Little Detail: We're Not Sovereign, We Never Left England, Monetarily

I wanted to share this recording I made in 2017 of my dear, late friend Richard Kotlarz, who for the sake of brevity I will call “monetary historian.” I was unable to capture it as audio, so I found a photo of us (the only one I have) and made a video uploaded to YouTube.

“The Federal Reserve system is a copy of the Bank of England, which was designed specifically to enslave the people of the country in debt… It’s not an accident. It was designed for it.”

—Richard Kotlarz

Context: Richard Kotlarz was one of my closest friends between the years of 2006 and 2022, when he died in a Veteran’s home in MN. We spoke daily, on and off, and certainly in the final years, when both of our “monsters” but especially mine (“viruses,”) had us at the tip of the their spears, more than half way off the cliff of life.

His monster was “the monetary system,” which was something he could narrate with insight, brilliance, and sublime humor. My monster was “virology,” as terror weapon. We eventually saw they were the same beast; I made the case that “HIV/AIDS” was an end stage metastasis of the debt based post-Hamiltonian fractional reserve monetary system (often wrongly labeled “capitalism.”)

What I said to Rich:

After money sucks the life blood out of its own system, it needs a new host. “Virology” and perpetual imaginary Pharma-caused “illness” created said perpetual off-shore host, moves banking from the bank to each living body.

How?

By being “in debt” to a vague, phantom illness projected unto citizens by the monetary system that feeds off debt/fear/usury and recreates its terms even outside itself. You mortgage your illness, in the case of HIV, over 30 years or more. You are never to be healthy, just as you are never to be debt free or credit card free. It’s Un-American. The human body, in the end, becomes a field for this proxy war— a new host for the Federal Reserve system.

Here’s Richard, 2017:

Outtakes of Richard’s Writings:

Column #12 SOME AMERICAN VOICES ON MONEY & THE REVOLUTION

(Week 2 – Saturday Aug. 9)

I can imagine that the line of thought presented over the course of this last week concerning the American experience with money, how it led to the Revolution, and how its lessons are applicable to the problems of the today (particularly those that have to do with the funding of public works), may seem to the reader unfamiliar, to say the least. To bring a greater sense of reality to the discussion, I would reach for the words of prominent voices from our nation’s past.

Senator Robert Owen, banker, first chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, and widely respected authority on money, explained that when the Rothschild-controlled Bank of England heard of the situation in the Colonies:

“They saw that here was a nation that was ready to be exploited; here was a nation that had been setting up an example that they could issue their own money in place of the money coming through the banks. So the Rothschild Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament which provided that no colony of England could issue their own money. They had to use English money. Consequently the Colonies were compelled to discard their script and mortgage themselves to the Bank of England in order to get money. For the first time in the history of the United States our money began to be based on debt.”

“Benjamin Franklin stated that in 1 year from that date the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

Alexander Del Mar (1836-1926), who is considered by many to be the preeminent monetary historian of the 19th century, stated the crux of the matter with great force:

“Lexington and Concord were trivial acts of resistance which chiefly concerned those who took part in them and which might have been forgiven; but the creation and circulation of bills of credit by revolutionary assemblies in Massachusetts and Philadelphia, were the acts of a whole people and coming as they did upon the heels of the strenuous efforts made by the Crown to suppress paper money in America, they constituted acts of defiance so contemptuous and insulting to the Crown that forgiveness was thereafter impossible. After these acts there was but one course for the Crown to pursue and that was, if possible, to suppress and punish these acts of rebellion. There was but one course for the Colonies; to stand by their monetary system. Thus the bills of credit of this era, which ignorance and prejudice have attempted to belittle into the mere instruments of a reckless financial policy, were really the standards of the revolution. They were more than this: they were the Revolution itself.”

Finally, perhaps no one stated the matter more prophetically than Thomas Jefferson:

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property, until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

I leave the reader with a riddle to ponder: “Why is this quintessentially American debate so conspicuously missing from the public discourse now?”