Bail-Outs and Buy-Ins vs A Sustainable Economy

Guest Editorial by George LoBuono 

You may wonder where will all that taxpayer bail-out / buy-in money go in the end?  Major interests in two of the three big banks that benefit most by the Paulson plan to give nearly a trillion to failing banks have a history of strange moves against popular government. JPMorgan-Chase is what’s left of the old J.P. Morgan monopoly (Morgan’s only son had no direct heirs), and Citicorp was until recently the repository of many billions in Du Pont family cash accounts.

Ironically, JP Morgan’s Guaranty National Bank and DuPont family interests were two of the most visible supporters of an avowedly “fascist” 1934 plan to overthrow newly-elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a coup by impoverished veterans of World War I. War hero Gen. Smedley Butler was asked to lead the coup but exposed it, instead. The plan was to have 1 million angry veterans descend on Washington DC and occupy it, then force Roosevelt to install a “Secretary of General Affairs” who would really run the White House. Morgan supplied money and the DuPont’s Remington Arms company was to supply the weapons. The plan was modeled on the fascist veterans organizations in Europe, at the time. A Congressional investigation chaired by later-Speaker of the House John McCormack largely substantiated Butler’s charges.

Also ironic is that fact that both Morgan-Chase and Citicorp have a long history of involvement in both the origin and the ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank. A Chase-owning Rockefeller pushed the legislation that created the Fed back in 1913. And who actually owns the Fed? Not the US government.

Two internet articles, WHO OWNS THE FEDERAL RESERVE and THE FED NOW OWNS THE WORLD’S , argue that only US banks own the Fed, yet as the first article indicates we see Deutsche Bank’s NY subsidiary listed as one of the Fed’s owners. So, those Rothschild-Warburg interests often, if not erroneously decried as prime Fed owners can simply use their financial ins at Lehman, Morgan-Rockefeller and Goldman Sachs, etc. to manipulate the Federal Reserve Bank. Paul Warburg was the Fed’s first chairman.

Some on the internet argue that the Rothschild interests that President Andrew Jackson ousted by ending the Second Bank of the United States in 1836 were allowed back into power in 1913 when a Rockefeller and Rothschild-associate Paul Warburg pushed for the Jekyll Island conference that created the Fed. Was it, as some allege, a scheme to hijack the US economy at its source: the currency printing press? The question revolves around the fact that when the US government needs money, the US Treasury sends bonds to a relatively small group of private dealers who auction them to investors. As Congressman Wright Patman said, “When the Federal Reserve writes a check for any government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money simply by writing a check.” In her book Web of Debt, Ellen Brown notes that “The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In addition to (a) guaranteed 6% (paid by the Fed to its member banks), the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.”

So for those banks, it’s like getting money for nothing and it’s all funneled into the hands of a relatively small group of private bankers. By effectively ceding them the power to create and distribute new money, is the US government really working toward a sustainable kind of economy? Recent events suggest otherwise, of course. Are there any alternatives on the horizon?

The 21st century will require a safer, more reliable approach, and that will require some thinking. So, here are some ideas for a system that might work better.

First, phase out the Federal Reserve bank (and the dollar). Replace it with a fractionally-integrated “eco.” How would it be fractionally-integrated? In the “eco” plan, the prime determining number is the sustainable resource of your planet–it’s the whole number 1 and all of your economy is based on fractions of that most important whole. The economy of the future will probably be mostly about electronic values (computerized accounts), but if you want to supplement that with some currency in order have the privacy to buy things without an electronic Big Brother watching your every move, then issue currency (i.e. the eco) that’s based on fractions or decimals of that sustainable whole quantity. That way, you won’t ruin your ecology or deplete its resources and have to seek them elsewhere (other planets?) at horrendous energy expense. This new kind of fractionally-integrated economy may be the only way to protect our planet’s ecology.

In order to both accommodate and adequately reflect the nature of 21st century energy technologies like so-called “scalar electromagnetism” and other energy drawn from the vacuum of empty space, the eco must have alternate-cycle numerical values written into all of it’s (fractions-of-the-whole) calculations. And just what are those “alternate cycle” numerical values?

They’re numbers that have two characteristics at the same time: they’re always mirrored by positive decimals (fractions of that ecologically sustainable whole), and they’re mirrored by the large whole number value (the energy universe) within which they are merely a fraction. As such, they resonate, precisely and predictably. When the new, non-polluting technologies that various official whistle-blowers say now exist in black budget programs are mainstreamed due to need and the rising costs of petroleum, the new economy must reflect the ecologically sustainable limits of the energy we draw from the vacuum. This may sound futuristic to some readers, yet according to numerous current and former official whistleblowers, such technologies are already a reality.

In order to correlate our energy use to the safe limits of the vacuum of “empty” space, the new eco economy would use extra-dimensional values. Here’s how that looks in real life: There’s a limited amount of energy that can be safely pulled out of the vacuum of empty space, and if we exceed that, as Nikola Tesla reportedly once did in New York City, we could cause earthquakes or even solar flares that can damage our atmosphere and our electronics. Such dangers are due to what Tom Bearden calls “delta t,” the marginal change of time involved in all “scalar” energy usage. “Scalar” energy draws from energy on a larger “scale,” across a larger range (or scale) of energy values extending both more deeply down into the atom and farther out into space, at the same time. Scalar electromagnetism, a technology already used in black budget industrial projects, is also called “zero point energy,” or electro-gravity, or negative energy technology–they’re all the same thing.

So, to be safe-especially during the first half of the 21st century, under the new “eco” we won’t burn so much fossil fuel because fossil fuels are used up in a mere flash of historical time. Instead, our energy increasingly becomes either simple conventional wind, hydroelectric (wireless distribution), or solar—plus some “scalar” energy.

