american-revolution-colonial-script_1_28f3f25a0e243b5336f4844a1f2f7863.jpg

 

Everything you were taught in school about the revolutionary war is poppycock, drivel fed to empty headed children.  So what’s the truth? Was it a tax on tea? Was it taxation without representation?

From  Niall Ferguson’s Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power:

In January 1770 a new government in Britain, under the famously unprepossessing Lord North, lifted all the new duties except the one on tea. Still the protests in Boston continued.

Everyone has heard of the “Boston Tea Party” of 16 December 1773, in which 342 boxes of tea worth 10.000 pounds sterling were tipped from the East India tea ship Dartmouth into the murky waters of Boston harbour. But most people assume it was a protest against hike in the tax on tea. In fact the price of the tea in question was exceptionally low, since the British government had just given the East India Company a rebate of the much higher duty free and had to pay only the much lower American duty on arriving in Boston. Tea had never been cheaper in New England. The “Party” was organized not by irate consumers but Boston’s wealthy smugglers, who stood to lose out. Contemporaries were well aware of the absurdity of the ostensible reason for the protest. “Will not posterity be amazed”, wrote one sceptic, “when they are told that the present distraction tool its rise from the parliament’s taking off a shilling duty on a pond of tea, and imposing three pence, and call it a more unaccountable phrenzy, and more disgraceful to the annals of America, than that of the witchcraft?”

On close inspection, then, the taxes that caused so much fuss were not just trifling; by 1773 they had all but gone. In any case, these disputes about taxation were trivial compared with the basic economic reality that membership of the British Empire was good – very good – for the American colonial economy. The much-maligned Navigation Acts may have given British ships a monopoly over trade with the colonies, but they also guaranteed a market for North American exports of agricultural staples, cattle, pig iron and, indeed, ships. It was the constitutional principle – the right of the British parliament to levy taxes on the American colonists without their consent – that was the true bone of contention


I disagree with that conclusion.  yes it was part of it. But it wasn’t the reason.

The real reason for the revolutionary war was that it was a BANKERS WAR and a fight over the issuing of currency.

The stamp act was simply a proxy to force the use of british currency in the colonies. With free money, just stamps on scraps of paper issued by each colony, the money in circulation was enormous relative to colonial GDP and that let people GROW BUSINESS, GET CHEAP LOANS and THRIVE.

Of course that wasn’t the british model, which was the Rothschild controlled banker model. In that model currency was notes backed (supposedly) by gold and silver, and it was a system that kept currency in the hands of fat-cats and bankers. Not the common people. That is what the BRITISH DESPISED about the colonies. The common man was getting rich and moving on up to become landed gentry. and boy was there a lot of land to be had. Remember Jefferson and other patriots were the big land owners.

While there’s no estimate of fakery of colonial script there had to be SOME of that going on as well by the well to do. Essentially money was falling off the spigots for the connected.

So the stamp act was a first step, by requirement of payments on certified transactions with british money.  Remember while the colonists may grumble about taxation without representation, their tax rate was only roughly 4%.  Today we pay 50, 60 even 72% tax if you are a upper middle class self employed Californian. And we don’t revolt.

So the businessmen from England were being paid in colonial script. Well as you can imagine, with the flood of it there was quite some deflation in value due to the inflation that was rampant. that hurt the British whose then gold and silver backed (presumably) currency did not behave thusly – remember a pound is one pound sterling silver. The head of the x-checker has to verify the currency every year for sound metal content to this day! But it’s not to be, because if you get a one pound coin in Britain today it is:

Weight 8.75g
Thickness 2.80mm
Composition Outer: Nickel-brass
Inner: Nickel plated brass alloy

Not one drop of silver in sight. It’s brass. And a real ounce of silver is 14-28 bucks depending.

But back in the 1700s this wasn’t the case. Coins were real gold and silver. And Bank notes were redeemable in gold and silver just as US dollars were.

Anyways, massive money printing of colonial script led to 10% inflation of the currency which caused losses for the british businessmen. So the Stamp act and the Currency Act were passed.

The first Act, the Currency Act 1604 (24 Geo. II c. 53), restricted the issue of paper money and the establishment of new public banks by the colonies of New England.[5] These colonies had issued paper fiat money known as “bills of credit” to help pay for military expenses during the French and Indian Wars. Because more paper money was issued than what was taxed out of circulation, the currency depreciated in relation to the British pound sterling. The resultant inflation was harmful to merchants in Great Britain, who were forced to accept the depreciated currency from colonists for payment of debts.

The Act limited the future issue of bills of credit to certain circumstances. It allowed the existing bills to be used as legal tender for public debts (i.e. paying taxes), but did not allow their use for private debts (e.g. for paying merchants)

The Currency Act 1604 (4 Geo. III c. 34) extended the 1751 Act to all of the British colonies of North America. Unlike the earlier Act, this statute did not prohibit the colonies from issuing paper money, but it did forbid them from designating future currency issues as legal tender for public and private debts. This tight money policy created financial difficulties in the colonies, where gold and silver were in short supply.[8] Benjamin Franklin, a colonial agent in London, lobbied for repeal of the Act over the next several years,[9] as did other agents. The act arose when Virginia farmers continued to import during the French and Indian War. Virginia issued £250,000 in bills of credit to finance both public and private debts. This legislation differed from the 1751 act in that it prohibited the colonists from designating paper currency for use as payment for any debts, public or private. Parliament did not, however, prohibit the colonists from issuing paper money.[10] The Act was put into place as a hedge against risks associated with economic fluctuations and uncertainty.

