The Danger of Big Banks to American Infrastructure: Why gold is the color of freedom

Over the last two months, I have spoken to a collection of the most intelligent people on planet earth, internationally, including senators, representatives, bankers, lawyers, engineers, former Fed members, supreme court judges, governors, CEOs, and top investors, trying to solve a big problem that is a major infrastructure problem in America.  That is the need for banking reform, and all things considered, regarding how we measure and distribute money as a free country.  The problem, as it has been presented, arises when a huge American bank, tied to various global standards, purposely attempts to remove private, relational ownership from its portfolio, using every trick in the book to convert the business into the open market.  As a large bank with international ties to central banks, big banks have become increasingly aware of their role and are acting in a parasitic manner toward American private ownership of industry, pushing them into conglomerations.  The problem with the situation I am involved in is that the company is an aerospace manufacturer with direct connections to a lot of important work that is critical to American infrastructure. These banking policies, unveiled during the COVID-19 crisis, pose a direct threat to American security.  It’s the same kind of radical ideas that central planners had when they thought they could use COVID to change human behavior, how we work, how we conduct recreation, and how we manage economies.  Taking the example of the Fed, it stops the economy, then prints fake money through quantitative easing to saturate the market with economic losses and hide inflation with phony interest rates.  And for banks to survive, they must use the chaos to undermine the concept of private ownership in America and fulfill one of Karl Marx’s key objectives: the state acquisition of the means of production.  And when we talk about the state, we’re not talking about elected governments, but banks that consider themselves the secret rulers of the world because nobody understands money the way they do. 

All this came to a dramatic head as we considered the recent executive order from President Trump on bank reform, which has raised concerns about the potential for demonetizing individuals and companies based on their political ideology.  Banks should never have had that kind of power, but they have become very radical.  I know of a few good bankers who have not fallen into this dark place, but most of them are playing the game to win from their perspective, and that entails destroying private ownership in America toward the global goals of socialists around the world and managed economies where financial institutions are really in charge of everything that happens.  We can elect representatives to build roads and figure out if there should be a death penalty for serious crimes.  However, when it comes to financial matters, financial institutions often view themselves as the rulers of the world, and if you want to play along, you have to buy into the woke agenda they present.  Trump’s executive order was a sign that things could improve and that he was taking steps in that direction, which was a positive development.  But the situation is much worse than just that woke banking policy.  A much bigger can of worms was being exposed, and the Fed is a big part of that problem.  Many people have attempted to reform the Fed over the years, but the issue has been detaching gold from our issued money and relying on centralized planning to cover the real costs.  And central planning doesn’t work, anywhere.  We essentially have communist ideas, the same ideas that collapsed the Soviet Union, running our central banks, our Federal Reserve, and our financial flow for all American businesses. 

People criticize Trump’s love of gold.  But I love how he has decorated the Oval Office, and over the years, Trump’s love of gold is more than an appreciation for an interesting color.  Gold represents freedom because, when measured in terms of money, it decouples individuals from the speculative tendencies of money managers.  And they make a killing off the chaos of money creation and its distribution.  So, of course, they don’t want to see any reforms to the industry because it’s a rigged system that benefits them.  Meanwhile, people are chained to the administrative bureaucracy that flows down to us through centralized banking.  In the case I brought up after speaking with all those brilliant people, most of whom have advanced degrees, the cost of regulation prevents big banks from dealing with small companies, so they prefer public ownership simply because it allows them to shoulder their responsibility to the customer.  However, that situation didn’t happen by accident; it was purposeful in the policy-making process to impose those kinds of restrictions on our economy. This has really only been exploited once all the other masks have been removed, revealing all the bad behavior that had been hiding in plain sight all along.  Trump’s love of gold is a love of the freedom that comes with attaching money to a precious metal, as it shields against interpretations of tyranny that allow money manipulators to alter values and acquire power over others.  Such as what BlackRock and other large money managers have done, which is work directly with the Fed to print a lot of fake money and wash that money through the system by buying up real companies and controlling their boards and CEOs with radical leftist policies.  That money came from printed money controlled by central banks, which gave them power over individual businesses and aligned with the communist goal of maintaining control over the means of production.  

If you are very savvy, you can survive in this hostile banking environment, and that will undoubtedly be the case with the situation I have been involved in.  However, what has been alarming is that this is a common practice, and it is no wonder that private ownership is becoming increasingly rare across the country, as it struggles to survive these open hostilities, which Trump’s executive order only begins to address, albeit just the tip of the spear.  The truth is that we need very aggressive banking reform if we want to run a free country.  And we can’t allow international centralized banking, to which all American banks are tied, to control our governments and our lives by managing our money.  Trump’s love of gold is more of a love of freedom attached to a stable value that piratical financiers and money manipulators cannot openly rob people of their political targets just because they can, and they can write the rules that everyone else has to follow.  And if we ever wondered about the intent of these aggressive financial administrators, remember how they all acted during Covid, for which the world has not yet recovered.  They fully intend to control the lives of the people who need money.  And they have the ability, through the Fed, to print as much as they want and distribute it to whomever they wish to, thereby gaining control over entire markets.  And suppose they don’t like American manufacturing returning to North America. In that case, they will find ways to prevent funding that growth, thereby halting the positive economic activity that Trump is trying to restore to our nation.  Only the big banks can fund many of these endeavors, and they are attached to international wokeness, decoupled from the gold standard, and they can make up the rules as they go to gain control over entire markets.  It’s a huge problem that requires serious reform.  And it’s a problem that everyone is aware of, but considers too significant to address at present.  And in the process of fixing it, they don’t want a target painted on their back for fear they might become the next victim.  And that’s not how a country should run under any condition.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Banks Trying to Destroy Private Ownership of Businesses: The ruthlessness is in the rules, and is purposefully anti-America

It is a case that could have been taken off the script pages of the Yellowstone television show, but I have had a front row seat to it, and I’m sure there will be years of legal action in the aftermath, because there are so many bad things done by so many bad people that shaking hands and walking in separate ways at the end of it just won’t be possible.  But to answer a question I have had about why there is not enough private ownership of businesses these days, and to understand why so many companies have sought the shelter of being publicly traded, or to hide behind large staffs of a board of directors to shield themselves from the pain of private enterprise, my question has been are the banking practices we see today purposefully predatory, and the confirmation couldn’t be more explicit than with a Wells Fargo case I know about regarding a tech company in Northern Cincinnati.  I have spoken to everyone about this case, and it seems that a large bank like Wells Fargo would not intentionally engage in practices that are meant to essentially harm a business and bleed it dry for their own interests. This appears to break every fiduciary assumption that the finance industry would consider itself bound by.  However, I’ve spoken to people who have served on the Federal Reserve and been CEOs of local community banks, and they weren’t fazed by what they were hearing about big bank practices.  Which alarmed me, because what would normal people do in these kinds of situations, who own companies targeted by hostile banking practices to force them to sell so that they could take over the carcass for a value only they understand.  As I drive around Ohio, and see a lot of businesses that are now empty, how many of them fell that way through mismanagement, and how many were forced into that condition by banking policies that have written into their financial markets an absolute hatred of capitalism and a desire to punish private ownership through lending practices that were inspired by Karl Marx and has the same level of radicalism behind their management practices.

This is a more literal view of how society is actually structured. Rules just hide the bad guys from the world

It’s the same kind of logic that we’re currently experiencing with Trump in the White House, where the Fed has interest rates set between 4.25% and 4.50%.  The cost to the American economy is approximately $600 billion per 1%, so Trump would like to see interest rates lowered into the 2% range to stimulate the economy by over a trillion dollars.  However, the Fed doesn’t care about the people who vote; they represent the interests of their banks. With Trump’s red-hot economy, they want to make money off their investments, so the policy is set for them, not for the good of the country.  They are concerned about their long-term bondholders, the banks in general, and other creditors and lenders.  Nobody is saying they shouldn’t be making money off the services they provide, but in the case of the Fed, they have rates set too high to maintain their control over the market.  In their view, presidents come and go and can kiss babies and pat dogs on the head at holiday parades.  So long as they stay out of their breadbasket and keep financial management separate from political considerations.  And baked into all that is how many of these banks have become overtly corrupt, and even evil.  And feel untouchable to any political scrutiny.  I’ve read about plenty of stories, but with this Northern Cincinnati case, I had not yet seen it firsthand.  And what I have witnessed has been outrageously corrupt. 

Before you can have this, you have to stop the parasitic banking practices that are destroying everything in the background.

In the case of the tech company in Northern Cincinnati, the bank fell sideways with a CFO there and they essentially targeted the privately held company for collapse by withholding funds the company needed to run its business, audaciously insisting on spending huge fees onto a consulting firm that works for the bank to essentially steer the company over a cliff to destruction, not caring at all what might happen to all the customers that company had in the process.  And no amount of logic could be talked into those characters because they had a preconditioned outcome in mind that certainly did not support privately held businesses.  And that was when the policies of the big banks themselves were implemented to make it very difficult to maintain private ownership of anything, regardless of the company’s size.  Smaller community banks are, of course, the way to go if you can get them.  However, they have tight financial markers as well and are very prone to risk, so it’s another situation where monetary policy is one of the most significant barriers to inspiring business growth.  There is a hatred of private ownership that large institutions are keen to destroy for very political reasons.  The Fed person I spoke to thinks it’s just a fair in love and war condition.  However, as I have been involved in the story, it’s a clear case where the menace is written into the policymaking.  And suppose any society wants to have an excellent economy with private ownership taking risks to create jobs. In that case, there must be policies in place to prevent parasitic banking practices, which is the case with this Northern Cincinnati company and a large institutional bank.  They feed off risk takers in ways that punish the practice. 

When I tell the story to people, they assume, just as we do with the Federal Reserve, that the participants understand what they do to people, and that if they did, they would care.  That nobody is that overtly evil.  Yet, as interest rates are set to feed off the masses, a barrage of easy money, essentially, most people working in finance are not the kind who like to work very hard at anything.  So, they are parasitic in their fundamental work ethics and don’t like scrappy, privately held companies, because they don’t treasure such freedoms and feel perfectly justified in abusing their power for personal gain under the guise of following the rules.  The rules they created were designed to make it easy for them to be parasitic lenders.  And if the carcass dies, they sell it off and move to the next target.  And in that way, there is a Marxist fantasy that is unleashed in their hatred of private enterprise, which is ruthless.  And very scheming.  And all too common, which we don’t even know how to talk about, until we experience a case like this for ourselves.  In the case I’m talking about, I don’t think the bank understood the mess it was getting itself into, and many of the bottom feeders involved in these kinds of things, who are professional parasites, clearly underestimated the situation and are going to feel a lot of pain they could have avoided.  But to answer the question as to the ruthlessness of it, it’s evident that its quite common and that most companies undergoing the same level of hostility by a banking partner would never survive and that if we truly want an excellent economy in Ohio, and in the nation, that we are going to have to bust up these financial institutions with their anti-American, and anti-private ownership radicalism.  Most companies lack the kind of tenacity that has been present in this case.  But the question about methods couldn’t be more obvious.  And that there is a financial institution’s aversion to privately held companies is not something they want to protect, just as the Fed is guilty of setting interest rates at the cost to society in general, in defense of their interests.  Their approach is short-sighted and lazy.  And purposefully ruthless to feed the essence of their natures, which is the question before us.  What do we do with such people when we clearly can’t have them pacesetting our economy?  Because, if left to their own devices, they will maliciously destroy everything they touch. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707