supply of credit through state-owned banks, which have huge potential capital and deposit bases that can be leveraged into credit for local needs.

James Jaeger: Why do we need more debt, what you euphemistically call credit? Remember what I said about the invention of debt. Now here you go advocating it as if it were good for the economy.

Daily Bell: How do you define the money supply?

Ellen Brown: I'll go with the NY Times: MZM (the liquid money supply in the economy); M1, M2, M3 (the broadest measure).

James Jaeger: Who cares how the money supply is defined. M1, M2 and M3 are nothing more than artifacts of an insane banking system that relies for its profitability on obfuscation and complexity.

Daily Bell: How do you define deflation?

James Jaeger: I define it as yippee cowboy! The purchasing power of my money is increasing!

Ellen Brown: A shrinking MZM, creating insufficient liquidity to maintain business and productivity at optimum levels.

James Jaeger: Please Ellen, cut it with the insane terms. MZM. Really. Sounds like the military's newest assault weapon. When people like you, and economists etc, get out in public and start throwing around all these sophisticated words, terms and concepts, they make it seem like the entire subject of banking, finance and economies is so complex the average citizen can't understand it. Thus, the average citizen makes no attempt TO understand it. Then all the "experts" rape and pillage these average citizens out of all their money. This is what's happening now and if it continues to happen, I'm telling you the environment will not be very safe. Someone is bound to start screaming that the terrorists are all over and then we will have Arizona's all over the place. So do yourself, and your fellow cit, a favor: cut it with the sophisticated language and talk like a human being. Kudlow and Greenspam may love you, but the rest will just think you're trying to make the entire banking system too complicated for them to understand and they may call you an intellectual Meany.

Daily Bell: Are you aware that some of your supporters want to shift the responsibility for printing money from the Fed to the Treasury in America? Do you agree with this?

James Jaeger: This is what I mean by sovereign currency: the Treasury printing money.

Ellen Brown: I'm aware of a particular school of money reform that you may be talking about, but I doubt they would look charitably on being called my supporters. My own preferred alternative would be to nationalize the Federal Reserve.

James Jaeger: And what, call it the Private Reserve System or the National Reserve System? How about the Citizen's Reserve System or the People's Reserve System? That last name would dove-tail nicely with China's banking system I bet. Hey, we could then merge the two systems into the Red Reserve System.

Ellen Brown: Of course you realize that money is not actually printed by the Fed. It is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which is already part of the Department of the Treasury. http://www.moneyfactory.gov/aboutthebep.html.

James Jaeger: Technically. But the Fed gives the orders to "start the printers".

Daily Bell: Do you believe your movement has been penetrated by military intelligence?

Ellen Brown: Not to my knowledge. I don't know why they would take an interest.

James Jaeger: I never thought of this, but it IS a no-brainer when one DOES think about it. Who would benefit by a government that can directly print up its own money? Gee, I can't imagine. A gov that can print up infinite amounts of money -- just like Hitler did! Humm, what WOULD that gov do with all that money? I guess they would build churches and bridges?

Ellen Brown: I haven't even seen any Wall Street bankers take an interest. The opposition so far all seems to be from the other money reformers!

James Jaeger: Why would WALL Street bankers take an interest?! You want to run them out of business -- the only good part of your plan, Ellen.

Daily Bell: Hard money economist Dr. North has made many criticisms of your work. How do you respond?

Ellen Brown: I haven't actually spent much time reading Dr. North's theories. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Wasn't it Sun Tzu?

Ellen Brown: He said in an email that I was a threat to the Tea Party movement,

James Jaeger: I don't think so Ellen. I'm sure the Tea Party movement is enough of a threat to itself to worry about you.

Ellen Brown: that his intent was to destroy me, and that there would be no compromise, so I've decided that arguing with him is an unproductive venture.

James Jaeger: He DOES sound kind of mean. And you don't deserve that kind of treatment as I think you are a reasonable woman who has put in a lot of time thinking about this subject. I have read your book and many of your articles, and, even though I joke around and disagree with your "final solution" -- you do deserve respect.

Ellen Brown: He can have his theories and I'll have mine; may the best human win. If you want to present me with a particular criticism, I could respond to that. ***

Daily Bell: You've stated that you will no longer use Benjamin Franklin's Pennsylvania money or the Nazi era as examples of successful public money. What will you use?