Once the war began,  the british brought over big printing presses on ships and printed colonial script to try to destroy the currency. As long as those ships sat in the harbors printing millions in colonial currency, it would not be long before the British owned everything in the colonies. and they drove up the inflation further causing strife in the colonies.

Every war is a bankers war. That is what we learn from history.  Think of the nations that America is against and you will see they are the few which do not have Rothschild banks. China, Iran, Russia, Cuba. Both Libya and Iraq were threatening to move away from the dollar and establish trade in their own currencies. They didn’t last long. Excuses will always be found to destroy them, but Khadaffi had fully cooperated with the USA. But they killed him Anyways.  His planned gold backed currency for all of Africa was a threat that had to be extinguished.

Rothschild Bank issued currency is debt enslavement for the people. It’s inflation which makes escaping from poverty through hard work impossible. Property taxes ensure there is no real property ownership. Essentially we have become communists of a form, and no one even realizes it. Worse than communists, we are enslaved by our own currency system and no one dares try to change it lest they cause a worse catastrophy trying to decouple from madness.

But each and every year our debt goes higher – 10 trillion, 20 trillion, 50 trillion. And each year our debt payments consume more and more of our national tax revenues. This is why America will never again allow six percent interest rates to happen. And this is why Europe had to resort to negative interest rates. Japan has followed this madness and are ahead of us, bringing poverty to its once successful people. and they are dying out.

It was halloween and only one child came by. fifteen years ago it was hundreds of children. And this is the safe affluent suburbs. So why no children? A bus full of black kids from the ghetto arrived. But they didn’t wear costumes so they didn’t get candy. That’s the rule right? It’s one more sign of a dying nation.

Remember that it was Thomas Paine who was the genius behind the American reformations, not Jefferson who copied from him.  If you want to learn more about the thinking at that time, then read Common Sense and other great essays.  Two systems of currency colliding, one led to freedom the other to slavery. We managed to keep our free system until 1913.  Then we became slaves to the Rothschilds like everybody else. They kicked up two world wars to keep us busy and distracted while the new money system took root.

And as a side note, and I know you won’t like it, never forget that Hitler kicked the bankers out.  All but the national deutsche bank who kept printing fiat currency and let them into stagflation and starvation.

The first mark, known as the Goldmark, was introduced in 1873. With the outbreak of World War I, the mark was taken off the gold standard. The currency thus became known as the Papiermark, especially as high inflation, then hyperinflation occurred and the currency became exclusively made up of paper money.

As the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) noted, during the 19th century all the major European powers developed currencies based upon the gold standard (such as this German Imperial 20 Mark coin issued in 1900, above). This policy was strongly supported by classical liberals as it provided a powerful means by which the power of government to debase or otherwise manipulate their currencies was severely restricted. During and immediately after the First World War (1914-1918) the connection between a nation’s currency and gold became much looser, or even non-existent as in the case of the hyper-inflation which gripped Germany during the Weimar Republic (1922-23).

The bottom image is of a 10 billion mark Mark banknote dated 26 October 1923 at the peak (or depth) of the hyperinflation when paper money had become all but worthless. Mises wrote a number of important essays on monetary and banking policy in the mid and late 1920s in which he denounced this move away from the gold standard and predicted that it would lead to severe economic dislocation, the political manipulation of currencies, and even the collapse of the monetary system.

Amid growing anarchy, culminating in the Beer Hall Putsch, which saw the arrest of Adolf Hitler, Berlin created the rentenmark (RM). It was worth one billion old marks and linked to the US dollar. It was also backed by gold via the Deutsche Rentenbank, which held land and goods

10BillionMark-1923-600
a 10 Billion Mark German banknote (October 1923)

The Reichsmark was introduced in 1924 as a permanent replacement for the Papiermark. This was necessary due to the 1920s German inflation which had reached its peak in 1923. The exchange rate between the old Papiermark and the Reichsmark was 1 ℛℳ = 1012 Papiermark (one trillion in US English and French, one billion in German and other European languages and UK English of the time; see long and short scales). To stabilize the economy and to smooth the transition, the Papiermark was not directly replaced by the Reichsmark, but by the Rentenmark, an interim currency backed by the Deutsche Rentenbank, owning industrial and agricultural real estate assets. The Reichsmark was put on the gold standard at the rate previously used by the Goldmark, with the U.S. dollar worth 4.2.

And in America, we ceded the creation of currency to a private consortium of bankers – a cartel of the rich – which seemed like it might be OK as long as money was backed by gold. But as inflation and over printing of money made it impossible to support gold redemptions by government requests – France had called our chips in 1970 and we didn’t have the gold to give them – then Nixon took us off the gold standard formally and we have been spiraling towards our doom ever since.