Because the mistakes of a single, sitting government could endanger the lives of all of humankind for centuries, we must finally devise an ecologically realistic economy. So, the eco would be based on energy credits and sustainable resources. You can see the logic in that: equality and sustainability–all of it is rated per the planet’s resources. With the eco and the new 21st century technologies, we must use innovative math that always computes more than one numerical value or equation at a given time. Rather than use the simple linear math of old, we should use a non-linear math that has converging, or co-existing multiple fractional values (fractions of the sustainable whole). So whenever we use a whole number, it must be counter-balanced by the larger, determining fractions or decimals that rate it to larger cosmic/ecological quantities. We don’t just dream up whatever cosmic quantity we choose. Cosmic values are pre-determined and are explicit in the all the quanta and the energy fluctuations in the vacuum all around us. *This is a binding constraint in using the new “scalar” energy.

Technically speaking, our electronic calculation of a new “eco” economy has negative exponential numbers and decimals fluctuating with every use of energy. Such numbers must correlate to a clearly defined, “negative cycle” that manifests both in the gravity and the scalar energy around us, and also in the resonant ecology of nature around us. **A “negative cycle” is negative because it pulls and cycles inwardly like atomic gravity and the strong force, while normal energy like light and heat curves and bends outward.

In other words, given the new technological reality now upon us, we must begin to rate our energy and resource use directly to a negative cycle (or better yet a mutiply-shelled counterbalance of alternate cycles) because scalar energy, which is an “open secret” now shared by numerous industrial nations, is directly premised on such a cycle. Way back in the 1950’s Nikita Kruschev openly proclaimed his nation’s involvement in such technologies. More recently, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen publicly stated that there are already international agreements about the use of such technologies. Two noted researchers, ret. Navy Col. Tom Bearden and physicist Mark Comings have reported that for decades there has been a system both here in the United States (and likely elsewhere) than can instantly detect and triangulate the location of anyone who uses the new “scalar” energies. So, a kind of safety network is already in place, according to informed researchers.

To be most effective, the new eco economy must use new, alternative values in order to work correctly. Its math must put extra-dimensional values in very equation. Instead of a whole number sitting alone, you may see a floating value–like an exponent that we use but the eco economy will use an extra exponent sitting to the left of the number (a subscript), for example, to represent the scalar, negative cycle relationship of that number to the larger energy ecology. It’s a very real, binding kind of equation. That new negative-cycle value doesn’t sit still but is smeared out into space-time and is nearly always in more than one place at a given time. So it’s extra-dimensional. It is spread out on a greater scale.

I would argue that once we take the first necessary steps, the rest of world will soon recognize the logic of the “eco,” which intrinsically pays its benefits forward.

Along with the eco, we must end the Federal Reserve Bank. We can replace it with an international currency commission and the new, globally integrated electronic values. At the same time, in the US and in other participating countries, we can allow for adjusted internal market values-rated at their technology and planned resource futures. No outside dictatorship of internal values would arise, only basic global ratings per the eco–to assure a sustainable ecology (isn’t the lack of that why the current crisis is now occurring?)

The new “eco” economy would feel like a mildly humbling pinch in the short-term but should create a vigorous boost of activity within 3-5 years. It is real money-it’s faster and is fractionally integrated, as is the energy/resource reality; it’s not a fiction. The eco would require a public education campaign regarding the humbler, better reality that will begin to replace those “disaster capitalism” pyramid schemes.

If we choose to do so, we could phase in the new scalar energy sciences with the new plan, which would phase out fossil fuel dictatorships. The strength of the new system would be within it, hence the example would challenge other nations to be equally sustainable. It would always work within the nations that first adopt it because it is resonant ecology in motion. It immediately binds us to a survivable ecology. During early phases, we would confer with big lender nations about the value owed them by participating eco plan states. So we would reward green incentives in all states, with no exclusion. High tech can be exported to reverse China’s environmental disaster, infra-structural commitments can be made to Russia and India, Brazil, etc. Rainforests won’t be cut down in desperation.

Ideally, because of its popularity the eco should plan for a universal value of labor, so we should keep that in our overall goals.

In short, a sustainable system like that of the eco is very real and must either be considered or we will suffer systemic failures like the current one, over and over again. In the short-term, we would do well to adopt universal healthcare, essentially de-monetarize the medical care but not the med-tech industry just yet (it’s global).

And why not couple the eco with a global food plan, thus phasing out starvation due to monetary insularity. How do you do that? Export reproducable, self-sustaining agriculture systems to needy nations, i.e. simple irrigation projects are prioritized over Monsanto-like disaster predations.

Innovative new tech freedoms must be encouraged in an eco system. Green alternatives would inherently be prioritized per the eco plan. Educational credit programs for participating populations would be less elitist, more widespread among those populations and could be mixed with work offered to students, also. That much is easy.

Priority would be given to conventional “green” energy systems. Meanwhile, to be safe during early phases, scalar energy technology should be limited to micro-scale research (physics, genetics) and globally-networked outer space or medical projects, and such. The eco would offer exchange education programs for nations where religions seem reluctant to admit the new technological reality of the “new physics” universe.

And, finally, we would allow for innovation and adaptations required by participating societies. Using the eco, we wouldn’t tread on peoples’ freedoms. Instead, we would increase them because the eco is premised on a greater 21st century kind of realism and efficiency that would make work days shorter. As a result, hence there would be more free-time and time for study. 

–George LoBuono is a writer and investigative researcher living in Davis, CA