James Jaeger: Yes it's better to bury that Nazi example, because when Ol' Hitler started printing up that sovereign money he sure was able to build an ass-kicking war machine -- and in just five years. So, I'd sweep that one under the table, unless you wanted to use Ol' Hit's blueprint right here in the U.S., then maybe your new sys WOULD be cool, at least to the military-industrial-complex boys that love to chop and kill.

Ellen Brown: Au contraire, I will definitely continue to use the Pennsylvania colonial bank, America's first publicly-owned bank, as an example. I think it's an excellent model.

James Jaeger: Yo, us Pennsylvanians let THAT bank die. I know some people around here whose families were involved in that bank and they're just as vicious today as they were back then. One of them recently helped confiscate my brother's historic house using the Nazi's at the quasi-private, government-sanctioned National Trust for Historic Preservation in DC as their attack-dog. Here's an operation, configured exactly like the Federal Reserve System, that's taken on the facade of doing the "greater good", yet all it really is is a bunch of rich people who have commandeered the police powers of the state to steal from citizens. Given the tremendous deficits and necessity for budget cuts, I don't see how funding an historic preservation concentration camp that steals taxpayers' homes is the way to go. This organization needs to be de-funded and disbanded as soon as possible, and there's a short documentary that will give you some solid reasons why at http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/barn.wmv. Pass this documentary on, especially if you know anyone who has an historic property.

Ellen Brown: It wasn't "Benjamin Franklin's money" though; the bank was established by the Quakers, who came from England. Franklin just saw how well it worked and wrote about it in glowing terms. I won't mention 1930s Germany unless it comes up, because it's too controversial. My favorite modern-day models are the Bank of North Dakota and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

James Jaeger: Hey, the important thing to remember about the First and Second central banks established here in the U.S. is: they both failed. Accordingly, the third central bank, the Federal Reserve System, will also fail. Americans are stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid.

Daily Bell: How can anyone know how much money is enough money? Or when to stop lending in your paradigm?

James Jaeger: When everyone is dead, then you stop lending in Ellen's scheme.

Ellen Brown: Lending is an organic process, responding to the needs of the borrowers.

James Jaeger: Oh please Ellen. This sounds like something the advertising department at Wachovia Bank would come up with.

"Lending is an organic process, responding to the needs of the borrowers. It will also leave your mind minty fresh, ready to start the morning with a new incentive to get current on your delinquent credit card balances."

Ellen Brown: Contrary to popular belief, banks do not lend their own money or their depositors' money;

James Jaeger: Believe me, I never believed they lent THEIR own money in the first place. My understanding is they first steal the money from someone else and then they lend THAT. And they have been doing this for centuries.

Ellen Brown: they create new money on their books every time they make a loan. I think lending is a much more natural and efficient way to get new money into the money supply than to have an independent body trying to dictate what the economy needs. But private banking institutions have proven they cannot be trusted with this powerful tool. Except for coins, which are a very marginal part of the money supply, all money today is just credit - the credit of the people. It should be a public utility, administered through publicly-owned banks.

James Jaeger: And govs CAN be trusted with this powerful tool?!

Daily Bell: Won't your paradigm end up injecting too much money into the economy nonetheless?

James Jaeger: Economy? I think the word you are looking for is military-industrial-complex.

Ellen Brown: No. Loans grow organically in response to the demands of trade, and that credit-money disappears when the loans are paid off. When demand for loans is low, the money supply shrinks naturally. You may be thinking of the paradigm of another school, which in your last article you referred to as representing a "Brownian Schism." I'm flattered, but they actually came first.

James Jaeger: Loans WOULD wax and wane if money were a function of the free market. Only the free market knows where capital needs to be ORGANICALLY allocated.

Daily Bell: How will you value the land and other goods used to secure the loan?

Ellen Brown: Just as bankers do now.

