Who owns and controls the Federal Reserve

Author's preface - Is the Federal Reserve System secretly owned and covertly controlled by powerful foreign banking interests? If so, how? These claims, made chiefly by authors Eustace Mullins (1983) and Gary Kah (1991) and repeated by many others, are quite serious because the Fed is the United States central bank and controls U.S. monetary policy. By changing the supply of money in circulation, the Fed influences interest rates, affecting the mortgage payments of millions of families, causing the financial markets to boom or collapse, and prompting the economy to expand or to stumble into recession. Such awesome power presumably would be used to benefit the U.S. economy. Mullins and Kah both argued that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is owned by foreigners. Although the New York Fed is just one of twelve Federal Reserve banks, controlling it, they claimed, is tantamount to control of the entire System. Foreigners use their command of the New York Fed to manipulate U.S. monetary policy for their own and, as Kah asserted, to further their global political goals, namely the establishment of the sinister New World Order.

This essay examines the accuracy of these claims. Specifically, it investigates the charge that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, directly or indirectly, by foreign elements, whether the New York Fed in effect runs the whole Federal Reserve System, and whether its enormous annual profits accrue primarily to foreigners or to the U.S government. This essay shows that there is little evidence to support the idea of foreign ownership and much that contradicts it. In addition, it presents evidence to show that the New York Fed does not command the entire System, as well as recent data demonstrating that the System's profits are paid to the federal government.


Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank of New York?

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank's district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed's outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

'... The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today' (Mullins, p. 47-48).

He further commented that the day the Federal Reserve Act was passed, "the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers" (Ibid, p. 29).

Unfortunately, Mullins' source for the stockholders of the New York Fed could not be verified. He claimed his source was the Federal Reserve Bulletin, although it has never included shareholder information, nor has any other Federal Reserve periodical. It is difficult researching this particular claim because a Federal Reserve Bank is not a publicly traded corporation and is therefore not required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to publish a list of its major shareholders. The question of ownership can still be addressed, however, by examining the legal rules for acquisition of such stock. The Federal Reserve Act requires national banks and participating state banks to purchase shares of their regional Federal Reserve Bank upon joining the System, thereby becoming "member banks" (12 USCA 282). Since the eight banks Mullins named all operate within the New York Federal Reserve district, and are all nationally chartered banks, they are required to be shareholders of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. They are also probably the major shareholders as Mullins claimed.

Are these eight banks on Mullins' list of stockholders owned by foreigners, what Mullins termed the London Connection? The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of Mullins' eight banks, then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

Perhaps foreigners own shares of the New York Federal Reserve Bank directly. The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. No person or organization, however, may own more than $25,000 of such public stock and none of it carries voting rights (12 USCA 283). However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System (Woodward, 1996).

Regardless of the foreign ownership conjecture, Mullins argued that since the money-center banks of New York owned the largest portion of stock in the New York Fed, they could hand-pick its board of directors and president. This would give them, and hence the London Connection, control over Fed operations and U.S. monetary policy. This argument is faulty because each commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds (Ibid). The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district. Such an expenditure would require an outlay in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Surely there is a cheaper path to global domination.

An historical example may make clear that member banks do not control the Federal Reserve's policies. Galbraith (1990) recounted that in the spring of 1929 the New York Stock Exchange was booming. Prices there had been rising considerably, extending the bull market that had begun in 1924. The Federal Reserve Board decided to take steps to arrest the speculative bubble that appeared to have been forming: it raised the cost banks had to pay to borrow from the Federal Reserve and it increased speculators' margin requirements. Charles Mitchell, then the head of National City Bank (today known as Citibank), which was the largest shareholder of the New York Federal Reserve Bank according to Mullins, was so irritated by this decision that in a bank statement he wrote, "We feel that we have an obligation which is paramount to any Federal Reserve warning, or anything else, to avert any dangerous crisis in the money market" (Galbraith, p. 57). National City Bank promised to increase lending to offset any restrictive policies of the Federal Reserve. Wrote Galbraith, "The effect was more than satisfactory: the market took off again. In the three summer months, the increase in prices outran all of the quite impressive increase that had occurred during the entire previous year" (Ibid). If the Fed and its policies were really under the control of its major stockholders, then why did the Federal Reserve Board clearly buck the intent of its single largest shareholder?

This information also eluded fellow conspiracy theorist Gary Kah, who disagreed with Mullins on who owns the New York Fed. His Swiss and Saudi Arabian contacts identified the top eight shareholders as the Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris; Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy; Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; Lehman Brothers of New York; Kuhn, Loeb Bank of New York; Chase Manhatten; and Goldman, Sachs of New York (Kah, p. 13). It is impossible to verify Kah's information because it is not known who his "contacts" were. Nevertheless, Kah's list differs substantially from Mullins' compilation. Most interestingly, in Kah's list foreigners own the New York Fed directly without having to own majority interests in U.S. banks, as is the case with Mullins' list. The discrepancies in the two lists mean that at least one of them is wrong, and possibly both. Kah's list is the bogus one because no public stock has ever been issued, so it is not possible for anyone on Kah's list other than Chase Manhatten to own shares of the New York Fed.

