In previous articles, we have discussed the evils of mass immigration and global warfare. We have also touched upon the infamous “Jewish Question” and how Zionist interests contribute to both of these phenomena. However, there is one more piece of the puzzle that must be taken into account if we are to have a holistic understanding of the globalist threat to liberty and how to combat it.
What allows the welfare-warfare state to exist in the first place? What allows the state to afford systematically replacing its own population with waves of Third World migrants? How does the state artificially suppress the birth rates of its native population in order to facilitate this demographic replacement agenda? The answer lies in the policies and mechanisms of central banks.
The Economic Theory Behind Central Banking
Central banking has been around for centuries, but only in the 20th century did the institution really take off in its modern form, particularly with the rise of fiat currency. Before the advent of modern central banking, fractional reserve banking would enable some degree of artificial credit expansion, which would result in short “panics,” but absent a central bank, these tendencies (i.e. artificial credit expansions) were limited. When the Federal Reserve system was established in the United States, what was supposed to be the “lender of last resort” quickly became an “easy money machine” that has produced a steady inflationary trend which has eviscerated the purchasing power of the dollar over the past century. The dollar now only has 5% of the value it would have had in 1913 (when the Federal Reserve was created) (1). Murray Rothbard explains the effect of central banking on credit expansion in his book What Has Government Done To Our Money:
In a free-banking system, inflation by any one bank would soon lead to demands for redemption by the other banks, since the clientele of any one bank is severely limited. But the Central Bank, by pumping reserves into all the banks, can make sure that they can all expand together, and at a uniform rate. If all banks are expanding, then there is no redemption problem of one bank upon another, and each bank finds that its clientele is really the whole country. In short, the limits on bank expansion are immeasurably widened, from the clientele of each bank to that of the whole banking system (2).
As such, the problems created by fractional reserve banking are exacerbated with the establishment of a central bank, as inflationary credit expansion becomes institutionalized and centrally planned. The “easy money” policies are the cause of the infamous “boom-bust cycle.” The “boom” is created when the artificial abundance of credit generates false signals in the stock market that indicate a greater amount of real savings in the economy than what actually exists. This incentivizes malinvestment, which eventually leads to a bust when either (a) the central bank stops the gravy train, or (b) when, as Rothbard describes “ the public awakens to the governmental policy of permanent inflation, and flees from money into goods, making its purchases while the dollar is worth more than it will be in future. The result will be a ‘runaway’ or hyperinflation, so familiar to history, and particularly to the modern world” (3). In the first case, the bust occurs due to the cessation of credit expansion pulling the rug out from under those businesses that were being propped up by the artificial abundance of credit. Rothbard explains in America’s Great Depression:
The “depression” is actually the process by which the economy adjusts to the wastes and errors of the boom, and reestablishes efficient service of consumer desires. The adjustment process consists in rapid liquidation of the wasteful investments. Some of these will be abandoned altogether (like the Western ghost towns constructed in the boom of 1816–1818 and deserted during the Panic of 1819); others will be shifted to other uses (4).
In the latter case, the currency is destroyed by hyperinflation, leading to unemployment, poverty, and destruction of the middle class and all “fixed income groups.” This cycle occurs because, as Frank Shostak explains in this article, the creation of fiat money essentially sets into motion an exchange of “nothing for something.”
This money, which was created out of “thin air,” is going to be employed in an exchange for goods and services. That is, it will set in motion an exchange of nothing for something. The exchange of nothing for something amounts to the diversion of real wealth from wealth to non-wealth generating activities, which masquerades as economic prosperity. In the process, genuine wealth generators are left with fewer resources at their disposal, which in turn weakens the wealth generators’ ability to grow the economy.
On the other hand, once banks curtail their supply of credit out of “thin air,” this slows down the process of an exchange of nothing for something. This in turn undermines the existence of various false activities that sprang up on the back of the previous expansion in credit out of “thin” air — an economic bust emerges.