James Jaeger: The way bankers "value" real estate for loans is they send their bank-approved appraiser out to the property. The appraiser knowing that he is HIRED to appraise for a BANK, ALWAYS appraises the "value" of the property low. This way the bank can minimize its risk, that is given the bank isn't just going to off-load the loan to Fannie Mae, hence the taxpayers. Anyone who knows the real estate game knows that APPRAISALS are the heart of the game, if not a total joke. I hire my appraiser and you hire your appraiser and the bank hires its appraiser. If I am the seller, my appraiser knows that I will use his services in the "free" market sooner if he appraises high for me. If I am the buyer, MY appraiser knows that I will use HIS services in the "free" market sooner if he appraises low for me. And, of course, the bank plays it either way, depending on who will end up holding the collateral package. Ultimately, this nonsense is what the free market is all about: my insanity counters YOUR inanity. But, as bad as this sounds, this is a GOOD thing -- a lot better than regulations and gov intervention. Yes we live on a fucked up little planet.

Ellen Brown: I'm not talking about putting politicians in charge of running the banks.

James Jaeger: Oh, no, of course not.

Ellen Brown: Publicly-owned banks are run by bankers, just as privately-owned banks are. See, e.g., the very well run Bank of North Dakota.

James Jaeger: So this means that if I live in North Dakota, I have an actual STOCK CERTIFICATE with MY name on it stating that I own a certain number of shares of common stock in Bank of North Dakota, Inc. I don't think so Ellen. But I could be wrong.

Ellen Brown: The Commonwealth Bank of Australia worked so well because it was set up by a professional banker who decided to apply his insider knowledge to serve the public interest.

James Jaeger: Oh, phaaaaleeezzz! A banker out to serve the pubic interests. Were have I heard THIS before.

Ellen Brown: Knowing that banks simply created credit on their books, he proceeded to finance massive infrastructure with this sort of book-created credit - and it worked, brilliantly well.

James Jaeger: Until he then decided to finance ROBO COP. Remember that robot thing they brought into the board meeting for a demonstration and suddenly it lost its mind and started shooting the guy who it mistook for an enemy. Well this is what people that have infinite amounts of gov-fiat money would eventually do. At first they would first start building all sorts of nice little churches and bridges and then, while the public was out praying and driving, they would start secretly spending the infinite amounts of your book-created credit on ROBO COP II and III and IV and then they would fund the new line of PUBLIC DEFENDER BOTS: PUBLIC DEFENDER I and II, and III and then the QUESTIONABLE CIT KILLER series and TERROR STALKER series would be funded. Pretty soon all the nice little churches and bridges all over the land would be blown up and we would look just like Hitler's back yard in 20th Century Europe.

Daily Bell: Who will make the decisions? Won't they inevitably be corrupted?

James Jaeger: No, eventually TERROR STALKER X series would make ALL the decisions.

Ellen Brown: What decisions? The question is too vague.

James Jaeger: Right. There would be so many gov-credit killer bots all over the place it would be almost impossible to know which ones would make the decisions.

Ellen Brown: At the Bank of North Dakota, the decision to advance loans is made by professional loan officers, just as it is elsewhere. Creditworthy borrowers get loans.

James Jaeger: Just as the effective killer-bots would get the bullets first.

Daily Bell: Didn't Franklin disown state money as inflationary before he died?

Ellen Brown: Not to my knowledge. Anyway, it was set up by the Quakers. He just wrote about it.

James Jaeger: Those nasty Quakers.

Daily Bell: Why not fight for freedom instead of government intervention?

James Jaeger: Yeah, why not Ellen?

Ellen Brown: I am fighting for freedom - freedom from a corrupt banking monopoly that collects tribute for letting us use our own public credit.

James Jaeger: Well I thing we all agree here, the Fed does suck.

Ellen Brown: Freedom from starvation and disease resulting from an artificial scarcity imposed by a private monopoly over the creation of money and credit.

James Jaeger: And I think we can agree with this too. But what causes this scarcity is a product of the BIG banking-gov complex and the profit-motive-run-amok. Nothing wrong with profit, but when all the major multinational corporations don't answer their phones any longer with live human beings -- then there is a lot WRONG with the profit motive.

Daily Bell: What do you think is responsible for human progress - individual human action or government?

Ellen Brown: Both are obviously responsible. Without government you would not have roads, bridges, court systems, etc.

James Jaeger: Ellen, the interstate highway system was built by Eisenhower so he could move the military's TANKS all over the nation, NOT so I could take Sunday drives with my family. The gov could care less about its cits.