Moreover, Kah seemed ignorant of important details about the organization of Federal Reserve stock and management, especially for someone claiming to have done as much research on the subject as he did. He referred to the organizations on his stockholders list as "Class A shareholders," which is curious because Federal Reserve stock is not classified in this manner (Ibid). It can be either member stock, which can be purchased only by commercial banks and thrifts seeking to become members of the Federal Reserve System, or public stock. However, the directors of a Federal Reserve bank are separated into Class A, B, and C categories, depending on how they are appointed (12 USCA 302, 304, 305). Three class A directors are chosen by the member banks. Three class B directors are also elected by the member banks to represent the non-bank sectors of the economy. The final three directors, class C, are picked by the Board of Governors also to represent the non-bank public. This may be the source of Kah's confusion, but it is a relatively simple point that he should have detected had his research efforts been thorough.


Does the New York Fed Call the Shots?

Mullins and Kah further argued that by controlling the New York Fed the international banking elite could command the entire Federal Reserve System, and thus direct U.S. monetary policy for their own profit. "For all practical purposes," Kah stressed, "the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the Federal Reserve" (Ibid). This is the linchpin of their conspiracy theory because it provides the mechanism by which the international bankers execute their plans.

A brief look at how the Fed's powers over monetary policy are actually distributed shows that the key assumption in the Mullins-Kah conspiracy theory is erroneous. The Federal Reserve System is controlled not by the New York Fed, but by the Board of Governors (the Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board is a seven member panel appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. It determines the interest rate, known as the discount rate, for loans to commercial banks and thrifts, selects the required reserve ratio which determines how much of customer deposits a bank must keep on hand (a factor that significantly affects a bank's ability create new loans), and also decides how much new currency Federal Reserve Banks may issue each year (12 USCA 248). The FOMC consists of the members of the Board, the president of the New York Fed, and four presidents from other Fed Banks. The FOMC formulates open market policy, which determines how much in government bonds the Fed Banks may trade, and is the most effective and commonly used of the Fed's monetary policy tools (12 USCA 263). The key point is that a Federal Reserve Bank cannot change its discount rate or required reserve ratio, issue additional currency, or purchase government bonds without the explicit approval of either the Board or the FOMC.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank through its direct and permanent representation on the FOMC has more say on monetary policy than other Federal Reserve Banks, but it still only has one vote of twelve on the FOMC and no say at all in setting the discount rate or the required reserve ratio. If it wanted monetary policy to go in one direction, while the Board and the rest of the FOMC wanted policy to go another, then the New York Fed would be out-voted. The powers over U.S. monetary policy rest firmly with the publicly-appointed Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, not with the New York Federal Reserve Bank or a group of international conspirators.

Mullins also made a great to-do about the Federal Advisory Council (the Council). This is a panel of twelve representatives appointed by the board of directors of each Fed Bank. The Council meets at least four times each year with the members of the Board to give them their advice and to discuss general economic conditions (12 USCA 261, 262). Many of the members have been bankers, a point not at all missed by Mullins. He speculated that it is able to force its will on the Board of Governors.

The claim that the "advice" of the council members is not binding on the Governors or that it carries no weight is to claim that four times a year, twelve of the most influential bankers in the United States take time from their work to travel to Washington to meet with the Federal Reserve Board merely to drink coffee and exchange pleasantries (Mullins, p. 45).

A point very much missed by Mullins is that the Council has no voting power in Board meetings, and thus has no direct input into monetary policy. In support of his hypothesis that Council members have been able to impose their will on the Board, Mullins offered no evidence, not even an anecdote. Moreover, his Council theory is inconsistent with his general thesis that the Federal Reserve System is manipulated by European banking interests through their control of the New York Fed. If this were true, then why would they also need the Council?


Who Gets the Fed's Profits?

Gary Kah and Thomas Schauf have also maintained that the huge profits of the Federal Reserve System are diverted to its foreign owners through the dividends paid to its stockholders. Kah reported "Each year billions of dollars are 'earned' by Class A stockholders of the Federal Reserve" (Kah, p. 20). Schauf further lamented by asking, "When are the profits of the Fed going to start flowing into the Treasury so that average Americans are no longer burdened with excessive, unnecessary taxes?"

The Federal Reserve System certainly makes large profits. According to the Board's 1995 Annual Report, the System had net income totaling $23.9 billion, which, if it were a single firm, would qualify it as one of the most profitable companies in the world. How were these profits distributed? By an agreement between the Board of Governors and the Treasury, nearly all of the Fed's annual profits are paid to the federal government. Accordingly, a lion's share of $23.4 billion, which represents 97.9 percent of the Federal Reserve's net income, was transferred to the Treasury. The Federal Reserve Banks kept $283 million, and the remaining $231 million was paid to its stockholders as dividends.

Given that less than one percent of the Fed's net earnings are distributed as dividends, it seems that an investor could easily find much more profitable ways to store their wealth than buying Federal Reserve stock. Regarding Schauf's lamentation, the Federal Reserve System has been paying its profits to the Treasury since 1947.


Conclusion

It does not appear that the New York Federal Reserve Bank is owned, either directly or indirectly, by foreigners. Neither Mullins nor Kah provided verifiable sources for their allegations, nor did their mysterious sources agree on exactly who owns the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Moreover, their central assumption that control of the New York Federal Reserve is the same as control of the whole System is wrong and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the System's basic organizational structure. The profits of the Federal Reserve System, again contrary to the assertion of Kah and Schauf, are funneled back to the federal government, not to an "international banking elite." If the U.S. central bank is in the grip of a banking conspiracy, then Mullins and Kah have certainly not uncovered it.

References:

82nd Annual Report, 1995. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Galbraith, John K. 1990. A Short History of Financial Euphoria. New York: Whittle Direct Books.

Kah, Gary. 1991. En Route to Global Occupation. Lafayette, La.: Huntington House.

Mullins, Eustace. 1983. Secrets of the Federal Reserve. Staunton, Va.: Bankers Research Institute.

Shauf, Thomas. 1992. The Federal Reserve. Streamwood, IL: FED-UP, Inc.

Woodward, G. Thomas. 1996. "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality." Congressional Research Service

United States Code Annotated. 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office.

By Dr. Edward Flaherty

Source: USAGOLD

gold option

Donald Trump Against the Decline and Fall

Donald Trump was not my first choice for the Republican nomination. He often makes intemperate statements, and comes across as his own worst enemy during the campaign. He might not be the best person lead the United States down the right road to a secure and prosperous future, but he is at least on the right road. If we're on the wrong road, as represented by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, we have no chance whatsoever of reaching any destination except national ruin.

Robinson, Breasted, and Smith's most recent edition of Earlier Ages was written in 1965, more than 50 years before the current issues it describes with uncanny precision. These issues are, quite simply, as Michael Savage describes them: "Borders, language, and culture." Donald Trump has shown clearly that he wants to choose the road that leads us away from the Roman Empire's fatal mistakes while Hillary Clinton wants to repeat them.

One of the discussion questions for the chapter on "A Century of Revolution" is, "The racial change which took place in the population was the greatest single cause of the downfall of Rome" (page 366).
Page 355 makes it clear, however, that "racial" does not refer to skin color or ethnicity as it does today, but rather to attitudes, values, and culture. Rome benefited enormously from ethnic diversity while foreign, inferior, and non-Roman attitudes and values were the principal causes of its destruction.


Desirable Immigrants Helped Build Rome and the United States

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party support unrestricted immigration while Donald Trump welcomes only immigrants who have job skills along with American values, or who are at least willing to adopt our values. The roles of desirable and undesirable immigrants in Rome are object lessons here.

Greece played a major role in civilizing Rome, just as Rome later civilized most of Western Europe along with Britain. Romans were the classical world's greatest engineers, and they built roads and aqueducts to last forever; Europeans still drive on Roman roads today. The Romans, however, owed most of their natural sciences and fine arts to desirable immigrants from Egypt, the Near East, and especially Greece. These immigrants' role in building Rome was similar to that of equally desirable immigrants in the growth of the United States.

The Greeks were, after all, the people whose stories described assault robots (Talos), industrial robots (Hephaestus' mechanical helpers), and flying machines (Daedalus and Icarus) roughly 2000 years ago. Modern experiments leave it open to question as to whether Archimedes used a heat ray from a parabolic array of mirrors to incinerate Roman warships, and modern solar furnaces use similar arrays of mirrors. Heron of Alexandria proved that steam could perform useful work while Dionysius of Alexandria built the contemporary equivalent of a machine gun. The Greeks were, in summary, the people who taught the Western World how to think.

The Greeks who wrote stories about Hercules could have even been said to have invented hydraulic mining because the hero diverted a river to wash excrement from the Augean Stables. The Romans put into practice the idea that water could remove other soft materials like dirt to reveal desirable ores and metals. This legacy from the Greeks is why the Western World and Westernized World (e.g. Japan) are still the sources of almost all patents and Nobel Prizes while the Third World and especially the Islamic world lag far behind.

Many of Rome's desirable immigrants were admittedly involuntary immigrants (more commonly known as slaves), but their influence on Roman society was nonetheless positive. The presence of a Greek tutor in a Roman household was a status symbol. Wealthy Romans might even purchase a Greek physician, who was then obviously treated as a valuable household retainer rather than as a domestic animal, the usual fate of unskilled slaves on farms or in mines.

The United States benefited similarly from desirable immigrants who included our own ancestors, unless we are Native Americans. The bottom line is, however, that all these immigrants either brought with them values and attitudes similar to ours, or they adopted ours in a process that used to be called "assimilation."


When Diversity Becomes Perversity

Diverse and dysfunctional values and culture, rather than ethnic diversity, ruined Rome roughly 1900 years ago the way they are ruining Europe today, and are likely to ruin the United States.

"Moreover, slaves were constantly gaining their freedom, and they frequently retained slave ideas of conduct even after they were freedmen. This change in the nationality of the citizens, and the subsequent change in ideals, conduct, and government, were perhaps the chief causes of the downfall of Rome."

This is happening very openly in Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and several other European nations that have not only permitted but welcomed an influx of fundamentalist "Muslims" substantial numbers of whom have nothing whatsoever in common with the advanced societies they now infest. They lack the Euro-American work ethic, Euro-American (originally Greek) inventiveness and creativeness, and indeed anything else of value to an infidel nation. They produce little and invent nothing except for particularly cruel ways to murder those who are unlike themselves.

An alarming share of the young males do believe they have the Allah-given right to kill, rob, rape, and/or enslave those who do not share their depraved ideology, which is why European governments are urging women to dress according to the standards of the 19th rather than the 21st century. After all, a woman who does not wear a sack over her head is "uncovered meat" whom any militant "Muslim" has the right to "take." Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and most of the Democratic Party wants to welcome this flood while Donald Trump wants to admit only those who have job skills along with values that are consistent with our society.

Slavery was eradicated from our country more than 150 years ago, but the Democratic Party is nonetheless infusing elements of African-American society with "slave ideas of conduct" in the 21st century. The Democratic National Committee wants to keep Black people in a state of dependence on government programs because, while Black lives might not matter, Black votes do. While it was never proven that Lyndon B. Johnson said that he would have the N-words voting Democratic for the next 200 years, there is audio of Johnson using the N word along with an ethnic slur for Poles. Hillary Clinton's reliance on somebody like Al Sharpton to deliver the Black vote, or a substantial portion thereof, shows clearly how little she thinks of African-Americans.

This is not the only area where Obama, Clinton, and the Democratic National Committee seek to lead us down the same path that led the world's greatest civilization to ruin. The other issue is economic.


Excessive Government Regulation Ruined Rome

Earlier Ages (pages 359 to 360) describes how the Roman government ruined itself economically by spending far more than it could collect in taxes, the same way our government increases its deficit every year. A progressive income tax system, in which Rome looked to its "one percent" for revenue, resulted in a situation in which "there was no incentive to hard work when success in business meant ruinous over-taxation."

Rome's most productive citizens therefore "went John Galt" long before anybody ever heard of John Galt, with the result that Emperor Diocletian tried to force people to continue to practice their occupations. He added wage and price controls that reduced the ordinary Roman to a condition "just where the peasant on the Nile had been for thousands of years." Diocletian's modern incarnation, Hillary Clinton, wants similarly to raise taxes not only on the one percent but also on the middle class, and the middle class can meanwhile attest to how Obama's so-called "Affordable" Care Act has affected its finances and access to health insurance. Hillary also made it clear that she believes that the estates of wealthy people somehow belong to the government even though the government had no hand in creating them.

The United States is at a crossroads where one road leads to a prosperous and secure future while the other leads to the ash heap of history where the Roman Empire already resides. Donald Trump may or may not be the best person to lead us down the former path, but we know for certain that Hillary Clinton will take us down the latter. This leaves voters with only one viable alternative in November.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

By William A. Levinson

Source: American Thinker

industrial gold

Golden Ratio Myth, Fact and Misunderstanding: The missing evidence

There are many misconceptions and misrepresentations about the golden ratio. Some look too fervently for patterns and say it exists where it really doesn't. Some whose goal is to debunk golden ratio myth say it doesn't exist where it really does, missing the obvious and often not stating what proportions appear instead. People on both sides often just repeat what they've heard rather than personally performing the analysis required to support their conclusions. Intelligence and education are not always factors in getting to the truth, as even Ph.D.'s in mathematics sometimes get it wrong. As the author of this site since 1997, I've changed my views and the information on this site as well. Let's look at some of the common points of confusion and debate, covering beauty, the Parthenon, the UN Secretariat Building, the Great Pyramid, Nautilus shell, use by famous artists (Da Vinci, Botticelli, Seurat, etc.) and other topics. I'll provide objective answers, with additional evidence in the supporting articles for each topic. I'll also welcome any evidence to support opposing views.

Golden ratio proportions of the teeth/lips and nose in relation
to the distance from the pupils to the bottom of the chin

Does the human face reflect golden ratios in its proportions?

Not everyone will agree, but there is much evidence to demonstrate that the answer is "Yes." There's some truth to the adages "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "beauty is only skin deep," yet there is no denying that there's almost universal agreement when asked to distinguish between a very attractive face and a very unattractive face. Let's acknowledge that every human face has many unique measurements and proportions. As a result no single measure can be said to apply to every aspect of every face. The real question is whether the golden ratio represents an average or ideal in human facial dimensions. The even more interesting question is whether golden ratios in facial features impact our perceptions of attractiveness and beauty. Debunkers will point out the variations, and perhaps suggest that those who find golden ratios in a beautiful face did so because they were looking for them. Consider the following studies though, which demonstrate that the connection to beauty is based on much more than looking for data to fit the desired result:

• Dr. Stephen Marquardt, a maxillofacial surgeon and recognized expert on beauty, studied hundreds of faces in his studies on attractiveness to develop his patented "beauty mask." The mask identifies archetypes for the faces perceived as most beautiful. The mask is based on dodecagons, which are based on golden ratios. Below is an example of a face that has been morphed to fit the beauty mask. Make your own assessment and see the YouTube video of the step-by-step transformation.
  
• In 2009, a university study identified ideal facial proportions, as selected by study participants who chose the most attractive face from a series of photos. The researchers were not looking for the golden ratio. To the contrary, they concluded that it didn't exist and announced their own two "new golden ratios" of attractiveness. My subsequent analysis, however, shows that their ideal facial features reveal a dozen golden ratios, in both horizontal and vertical dimensions of key facial markers. See image and details further below in this article.
• In 2012, a UK cosmetic company ran a competition to find Britain's most perfect face. The winner was selected from 8,000 contestants. Her face shows almost two dozen golden ratios in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions of key facial markers, as shown in an accompanying YouTube video to the article.

                         

Does the design of the Parthenon reflect the golden ratio?

Yes, but only in part, and not in the way you often hear. The front facade of the Parthenon is often shown with a golden rectangle framing it to illustrate its golden ratio proportions. Unfortunately, a precise golden rectangle would need to start at the second of four steps approaching the Parthenon, rather than the base of its columns. The golden rectangle would then end at the peak of the Parthenon, a point which has to be estimated because the structure is in ruins. Even as a golden ratio enthusiast, this is rather arbitrary and unconvincing as evidence. It's close to a golden rectangle, but not close enough to conclude that it was used in its design. That, however, is not the end of the story. The top structure across the columns has dimensions that appear to be very close to the golden ratio. More interesting yet, the fourteen rectangles across the horizontal beam each appear to be divided exactly at their golden ratio point, as closely as can be determined from photos. These golden ratios may or may not have been included intentionally among all the other numbers and ratios represented in the Parthenon. The golden ratio was written of by Euclid almost 100 years before its construction though, so the architects of the Parthenon certainly could have been aware of it. The Parthenon has a complex design that embodies many numbers and mathematical relationships. It's not unreasonable at all that the golden ratio would have been among those represented.


Is the spiral of the Nautilus shell based on the golden ratio?

It can, but not in the way you often hear. The traditional "golden spiral" is constructed from a series of adjacent golden rectangles. This creates a spiral that increases in dimension by the golden ratio with every 90 degree turn of the spiral. The spiral of the Nautilus shell does not match this golden spiral, which is a source of the confusion on this question. There is, however, more than one way to create a spiral with golden ratio proportions. As one example, you can create a spiral that expands by the golden ratio with every 180 degree turn of the spiral. This spiral is a closer match for the spirals of many Nautilus shells, especially in the first several rotations of the spiral. An even closer match yet is found when when measuring to spirals on opposite sides of the center point.


Did Renaissance artists (Botticelli, Da Vinci, Michelango) use the golden ratio in composition of their paintings?

Yes. This is often contested by debunkers as being completely unsupported. One frequently referenced article by a Ph.D. in mathematics points out that there is no mention of the golden ratio in two biographies written about da Vinci. Wouldn't it be better to actually measure the paintings than to read a biography?  Another debunker, also with a Ph.D. in mathematics, claims there is "no evidence" that da Vinci used the golden ratio, but in his presentation shows only da Vinci's simple sketches rather than his masterpiece paintings on religious subjects. Unfortunately, most commentary on da Vinci's use of the golden ratio in his paintings is based on The Mona Lisa, which has very few linear composition elements from which to definitively measure a golden ratio. Golden ratios are really quite easy to see if you have the right tools.  Da Vinci's "Last Supper", "The Annunciation" and Salvator Mundi are much better examples and show clear composition lines at golden ratio points. Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" was painted on a canvas which is itself a golden rectangle, and key elements of the painting are at golden ratio points of the painting's height and width. Botticelli also created several renditions of "The Annunciation" which also have clear golden ratios in their composition. Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam" has God finger touching Adam's finger at the precise golden ratio point of the width of the area in which they are framed. That is just one example of how Michelangelo used this Divine proportion in the Sistine Chapel. Raphael's "The School of Athens" features a golden rectangle placed front and center in the foreground of the painting, and the main scene above reveals many golden ratios in its composition. As noted by "Civilisation" author Kenneth Clark, "This union of art and mathematics is far from our own way of thinking, but it was fundamental to the Renaissance."


Are the spirals seen in nature based on the golden ratio?

Some are, but most are not. The spirals most commonly seen in nature are equi-angular (aka logarithmic) spirals. This simply means that the spiral expands at a constant rate. This occurs because it creates an even flow of energy or distribution of tension. This has nothing at all to do with the golden ratio. Accordingly, all the illustrations of spiral arms of galaxies, curves of ocean waves, spiraling hurricanes, etc. that are incorrectly identified as a "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Spiral" should be relabeled or removed to avoid further confusion in perpetuating this golden ratio myth. There is another type of spiral that is related to the golden ratio, however, that occurs very commonly in nature. The spirals that appear in pine cones, pineapples, seed pods and similar plant structures are usually based on two successive numbers of the Fibonacci sequence. For example, if there are eight spirals in a clockwise direction, you will find thirteen spirals going in the counter-clockwise direction.  Neither of these spirals is necessarily a "golden ratio" spiral on its own, but the ratio of these successive Fibonacci numbers approximates the golden ratio.


Did French painter Georges Seurat use the golden ratio in the composition of his paintings?

Yes. One art critic claimed that Georges Seurat "attacked every canvas with the golden section." At least one debunker says this is a simply "myth that needs to be dispelled." The truth is somewhere in the middle. My examination of over 100 Seurat paintings reveals that over 30 of them show very clear golden ratio composition lines. This analysis was based solely on the height and width of the canvas, where there is no room for interpretation or error.  Seurat chose to paint about one-quarter of his work on golden rectangle panels. Of his 103 paintings listed at Wikimedia, at least two dozen of them had a height to width ratio to within 0.1? of the golden ratio. Other paintings show golden ratio between elements within the composition. So the correct answer is that Seurat frequently used the golden ratio in his artistic compositions, but probably did not attack every canvas with it.


Is the Great Pyramid of Giza based on a golden ratio?

Possibly, but unknown. This is also subject to debate and interpretation, and there is no certain answer. There is no mention of the golden ratio in the existing historical record of the Egyptians. The outer limestone skin of pyramid is now missing, which makes its exact original dimensions subject to some estimation. The outer skin is still intact at the top though, and thus provides good guidance as to the original form. What we do know is this: The estimated original dimensions of the Great Pyramid per Wikipedia reveal a pyramid with an average base measure of 230.4 meters and height of 146.5 meters. This height is different from a phi-based triangle by only 0.0367 meters, a variance of only 0.025%. There's another school of thought that the Pyramid's proportions are based on the arc of a circle whose circumference is equal to the perimeter of the base of the pyramid. If that's true, then the estimated height is different by only 0.177 meters), a variance of 0.1%. Other geometries are also possible, one based on surface areas and another on gradients using Egyptian units of measure. There is also evidence that the relative sizes and positions of the pyramids at the Giza site embody golden ratio proportions. The truth is that there is much that we do not know about these pyramids or their construction, so the dimensions could be based on any of these methods and geometries. The Great Pyramid was clearly constructed with some specific geometry in mind, and with exacting precision, so we can reasonably assume that its architects did not create a pyramid with these very special and unique geometries by blind chance. A very interesting question still remains: Even if the pyramid wasn't consciously designed with a knowledge of phi, why did they pick a geometry for the Great Pyramid that so closely embodies the golden ratio, the one number that has a ubiquitous presence in geometry, and that is associated with nature and beauty?


Is there a "new golden ratio" that can determine facial Human face - new golden ratio and actual beauty proportions attractiveness with two measurements?

No. The 2009 study claimed to have debunked the relationship of the golden ratio to beauty and claimed to have discovered two "new golden ratio" measurements that defined attractiveness. The faces identified as the most attractive, however, had over a dozen golden ratios in the dimensions of their key facial features. The researchers apparently didn't realize these golden ratios existed and devised their own alternative measurement points. It should be obvious that human facial beauty cannot be reduced to a single vertical and single horizontal measurement, and it's quite easy to prove this with a few simple examples of unattractive faces that still happen to fit those two measurements.


Is Mecca at the golden ratio point of the Earth?

No, at least not exactly. There are two golden ratio points in latitude between the Earth's poles, one in each hemisphere. Mecca is approximately 12 miles from the golden ratio latitude in the northern hemisphere. The golden ratio of the longitude is not easy to determine as there is no natural reference point like a rotational pole. The claim for Mecca was based on a Mercator projection of the Earth, which spans from dividing point between the US and Russia. Using this as the basis, Mecca is 938 kilometers from the golden ratio point of the longitude. Using other starting points as a basis there are many other golden ratio longitude points on the Earth.


Is the design of the UN's Headquarters building based on the golden ratio?

Yes. This was supposedly "debunked" in an an article by Dr. George Markowsky, a Harvard Ph.D. in Mathematics, who calculated the simple ratio of the building's height to width. He noted that the ratio was 1.76 and not 1.618, came to his conclusion, and missed many historical and mathematical facts. One of the lead architects, Le Corbusier, created a design system based on the golden ratio just years before his involvement with the UN project. A well-known, award-winning Disney education film illustrates that the golden ratio relationship is based on three horizontal golden rectangles stacked vertically, not its height vs. width. Golden ratios appear in the visual dividing points on the face of the building, and these are easily can be measured and calculated. Other very clear golden ratios are present in the dimensions of  the curtain wall, windows and front entrance.


Is the golden ratio unique and special, or a myth to be debunked?

It quite definitely a special number with unique properties and it is found in nature, in some quite unexpected places. Even those whose goal is to debunk golden ratio myth will agree that the golden ratio has properties that make it very unique in mathematics and geometry. This one number has intrigued and inspired countless people throughout mankind's history, and earned a special place in their hearts and minds. It is probably for that very reason that some people have taken it beyond fact to fantasy and mysticism. That, in turn, has led others to summarily dismiss it with just as much zeal. Both extremes in position are flawed and keep us from knowing the truth and applying it.

Is the golden ratio a universal constant of design in nature? No. Must all features of a face be in perfect golden ratio proportion to be beautiful? No. Can it help us to better understand and appreciate beauty in nature, and apply it in our own lives? Yes.

Is the golden ratio required to create great art? No. Can it help to better appreciate some great art and to create with better composition and design? Yes. It's used for that purpose in art, photo cropping and composition, logo design, product design and other areas of design.

Like many things in life, it provides us with insight into the nature of things, the opportunity to better appreciate them, and the ability to use them to advantage. With all the misinformation and misconceptions that exist, it is best to keep an open mind, and not accept claims made without investigating evidence on both sides, experimenting on your own and coming to your own conclusions.

By Gary Meisner

Source: GoldenNumber.net

native gold

The Federal Reserve Fraud and the "Invisible Government"

"No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." 
Article 1, Section 10, united States' Constitution

In 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was fraudulently pushed through Congress, Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated:  "This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth....When the President signs this Act, the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized....The new law will create inflation whenever the trust wants inflation....From now on, depression will be scientifically created."


IS THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK REALLY "FEDERAL"?

Most people assume that the Federal Reserve Bank is federal--that is, part of the united States' government.  However, the Ninth Circuit Court put that issue to rest in 1982 when they adjudicated:

"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations." [Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]

"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.  I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks.  Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions.  They are not government institutions.  They are private credit monopolies; domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey upon the people of the united States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers.  The Federal Reserve Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks.  The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board."  [Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, June 10, 1932]

"In the united States we have, in effect, two governments....We have the duly constituted Government....Then we have an independent, uncontrolled and uncoordinated government in the Federal Reserve System, operating the money powers which are reserved to Congress by the Constitution."  [Congressman Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the House floor, 1967]

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders....The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited.  It operates outside the control of Congress and....manipulates the credit of the united States."  [Senator Barry Goldwater]

"Federal Reserve Notes are illegal"  [US Representative Dr. Ron Paul]


IF THIS IS TRUE WHY HAVEN'T I HEARD ABOUT THIS?

Basically, it is because the international bankers, having unlimited funds, own and control the mainstream media.  "These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government."  [Teddy Roosevelt]


We also have to ask ourselves why we were not taught the truth about the Federal Reserve in school.  Click on the following video link to hear the testimony of Norman Dodd, head of the congressional committee that investigated the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford foundations and their intent to control education:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2xcwFpSW0k


HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME?

Congress initially defined a lawful money "dollar" as being and consisting of (at least) 371.25 grains of pure silver.  Before 1965 anyone could exchange one paper dollar for one real silver dollar.  However, in 1965 the united States' mint stopped minting silver dollars.  When this  occurred inflation began to skyrocket.  Now it takes a whole fist full of paper dollars (i.e., "Federal Reserve Notes") to buy one real silver dollar.  It now takes two working parents to support a family and the national debt is accelerating higher and higher.  And, of course, the debt of individuals, corporations, cities, counties or states is much, much higher.

The paper and digital currency that bankers create out of thin air is backed by nothing.  The more paper "dollars" they roll off the printing presses or digital "dollars" created by computers, the less each one is worth.  Therefore, it takes more of 'em to buy the things we need, so the price of everything has to go up and up and up in endless inflation.  Unfortunately, wages for most people will not increase fast enough to stay ahead of the game.  But not to worry, the international banksters have created plastic "credit cards" to help you out (heh, heh, heh).  Of course, they don't bother to tell us that they do not create enough paper/digital currency to pay off the debt plus interest so mathematically the economy will eventually collapse as has always occurred in history with paper currencies.


HOW DID ALL OF THIS GET STARTED?

Briefly, the Federal Reserve system was created by international banking families such as the Rothschilds, Warburgs and Rockefellers.  This international banking cartel creates "money" out of thin air.  It only costs them a few cents to print each Federal Reserve Note "dollar bill", and then they "bill" the American people for the full face value of the note.  Then to add insult to injury, they charge us interest to borrow their so-called "money".  If you or I did this, we would be arrested for counterfeiting and fraud.  This system was instituted gradually, starting with the Civil War and culminating with the fraudulent passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

The passage of the Federal Reserve Act was unconstitutional because 1) the US Constitution prohibited "bills of credit" (i.e., paper notes) and 2) the US Constitution would have to be amended to go off the silver and gold coin standard for money.  The US Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land, can only be amended pursuant to Article V.  The US Constitution cannot be amended by statute.  These unlawful actions by a criminal Congress remind me of a quote by the honorable Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine fame:  "America is that land which fought for freedom and then passed laws to get rid of it."

The Federal Reserve is also a monopoly--in a country where monopolies are supposed to be illegal.  The IRS deposits people's income tax checks directly in the Federal Reserve banks--not in the united States Treasury.  Therefore, the IRS, an unconstitutional entity, is merely the collection agency for the international banksters.  Over the years the IRS has become a tool of the elite banking families to financially attack and/or imprison people who expose the Federal Reserve.  It is also a tool used by the D.C. elite to attack people who expose government corruption.