We can thus conclude that what sets in motion the boom-bust cycle is the expansion of credit out of “thin air” regardless of the state of the general demand for money. Again, irrespective of whether the total demand for money is rising or falling what matters is that individuals employ money in their transactions. As we have seen once money out of “thin air” is introduced into the process of exchange this lays the foundation for the boom-bust cycle (5).
More specifically, it can also be proven that the cause of the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression was not the “unregulated free market” or “corporate greed,” as is often taught in popular history, but rather the easy money policies of the Fed. Rothbard explains again in America’s Great Depression:
By now, the final phase of the great American boom was under way, led by the stock market. While a stock market loan is no more inflationary than any other type of business loan, it is equally inflationary, and therefore credit expansion in the stock market deserves censure in precisely the same way, and to the same extent, as any other quantity of inflated credit. Hence, the mischievous inflationary effect of the 1927 statements by Coolidge and Mellon who functioned as the “capeadores” of the bull market. We have also seen that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York effectively set the call rates for loans to the stock market, in cooperation with the money committee of the New York Stock Exchange, its policy being to furnish any funds necessary to enable the banks to lend readily to the market. The Bank, in short, used Wall Street banks to pour funds into the stock market. The call rate, as we have noted, stayed very far below its prewar levels and peaks.
Alarmed at the burgeoning boom, and at the stock prices that rose about 20 percent in the latter half of 1927, the Fed reversed its policy in the spring of 1928, and tried to halt the boom. From the end of December 1927, to the end of July 1928, the Reserve reduced total reserves by $261 million. Through the end of June, total demand deposits of all banks fell by $471 million. However, the banks managed to shift to time deposits and even to overcompensate, raising time deposits by $1.15 billion. As a result, the money supply still rose by $1.51 billion in the first half of 1928, but this was a relatively moderate rise. (This was a rise of 4.4 percent per annum, compared to an increase of 8.1 percent per annum in the last half of 1927, when the money supply rose by $2.70 billion.) A more stringent contraction by the Federal Reserve—one enforced, for example, by a “penalty” discount rate on Reserve loans to banks—would have ended the boom and led to a far milder depression than the one we finally attained. In fact, only in May did the contraction of reserves take hold, for until then the reduction in Federal Reserve credit was only barely sufficient to overcome the seasonal return of money from circulation. Thus, Federal Reserve restrictions only curtailed the boom from May through July.
A great economy does not react instantaneously to change. Time, therefore, had to elapse before the end of inflation could reveal the widespread malinvestments in the economy, before the capital goods industries showed themselves to be overextended, etc. The turning point occurred about July, and it was in July that the great depression began.
The stock market had been the most buoyant of all the markets—this in conformity with the theory that the boom generates particular overexpansion in the capital goods industries. For the stock market is the market in the prices of titles to capital. Riding on the wave of optimism generated by the boom and credit expansion, the stock market took several months after July to awaken to the realities of the downturn in business activity. But the awakening was inevitable, and in October the stock market crash made everyone realize that depression had truly arrived (6).
In short, the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies had distorted the capital structure of the economy via an “overexpansion in the capital goods industries” as reflected in stock prices. The ensuing Depression was, therefore, a necessary correction to the malinvestment that had taken place. And as indicated previously, this correction could not have been avoided even if the Federal Reserve had continued its easy money policies, for eventually the public would have responded to the perpetual inflation, resulting in the mass abandonment of money for goods, creating a hyperinflationary crisis. This is precisely what Fed officials attempted to avoid when they observed the soaring stock prices in 1927-1928 and reduced their balance sheets. Eventually, the market wins out, and no amount of paper-printing will allow a country to avoid economic realities.