James Jaeger: And the court system? Every time utilize the court system, I feel like I was just gang banged by pompous assholes with degrees and guns.

Ellen Brown: Government sets the rules and provides a protective umbrella under which individual human endeavor can bear fruit.

James Jaeger: Sometimes. But right now we have FAR too many rules. Don't you watch STOSSEL every night? He trucks out piles of boxes about 5 feet high by 5 feet wide and 5 feet deep and says: "These are all the rules and regulations (the so-called laws) that were passed last year." Is this the "umbrella" that I'm supposed to enjoy living under? All these "laws" do is squash the fruit. Agreed, when the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution they seriously screwed up on Article I, Section 8 when they wrote:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

James Jaeger: What the Founders SHOULD have written was the following:

"To make, consolidate, rescind and keep relevant and easily understandable to any literate citizen the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM number of Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

James Jaeger: Sure, the Framers aren't Gods. They didn't even have MS WORD back then, so what does one expect. But luckily we DO have the Amendment process. Unfortunately, about 50 - 75 percent of all the "laws" that are currently on the books are going to have to be either consolidated or removed within the next decade. When there are so many "laws" out there that even the lawyers, judges and legislators themselves are constantly breaking them, these "laws" become to that degree meaningless. At least this is what Stossel and Judge Napolitano seem to be saying.

Daily Bell: Does government create and invent things?

James Jaeger: Yes. It creates wars and destruction.

Ellen Brown: Sure, many things. My brother comes to mind. He has degrees in physics and engineering and works for SLAC, the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, a government-funded agency. It says in its mission statement:

"SLAC programs explore the ultimate structure and dynamics of matter and the properties of energy, space and time - at the smallest and largest scales, in the fastest processes and at the highest energies - through robust scientific programs, excellent accelerator based user facilities and valuable partnerships."

James Jaeger: Here's the joke about the Department of Energy. As a taxpayer, is it not reasonable to expect that this federally-funded department does basically one thing, one vitally important thing: RESEARCH AND DEVELOP MORE ENERGY FOR THE COUNTRY. That's what I always thought they did with the hundreds of billions they have received down through the years. But given the current energy crises, and the fact that the US is now dependent on the rest of the world for energy, I began to suspect that DOE wasn't doing a very good job. So I visited their website, as well as a number of websites of national labs that receive DOE funding. What I found was: DOE and its major labs have ENERGY PRODUCTION commingled with NATIONAL SECURITY. For instance, here's DOE's Mission Statement:

"The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. The Department's strategic goals to achieve the mission are designed to deliver results along five strategic themes: Energy Security: Promoting America's energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy. Nuclear Security: Ensuring America's nuclear security. Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Strengthening U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in science and technology. Environmental Responsibility: Protecting the environment by providing a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production. Management Excellence: Enabling the mission through sound management."

In this Mission Statement I see the word "security" five times but not once do I see the words "research" or "develop." This, combined with the idea that DOE is supposed to be clean up boy for nuclear weapons the DOD has spewed all over the planet, again, leads me to believe that DOE has ENERGY PRODUCTION commingled with NATIONAL SECURITY. But let's look at the mission statement further:

"The Department has four overriding National Security priorities: insuring the integrity and safety of the country's nuclear weapons; promoting international nuclear safety; advancing nuclear non-proliferation; and, continuing to provide safe, efficient, and effective nuclear power plants for the United States Navy."

What is the Department of Energy doing in the national security business, "insuring the integrity and safety of the country's nuclear weapons." Talk about mission creep. And is it any wonder we are now in an energy crises. Is it any wonder we still don't have FUSION technology or even cheap/competitive SOLAR cells after 50 years of supposed research and development?!

Any money you give to government will inevitably find it's way into the WAR DEPARTMENT. We give DOE money to research and develop new energy and all they do is research and develop the effectiveness of the arsenal. The same trend can be found with all of the major labs DOE funds, such as Lawrence Livermore Lab and Princeton Plasma Fusion. Is it any wonder BIG OIL is still raping and pillaging American Citizens?

