Have Solution, got Problem?

Many of my friends ask me, "Bruce, what is your world view and why are you never confused by the randomness, coincidence and seeming incompetence of the world's ruling organizations and the elites that run them?

Well, this is a big question and its been something that I've thought about all my life. I have watched events unfold one after the other... in consecutive order, obviously moving in one direction - past, present, and future. But I have discovered models that help me better understand why things happen the way they do.

As I look at world events, I realize that the "facts" are always changing. What is being reported today as "fact" will change on a continuous basis until someday... the ultimate truth of what happened today may come out. And when it does, I don't even know that that will be what truly happened.

So I need a model by which I can view and understand things knowing that I will never know all the facts. Its called:

Problem, Reaction, Solution.

I am convinced that everything can be viewed through this model in order to understand how and why things happen on a mass scale. You first must view events simultaneously straddling all three time frames... past, present and future. And you often have to travel backward in time to the 'problem' in order to understand why and how the "solution" was designed. You also have to trust that a "solution" was envisioned in advance. The "problem" would have to inevitably lead to a reaction that would require a pre-determined solution. Again... you have to throw off old assumptions, if you can, this model or theory, works.

Here's a recent example:

Problem: Mortgage crisis and financial shenanigans causes our banking system to border on collapse

Reaction: The Fed intervenes (without having the legal authority to do so) and heroically averts a crisis and then floods the economy with money to ease fears of a financial catastrophe

Solution: Congress and the President propose that the FED have broad new financial regulatory power by legally making it a “market stability regulator.”

In order for the model to work, it would have to be true that the FED is seeking to further consolidate its power over the financial system to execute against a long term set of objectives. (I will demonstrate in future posts how "problems" are subtly and not so subtly created) History has clearly shown that with each financial shock the FED as well as the large banks have consolidated their control over the economy.

Is there anything wrong with the FED being a powerful regulator of the U.S. banking industry? Well, lets not forget, the FED is a BANK, and about as Federal as Federal Express. Here is the double speak used to describe them... "it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system".

The Federal Reserve Bank is owned by banks and the 7 members of the governing board are appointed by the President and each serves for 14 years... spanning presidents and elected officials. In effect, our leaders are proposing that the "fox should guard the hen house. The FED is not, and never will be, designed to be an objective regulatory body that is accountable to the democratically elected Congress of the United States.

Well, here's the strange fact that everyone seems to forget or ignore... or not actually know. As the Central Bank of the United States, the Fed was illegally created by President Woodrow Wilson and SOME members of Congress through the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913. (Notice the date.)

Why would I say something as crazy as "illegal"? Well, lets have a look at our Constitution. It states in Article 1 Section 8 "Powers of Congress" that The Congress Shall Have the Power To: coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof. Additionally, to ensure that Congress maintains its own power, (and not give it away to a Central Bank) they wrote in Section 18 "The Congress Shall Have The Power To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

Photo courtesy of The Market Oracle
Mayer Anselm Rothschild, of the Rothschild banking family, once said: "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws..."

It was the founders belief that all citizens should share in the profits of its creation, not just private Bankers, and therefore the national Government must be the only creator of money.


You don't believe me about what I have to say about the FED. Have a listen to Ron Paul. (Some people think he's nuts, but this guy is special... he has read and understands the Constitution and is running on a platform to abolish the FED.)

I've used a complicated issue to demonstrate my model. But had I used the Iraq war, this post would be twice as long. But if you look back, think, think some more... well you just may see that they had the solution all set and created a problem that needed to be fixed. I would argue that the invasion and our subsequent permanence there is just one step in a long term plan that is going exactly as designed. (More on that at a later date.)

What did David Rockefeller say again in my earlier post? "The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in the past centuries." He is clearly saying that the banks would supersede the laws of all nations as the preferable means of running the world. I am not making a judgement here... I am simply pointing out how the model works.

Its obvious to me there is a long term agenda that is clearly at work... just like every company develops long term strategic plans... so do these guys. They want to bring about a financial system in which they create and manage all the money and are self-regulating as well. The Congress will see permanently diminishing power over the banking system and the resources of our society. I wonder whether they realize what they are doing and even if they are aware, whether they have any power to stop it.

I'll close with my "why" questions.

1/ Why would the government propose further limiting its own banking oversight power in favor of a "quasi-private" central bank regulating other banks? Doesn't this seem as if its reducing its own ability to control the economy as designed by the Constitution as well as being a clear conflict of interest?

2/ Why is the Congress so unwilling to project its own power when it is Constitutionally mandated to do so? This is true in nearly every aspect of Congressional responsibility... War power, controlling presidential power, fiscal policy, implementing international laws and treaties we are responsible to oversee... the list goes on.

A final note... I firmly believe that Problem, Reaction, Solution model is a perfect blueprint of how political and financial events are managed. I'll illustrate it in my next post by revealing some "false flag" operations of the U.S. Military to pull us into wars that created billions in profit. They are standard procedure for Black Ops that create Americans to demand action with force to get even with the perpetrators. Its the oldest trick in the book and incredibly easy to pull off.

Sphere: Related Content