As Ron Paul has observed in his book End the Fed, “it is also no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking ” (7). It is primarily due to the existence of central banks that modern states have the capacity to wage endless foreign wars, for it is much easier for governments to financially support these efforts through the hidden “inflation tax” (i.e. degrading the purchasing power of average people’s savings) than to finance them through direct taxation (which would inevitably create a massive uproar among the general taxpaying population). That is, inflationary monetary policy allows governments to hide the true “price tag” of the warfare state apparatus. Paul explains in his book Swords into Plowshares:
Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Fed has been a major player in financing war by buying government debt. If all wars were paid for through direct taxation, as they were being fought, wars would tend to be much shorter and less frequent. The convenience of government borrowing helps, but rarely suffices, to pay for war. Throughout the 20th century, inflating of the money supply by the Federal Reserve purchasing government debt with money the Fed created out of thin air was the principal source of war financing (8).
In addition to the warfare state, the welfare state (as it exists today) also owes its existence to central bank policies, for it is only due to the US government’s borrowing and printing that it is able to finance all its welfare programs. Tragically, the debt accrued from this form of financing will be paid by future unborn generations, which blinds voters to the true costs of the welfarism that so many support by electing leftist politicians (who also tend to support the warfare state as well, as long as it’s used for “humanitarian” causes).
There is something to be said about “usury,” a common topic of discussion among the alt-right and traditionalist conservatives. It is often said that usury, typically defined simply as the charging of interest on loans, is a “Jewish trick.” And it is true that historically, Jews have been vastly overrepresented in the moneylending industry. But those with a robust understanding of the theory of time preference will understand that interest rates simply reflect the opportunity cost of lending money to someone for a certain period of time. And interest rates, when determined by the free market and not by the dictates of a central bank, are reflective of the time preference rates of individuals, as those with higher time preferences will be more willing to take on loans at higher interest rates, and vice versa. There is, however, a more sinister form of “usury” that exists today, and that is the interest paid on the national debt, which is circulated as currency in the form of Federal Reserve notes (i.e. US dollars). It is predicted, in fact, that a greater portion of the US federal budget will soon be spent on paying off the interest on the national debt than on the military (9). Who benefits from this? The central bankers, of course, who, as the alt-right has correctly noticed, tend to be of a (((particular ethnic background))).
Another talking point worth addressing is the canard about central bank “independence.” Mainstream economists and political pundits will claim, for instance, that because the Federal Reserve is privately owned, it is somehow “independent” of political influence and is therefore a trustworthy institution that should not be criticized or subject to “partisan politics.” Rothbard, in his book The Case Against the Fed, demolishes this line of thinking:
“Independent of politics” has a nice, neat ring to it, and has been a staple of proposals for bureaucratic intervention and power ever since the Progressive Era. Sweeping the streets; control of seaports; regulation of industry; providing social security; these and many other functions of government are held to be “too important” to be subject to the vagaries of political whims. But it is one thing to say that private, or market, activities should be free of government control, and “independent of politics” in that sense. But these are government agencies and operations we are talking about, and to say that government should be “independent of politics” conveys very different implications. For government, unlike private industry on the market, is not accountable either to stockholders or consumers. Government can only be accountable to the public and to its representatives in the legislature; and if government becomes “independent of politics” it can only mean that that sphere of government becomes an absolute self-perpetuating oligarchy, accountable to no one and never subject to the public’s ability to change its personnel or to “throw the rascals out.” If no person or group, whether stockholders or voters, can displace a ruling elite, then such an elite becomes more suitable for a dictatorship than for an allegedly democratic country. And yet it is curious how many self-proclaimed champions of “democracy,” whether domestic or global, rush to defend the alleged ideal of the total independence of the Federal Reserve (10).
We see, then, that any government institution, even if “privately owned,” is inevitably driven by political concerns because government is inherently political. To say that the Federal Reserve (a government institution whose Chairman is appointed by the President) is “independent of politics” is a blatant contradiction, and serves essentially to gaslight the public into submission to their central banking overlords. Indeed, many times in history we have seen that Federal Reserve policies are driven by politics, as Ron Paul has detailed here:
The most notorious example of Fed chairmen tailoring monetary policy to fit the demands of a president is Nixon-era Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns. Burns and Nixon may be an extreme example — after all no other president was caught on tape joking with the Fed chair about Fed independence, but every president has tried to influence the Fed with varying degrees of success. For instance, Lyndon Johnson summoned the Fed chair to the White House to berate him for not tailoring monetary policy to support Johnson’s guns and butter policies.