Here's the mission statement for Lawrence Livermore, a government lab:

"Our mission is to ensure the safety and security of the nation through applied science and technology in three key areas:

Nuclear Security -- We ensure the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and work to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism

International and Domestic Security -- We develop capabilities to counter terrorism and other emerging 21st-century threats and technologies to enhance U.S. military effectiveness and better protect the soldier

Energy and Environmental Security -- We advance science to better understand climate change and its impacts and develop technologies supportive of a carbon-free energy future."

Note they use the word "security" four times and no where do the words "research" or "develop" appear.

But here's what Wiki says:

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is self-described as "a premier research and development institution for science and technology applied to national security."[1] Its principal responsibility is ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons through the application of advanced science, engineering and technology.
When the words research and develop ARE finally used, they're used in the sense of researching and developing WEAPONS. The gov loves to research and develop WEAPONS but when it comes to ENERGY, forget it. Just blow them up.

So in summary, the Mission Statements of the DOE and labs like Lawrence Livermore, are really two missions that almost cancel each other out. The first mission is to figure out how they can 'explore the ultimate structure of matter and the properties of energy - at the smallest scales - through robust accelerator based facilities.' The second mission is 'to make sure the nation's nuclear fuel still works and can blow the shit out of cities and nations.' The problem is, the second mission is totally secret, and since the first mission is commingled with the second mission, that TOO must be totally secret. Convenient. The various labs around the country that are funded by DOE and taxpayer money get to produce nothing of value, operate under the guise of creating ENERGY SECURITY but keep the majority of their operations totally secret so the public doesn't realize that it's mostly a scam to funnel money into the military-industrial-complex.

This is why it is now becoming widely acknowledged that the basic product, the major export of the United States is WEAPONS and WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY. Americans have sold their souls to the Devil, yet they profess to be a "Christian Nation."

So Ellen, please don't tell me the gov does much of value or produces anything that's not military-related or secret. Thanks.

Ellen Brown: Government researchers can do "pure research" -- research for its own sake - because they aren't focused on quarterly profits.

James Jaeger: That's true. But then it's all SECRET. These fucks take hundreds of our billions and then stick them into the BLACK BUDGET. According the Secretary of Defense even HE doesn't know where $2 trillion went for Iraq. Luckily the "jet" that hit the Pentagon on 9-11 hit the very section of the building where all the accountants, and their computers, kept the records for the missing 2 trillion. Now we'll never know, but I bet it went into some "pure research" -- maybe even new flying saucer technology.

Ellen Brown: My brother took reduced pay at a government job for that reason: he did not want to sell out to industry. Mondragon, a large and very successful cooperative in France, has a "department of good ideas," where people can go with their creative inventions and get them developed.

James Jaeger: Well how come the DOD turned Tesla down when he wanted to sell them on the idea of radar and submarines? And how come they turned the Wright Bros down on the idea of the airplane? Doesn't sound like they are very responsive to the creative spirit at all -- except when war and destruction can be worked into the equation. They financed the Moon walk because they didn't want the Soviet Union to gain military supremacy in space. Then, as soon as we had a few walks on the Moon and the Soviets under control, Nixon axed the space program -- just to save a few billion. Then he made it illegal for any government to explore outer space with the Outer Space Treaty. What an idiot. But Ellen, most of these gov-types are idiots, if not psychopaths . . . and you must known it. My dad was a government psychiatrist. He used to refer to them as idiots and psychopaths and he got to give them drugs and suck out their brains, so he must have the records. Want to see some of it, with the names BLACKED out, of course. Top Secret. National Security. Don't want anyone to know the gov is full of idiots and psychopaths.

Daily Bell: What makes you think that a government based public money system wouldn't be taken over by powerful private forces just like this one has been?

James Jaeger: Powerful PRIVATE forces?! It would be taken over by BOTH. Private corporate fascists AND the psychotics in government that love to kill and maim. Just like we have now, but Ellen's new sys would be called the Friendly Community Reserve.

Daily Bell: We call it mercantilism. If you give government power, won't the wealthiest end up with their hands on the levers of government?

James Jaeger: Absolutely. And their feet and teeth on the levers.

Ellen Brown: That hasn't happened in North Dakota,

James Jaeger: Not yet.

Ellen Brown: which currently has the only state-owned bank in the country.

James Jaeger: Let's see the stock certs Ellen.