If you take out a paper dollar and look at it, you will notice that it states at the top of the "bill":  "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE".  A "note" is, by definition, an "instrument of debt" and "evidence of debt".  According to BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (Sixth Ed.) "MONEY" is defined:  "In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate."  Now this may come as a shock to some people, but those paper "Federal Reserve Notes" are not money and they are not dollars.  Federal Reserve Notes are merely IOUs.   There is nothing backing these "bills" except debt.  However, people (voluntarily) use them as [instead of] money and as dollars.  The key word is "as".  (The smallest words can have the biggest meanings.)

Banks can create this phony "currency" out of thin air.  Banks can loan out "currency" that they don't even have.  When you apply for a loan from a bank, the bank does not have anything to back up that loan because they are allowed to loan out about seven to ten times more "currency" than they have on deposit.  This is not mere speculation; this is a matter of court record, testimony under Oath, by a former lawyer for the Federal Reserve.  In other words bankers create "currency" with just the stroke of a pen or the keystroke of a computer.  These bankers then charge you "interest" to borrow this "currency", which is nothing more than some numbers typed on a piece of paper!  If We the People ever did this we would be spending many years in a federal prison.  Unfortunately, they do not print enough currency to pay the interest so more pseudo-dollars must be borrowed to pay off the interest, resulting in a unpayable, ever-increasing debt.

This fraudulent "currency" system benefits not only bankers, but lawyers as well.  As has been demonstrated by numerous citizens, government lawyers (members of the Bar Association) serve the Federal Reserve international banksters, not We the People.  Prosecutors are co-conspirators with bankers to unlawfully attack and imprison people for bringing up the REAL MONEY issue in court, even though it is the supreme law of the land.  The evidence clearly indicates that there is a nationwide criminal conspiracy of bankers and lawyers to overthrow the united States of America.


REAL MONEY IS GOLD & SILVER COIN

Article I, Section 10 of the united States' Constitution states:  "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."  The united States' Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and this Law has never been amended.

Article I, Section 8 states:  "The Congress shall have Power...to coin Money".  Notice that it states "coin" not "print".  Anyone who reads James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, The Federalist Papers, etc. will find that one of the purposes of the Constitutional Convention was to do away with paper money--entirely!  Thus for the first 72 years from the founding of our nation the united States' Government only minted gold and silver COINS for money.
"It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals.  These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency."  [President Andrew Jackson, 8th Annual Message to Congress, December 5, 1836]

"The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution.  I am an enemy to all banks, discounting bills or notes for anything but coin.  If the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."  [Thomas Jefferson]

The nightmare that Thomas Jefferson predicted became painfully real during the Great Depression when the international banksters caused the foreclosure of untold numbers of homes, farms and businesses.  As the national debt moves exponentially upwards, it appears that we are heading for another economic upheaval.


MARK OF THE BEAST OR RELIGIOUS MANIPULATION?

Anyone can obtain an official letter from the Social Security Administration stating that the IRS has jurisdiction over the Social Security Administration.  The IRS is merely a corporation used to turn over the labor and possessions of Americans to the international bankers who own the Federal Reserve.  The corporation known as the Social Security Administration is not even based in Washington, DC.  It is based in Baltimore, Maryland and it does not even have government franking privileges.

Currently, in the United States you cannot get a job, bank account, insurance, driver's license, hunting or fishing license without a Social Security Number.  In other words, you cannot make a living, travel, buy or sell without this number.  Chapter 13 of Revelations states that the Mark of the Beast is a number without which one cannot buy or sell.  Is this the "mark of the beast" or religious manipulation on the part of the powers that be?

During the Constitutional Convention the delegates used the words "emit bills of credit" to refer to the issuance of paper (debt-based) currency.  The framers of the Constitution were so adamant about prohibiting the printing of paper currency that one of the delegates, George Reed of Delaware, exclaimed that if they put the words "emit bills of credit" in the Constitution it would be "as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation!"


WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT IT?

1.  GET EDUCATED:  The first thing anyone can do and should do is to educate oneself on the subject.  The book ECONOMIC SOLUTIONS is a good place to start.  Another source is A PLEA FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES by George Bancroft.  Another highly-recommended book on the subject of the Federal Reserve is THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND by G. Edward Griffin.

2.  There are some great videos that educate people about the Federal Reserve Fraud and the international bankers plan for a cashless society.  Many people today would rather watch a movie than read a book.

3.  Start using US-minted coins as much as you can to buy goods and services because they are not part of the Federal Reserve system.  Nickel-Copper coins are okay but gold and silver coins are much better.  Remember what Andrew Williams, a spokesman for the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C. said about Federal Reserve notes:

"There is no law that says goods and services must be paid for with Federal Reserve notes.  Parties entering into a transaction can establish any medium of exchange that is agreed upon."

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."  George Orwell

By Healthfreedom.info

Source: Healthfreedom.info

placer gold