Federal Reserve chairmen have also used their power to shape presidential economic policy. According to Maestro, Bob Woodward’s biography of Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton once told Al Gore that Greenspan was a “man we can deal with,” while Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen claimed the Clinton administration and Greenspan’s Fed had a “gentleman’s agreement” regarding the Fed’s support for the administration’s economic policies.
The Federal Reserve has also worked to influence the legislative branch. In the 1970s, the Fed organized a campaign by major banks and financial institutions to defeat a prior audit bill. The banks and other institutions who worked to keep the Fed’s operations a secret are not only under the Fed’s regulatory jurisdiction, but are some of the major beneficiaries of the current monetary system (11).
In view of the disastrous boom-bust cycle and the crippling intergenerational debt-slavery wrought by central bank inflationary policies, one can easily see that central banks have been a primary source of economic mayhem in modern society. However, among the most insidious economic ills produced by central banks is the institutionalization of high societal time preference.
Dysgenics Through Economic Policy
As my past work on“Equal Opportunity” policies and the alt-right and capitalism explains, the proliferation of high time preference is a significant threat to civilized society. When short-term resource consumption is institutionally incentivized over long-term saving and wealth creation, a society becomes unsustainable and eventually collapses into violence and chaos. This is precisely the end result of inflationary monetary policy, which punishes those who save by gradually reducing the purchasing power of their savings (i.e. the “inflation tax), and correspondingly rewards those who spend rapidly and get the most “value” out of their earnings by using them up before their value is inflated away. When traditionalist conservatives and alt-righters condemn the materialism and consumerism of modern society, then, what they are really condemning are the effects of high time preference-inducing monetary policy (which constitutes a sharp departure from laissez-faire capitalism).
Whatever one subsidizes, one will get more of, and whatever one taxes, one will get less of. This basic rule means that over time, the rewarding of consumerism and high time preference will eventually create a dysgenic effect. For as purchasing power and resources are redistributed from savers to debtors and spenders through inflation, the birth rates of those who are frugal, hardworking, and have low time preferences will be suppressed whilst the birth rates of consumeristic individuals with high time preference will be subsidized. This (partially) explains why the birth rates in many prosperous First-World countries like Japan, for instance, are extremely low – while most Japanese people are very hard-working and financially responsible, they are simply unable to afford the costs of having many children due to the high rate of inflation in their country (12). On the other hand, we see that countries who receive massive amounts of foreign aid, like many countries in Africa, have thus far failed to actually raise their living standards and instead use the additional resources to continue supporting their high birth rates (13). The same principle applies domestically as well – hard-working individuals and families are robbed through inflation to pay for the welfare programs that subsidize the birth rates of the lazy and unproductive members of society. Not only this, but these welfare programs also fund the demographic replacement of host Western (i.e. white) countries by welfare-dependent Third-World immigrants, which eventually leads to white genocide.
In view of the dysgenic effects of inflationary monetary policy, then, why do nations continue to govern themselves by these policies? Perhaps (as I have hinted earlier) it is because (((those in charge))) of the central banks do not truly have any ties to the nations whose currency they are manipulating. Indeed, what one quickly discovers is that a particular (((ethno-religious group))) is vastly overrepresented in the ownership and management of central banks (14), and in the banking industry in general (15) (in which there is often a revolving door between private commercial banking and the Federal Reserve/Treasury (16)). As it turns out, members of this (((ethno-religious group))) do not have the long term interests of their host nation in mind when they formulate monetary policy. Their true priorities lie in their own personal enrichment as well as the collective security of their ethnic in-group within said host country. As discussed in the previous article on the Jewish Question, the erosion of ethnic and cultural homogeneity within a society (i.e. the effect of the demographic replacement scheme being facilitated by central banks) has historically been perceived by this group as being conducive to their well-being and survival as an ethnic minority.
The subversive influence of these central bankers goes beyond domestic economics, however. As will soon be discussed, monetary policy has largely been the driving factor behind the Zionist foreign policy executed by the American government over the past several decades.
What do the Iraq War, the invasion of Libya, and the current regime change operation in Syria all have in common? And what do these countries have in common with many of the victims of US sanctions (e.g. Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran)? All of these countries dropped the US dollar as their reserve currency and/or had a state-owned central bank before being sanctioned and/or invaded. Of course, this fact is obscured by the neoconservative/neoliberal rhetoric about “spreading democratic values,” “opposing dictators,” and such, but after two decades of “democratic” regime change wars in the Middle East that have produced nothing but chaos and jihadism, who really believes this anymore? The reality is that these wars have always been motivated by economic (specifically monetary) issues. So why do these factors prompt the US to invade and sanction sovereign countries?
It all started with the downfall of the Bretton Woods system and the uncertainty of the US dollar’s status as the global reserve currency in the early 1970s. When President Nixon made the dollar into a “floating currency,” he arranged an agreement with Saudi Arabia and various other countries in OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) that required them to only trade oil in US dollars. In exchange, the US would become a military ally to these countries. This arrangement led to the rise of “petrodollar recycling” in which basically every country was forced to hold large reserves of US dollars to be able to buy oil (17). This, in turn, ensures that the global demand for US dollars will continually be propped up as the Federal Reserve continues to artificially expand the money supply.
So what happens when countries like Iraq, Libya, or Syria drop the dollar as their reserve currency and attempt to disrupt the dollar monopoly on oil trade, or dare to have their own state-owned central bank? They receive a generous dose of “freedom and democracy,” which, of course, entails invasion, regime change, and all the ensuing chaos and terrorism that inevitably follows (18). If a regime change operation is not practically or politically viable (i.e. in the case of Iran, Cuba, or North Korea), then those countries are targeted by crippling sanctions (19). Of course, these various foreign interventions will be officially defended by some other pretext, such as “defending democracy” by removing a dictator from power (even though the US supports many other dictatorships around the world) or as a response to a false flag gas attack intended to portray the “dictator” in question as a bloodthirsty madman. (20)
These interventions are all conspicuously beneficial to the geopolitical standing of Israel, as it destabilizes its neighbors whom they perceive as threats, especially Iran. As discussed in an earlier chapter, there is a formidable lobbying network in the United States that pushes for foreign wars that benefit Israel, often at the expense of American lives, interests, and taxpayer money. But this is only part of the picture. The true motivation for these wars comes from the central bankers, a force more hidden and devious than the Israel lobby. For what more would these bankers want than to establish a global monopoly on currency in the form of national debt to be owed in perpetuity by unborn “goyim”? Why, for instance, did the ragtag group of revolutionaries in Libya, as one of the first items on their agenda, establish a “private” central bank within weeks of Muammar Gaddafi’s defeat (21), along with oil-trading agreements with various OPEC members (22)?
The answer is simple. Any threat to US petrodollar hegemony must be beaten into submission, either by direct military intervention or by economic warfare in the form of sanctions. Enforcement of the petrodollar standard is how the bankers tighten their control over the circulation of money and credit around the world. There is mounting evidence that this system is under attack, with the most notable example being the gold backed petro-yuan being proposed by China and Russia as an alternative to the petrodollar (23). If (or more appropriately, when) the petrodollar collapses, one should not expect central bankers to simply give up on their dreams of global financial hegemony . As is done in any economic crisis (e.g. the 2008 recession) the media will undoubtedly attribute the cause to the “underregulated free market” while ignoring the role of the State and its central banks in creating the crisis. Moreover, those who point out the truth with economic logic will be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists” (i.e. the left’s favorite gaslighting term). Central bankers will exploit the crisis as a pretext for establishing a truly one-world currency, which in turn will pave the road toward a one-world state.
Invade the World, Invite the World
I discussed the migrant crisis currently plaguing Europe in a previous article. From an ideological standpoint, this crisis was borne out of an internationalist approach to foreign policy embraced by liberal, cosmopolitan elites. These elites advocate “invading the world” under the pretext of humanitarian intervention and then “inviting the world” to foist the consequences of their intervention (i.e. the migrant crisis) onto the common Western civilian while they soundly reside in their gated communities and ivory towers. However, this is not the only element at play. The ensuing migrant invasions are a direct result of central banker machinations.
As any critical thinker must surely be aware (and as I have already explained in the article on the Muslim migrant crisis in Europe), the majority of “migrants” fleeing the Middle East and North Africa for Europe or from Central America to the United States are not engaging in “free market” immigration. Under a true libertarian or anarcho-capitalist social order, almost none of these migrants would actually be allowed into the countries to which they are currently attempting to flee. They are only able to immigrate as they do because of the material assistance they receive from their prospective host countries’ governments and the various forced integration policies that prevent private citizens from completely excluding them (unwanted immigrants) from their communities, work places,…etc.. The mass subsidization of these immigrants comes at the expense of not only the host population who is taxed to pay for the benefits these immigrants enjoy, but also of their children who are sold into unpayable intergenerational debt slavery as a result. Remember, taxes inevitably suppress the production of whatever is being taxed. Thus, the host populations (predominantly whites) of Europe and the United States are being robbed by their own governments to pay for their own demographic conquest.
To summarize, the unholy trinity of central banking, global warfare, and mass immigration come together as integral components in the grand scheme of demographic replacement. The central banks fund the wars that displace Third-World populations, at the expense of the citizens of their own countries whose offspring will shoulder the debt incurred by these wars. Those 3rd world populations then migrate en masse to (predominantly white) Western countries, where their entry, lifestyles, and birthrates are subsidized by the welfare state, which itself is enabled by central banking and comes at the expense of the (white) host population. The net result is dysgenic for the host population, which is forced to endure the enslavement of their children into intergenerational debt to fund the migrant populations who will eventually conquer and replace them. These migrant populations also serve as reliable voting blocs for left-wing, globalist parties who promise them welfare and various other social accommodations such as the institutionalization of Sharia Law (24). As these populations make up an ever larger share of the national population, resistance to the leftist political agenda through the democratic process will eventually become mathematically impossible. Add this on top of cultural Marxist and feminist propaganda to encourage childlessness in Western countries (25) (to which the migrant populations are largely immune (26)) and you have a full-fledged agenda for the demographic conquest of the West by the Third-World (i.e. white genocide), and ultimately the collapse of any true resistance to global socialist government.
This is the fate that awaits the West if the central bankers are allowed to continue their destructive expansionary monetary policies, if the foreign wars are not stopped, and if the tide of mass Third-World immigration is not halted.
End the Fed, end the wars, and secure the borders.
- Urlic, Mario. “Purchasing Power of the US Dollar, Last 100 Years!” Forex Trader, 11 Mar. 2015, https://forextrader.live/2015/03/11/purchasing-power-of-the-us-dollar-last-100-years/.
- Rothbard, Murray. What Has Government Done to Our Money. Auburn: Mises Institute, 1963. p. 72.
- Rothbard, Murray. America’s Great Depression. Auburn: Mises Institute, 1963. p. 23.
- Ibid. p. 12.
- Shostak, Frank. “Money Creation and the Boom-Bust Cycle.” Mises Institute, 2 Jan. 2017, https://mises.org/wire/money-creation-and-boom-bust-cycle.
- America’s Great Depression. p. 159-160.
- Paul, Ron. End the Fed. New York City: Grand Central Publishing, 2009. p. 36.
- Paul, Ron. Swords into Plowshares. Clute: Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, 2015. p. 107-108.
- Durden, Tyler. “Debt Threat Rises: The Government Will Soon Spend More On Interest Than On The Military.” Zero Hedge, 27 Sept. 2018, www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-27/debt-threat-rises-government-will-soon-spend-more-interest-military.
- Rothbard, Murray. The Case Against the Fed. Auburn, Mises Institute, 1994. p. 5-6.
- Paul, Ron. “The Federal Reserve Is, and Always Has Been, Politicized.” The Ron Paul Peace and Prosperity Institute, 17 Apr. 2017, http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/april/17/the-federal-reserve-is-and-always-has-been-politicized/.
- Kihara, Leika. “More Japan Households See Higher Inflation, Feel Pinched: BOJ Survey.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 11 Jan. 2018, www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-boj/more-japan-households-see-higher-inflation-feel-pinched-boj-survey-idUSKBN1F00WV?il=0.
- Azarnert, Leonid V. “Foreign Aid, Fertility and Population Growth:Evidence from Africa.” Department of Economics, Bar-Ilan University, April 2009, https://ideas.repec.org/p/biu/wpaper/2009-12.html.
- Henderson, Dean. “The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families.” Global Research, 31 Jan. 2018, www.globalresearch.ca/the-federal-reserve-cartel-the-eight-families/25080.
- MacDonald, Kevin. “Does Jewish Financial Misbehavior Have Anything to Do with Being Jewish? .” The Occidental Observer, 2 May 2010, www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/05/02/kevin-macdonald-does-jewish-financial-misbehavior-have-anything-to-do-with-being-jewish/.
- Haedtler, Jordan. “Why Do Former Goldman Sachs Bankers Keep Landing Top Slots at the Federal Reserve?” The Nation, 30 Nov. 2015, www.thenation.com/article/why-do-former-goldman-sachs-bankers-keep-landing-top-slots-at-the-federal-reserve/.
- Robinson, Jerry. Bankruptcy of Our Nation. Green Forest: New Leaf Publishing, 2009. p. 65-77.
- “Oil, Petrodollars and War. Does the U.S. Need to Permanently Police the Middle East?” Fuel Freedom Foundation, 29 Apr. 2015, www.fuelfreedom.org/oil-petrodollars-and-war-does-the-u-s-need-to-permanently-police-the-middle-east/.
- Turbeville, Brandon. “Central Banks Are the Real Target for West’s Imperial Wars .” Activist Post, 4 Dec. 2012, www.activistpost.com/2012/09/state-owned-central-banks-are-real.html.
- Proyect, Louis. “Chemical Attacks, False Flags and the Fate of Syria.” CounterPunch, 13 Apr. 2018, www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/13/chemical-attacks-false-flags-and-the-fate-of-syria/.
- Varner, Bill. “Libyan Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 21 Mar. 2011, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-21/libyan-rebel-council-sets-up-oil-company-to-replace-qaddafi-s.
- “Libyan Rebels ‘Sign Oil Export Deal with Qatar’.” BBC News, BBC, 27 Mar. 2011, www.bbc.com/news/business-12875810.
- “China’s Petro-Yuan Oil Contracts Surge as US Sanctions Hit Iran.” RT International, RT, 7 Aug. 2018, www.rt.com/business/435298-iran-sanctions-china-petro-yuan/.
- Duke, Selwyn. “Londonistan: 423 Mosques, 100 Sharia Courts.” The New American, 10 Oct. 2018, www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/30292-londonistan-423-mosques-100-sharia-courts.
- Prestigiacomo, Amanda. “Feminism Is Leaving A Wake Of Unhappy, Unmarried, And Childless Women In Its Path.” Daily Wire, 8 July 2017, www.dailywire.com/news/18358/study-feminism-leaving-wake-unhappy-unmarried-amanda-prestigiacomo.
- Kilpatrick, William. “Falling Off the Demographic Cliff.” Crisis Magazine, 15 May 2017, www.crisismagazine.com/2017/falling-off-demographic-cliff.