Ellen Brown: Certainly a public institution that returns its profits to the public, which has full public accountability and transparency, and employs civil servants who make no bonuses or commissions for churning loans, has a better chance of serving the public than the corrupt private system we have now.

James Jaeger: Absolutely. BUT it's not the best system. I actually AGREE with you, in many ways this system WOULD be better. But it would only be better for a short while. Come the first terrorist attack on North Dakota and you will see that bank turn into ROBO BANK so fast your head will spin like the little girl in the EXORCIST.

Daily Bell: Isn't there a small group of Anglo-American banking families that has hijacked the West and intends to build a world government?

James Jaeger: Yes.

Ellen Brown: So I have read.

James Jaeger: Oh, that was a safe answer Ellen. What, you have never read FOREIGN AFFAIRS mag? I have been reading this thing for at least 10 years and all their plans are right in there. They are building a world government. I say that's not big enough. I am building a Solar System Government and their World Gov will just be one little nation-planet in MY system. My system won't even NEED money to operate. Whhahhahhhaaaa.

Daily Bell: Would you be in favor of one world government?

Ellen Brown: Definitely not of the sort projected by that group.

James Jaeger: Which group? The CFR or the Trilaterals or the Bilderbergs? I hear they are all fighting each other over who will control the superintelligent AI that will command the entire system. Funny thing is, I just also heard from a top secret source of mine that works for the World Federation of Mental Health that the AI will be autonomous, since that's the very DEFINITION of AI. As a result, they are all scared because, it's uncertain whether the AI will allow ANY human to rule.

Ellen Brown: I think national and state sovereignty is very important, particularly in matters of money.

James Jaeger: Yes it is, because the stupidest thing a One World Gov could do is place everyone into an interconnected economic system as it would violate one of the primary tenets of the universe: redundancy. Oops don't look now but the moron-humans already did this. Hey, no wonder we're having a planetary meltdown already.

Ellen Brown: But the internet and global trade are increasingly bringing us closer together, and we probably do need some sort of international rules to keep things running smoothly.

James Jaeger: No, the Internet is bringing us closer together and "free" trade is bring us farther apart. See http://www.mecfilms.com/mid/movies/oi/free.wmv

Ellen Brown: >For example, I think there needs to be a global yardstick for measuring the value of currencies against each other - not the "floating" exchange rates we have now, which are subject to speculative manipulation,

James Jaeger: There is: it's called the Gold Standard. Remember that? We already invented it and then lost it in the New Dark Age as a result of CULTURAL MARXISM infesting the Babyboom generation and rotting out their morals so much they have become CORPORATE FASCISTS.

Ellen Brown: but something based on the real cost of goods and services in each country. I have a chapter on that in Web of Debt, including a proposed model.

James Jaeger: I have just two words Ellen: GOLD STANDARD. This proposed model has worked for thousands of years and it didn't need to be in any book.

Daily Bell: OK, thanks for answering the tough questions again. How is your movement doing? What kind of movement? Third? Bowel?

Ellen Brown: Very well, thank you! I did two presentations in the California Bay Area in December, which generated so much interest that we have just launched a Public Banking Institute to follow though. The website is http://www.publicbankinginstitute.org.

James Jaeger: I will print out and study.

Daily Bell: Are banks being established in the US that conform to your model?

Ellen Brown: Not yet, but legislation is pending or being proposed in a number of states, and there has been a great deal of interest in the idea. That's why we set up the Public Banking Institute -- to handle inquiries, do research, generate literature, and advise interested groups.

James Jaeger: Let the competition begin. Gold-backed currency v. fiat paper currency.

Daily Bell: Where do you go from here?

Ellen Brown: I'm trying to get another book out on public banking, but I seriously need a staff.

James Jaeger: You can send the book over to me. I'll proof read and correct it for you Ellen.


Source of Original Interview without Commentary:

Originated: 16 January 2011
Revised & Supplemented: 17 January 2011

Please forward this to your mailing list if you agree with even 51% of this article. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. Thus it's up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated and continued.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. You may even publish all or part of this article under you own name. Give reference to the source URL if you wish.

Any responses to this article, email or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to stimulate a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything we send out. We will make every effort to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you or anyone submits.

Don't forget to watch and refer our various documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study by the Jaeger Research.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm however before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spamaphobia.htm.


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute