Goodbye Karen Hudes, Hello Bill Still.

Posted April 30, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“A man’s judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it. Give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehoods, and you destroy his whole reasoning process and make him something less than a man.”

– Arthur Hays Sulzberger (1891-1968) Publisher, New York Times

abstract4-1Is it a big deal or not? Disappointment experienced after becoming aware that what one thought about another isn’t quite right is a hard thing to deal with. This blog has posted three interviews of Karen Hudes – a woman known as the “World Bank Whistleblower” –  since its inception in late May 2013. Ms. Hudes has appeared on many interview programs in the past few years, while many have come to view her as a “hero” for her fearless speech directed at the super-rich and powerful. This writer admits having an initial fascination with her, because her early accounts seemed to prove that she was a genuine and important whistleblower.

That fascination led to a willingness to stay tuned to her as time moved along, and intermittent listening to most recent interviews etc. Unfortunately that initial fascination has turned to disappointment, and the deleting of her posted interviews and web address. This personal transition in perceptions of Ms. Hudes was a slow one, and finally second thoughts and a few analytical questions made the break from Karen Hudes inevitable.

The first question that created doubt about her was “why has she never appeared on any panel discussions with monetary reform activists, attorney colleagues, and/or economics professors?” So, one looks at her public persona and finds that her appearances – including RT, but mostly internet radio/alternative news – are never ones where she engages in group discussions. She always appears alone with a lone interviewer.

Perhaps because she is an Ivy-league trained attorney with a degree from Yale, along with her study of economics in Europe, it became clear that interviewers were somewhat intimidated with her credentials, including her 20 years in the World Bank. As time went by, it became perceived that, because of that constant credential-intimidation, interviewers were derelict in their duty to dig deeper into Ms. Hudes’ claims. All along, with each of her hundreds of interviews, no host has asked the type of penetrating, intellectual questions which would force Ms. Hudes to prove her assertions.

Her talks have been a mixture of well-established facts and theories yet to become proven.

With regard to the unproven assertions, Ms. Hudes consistently mentions a German banker/lawyer by the name of Wolfgang Struck, who she claims has “signatory authority” somehow inherited from Philippines Dictator Ferdinand Marcos – an authority to sign for the release of the world’s entire gold supply. Visiting Ms. Hudes’ YouTube channel one finds she has three videos posted, none of which have become enriched by any appearance of Mr. Struck, the man who is, according to Ms. Hudes, just waiting patiently, in anxious anticipation, to sign off and release to humanity the hundreds of thousands of ounces of gold stashed in Switzerland banks, Philippines banks, and Hawaiian banks, while God only knows how many thousands more ounces were buried someplace in the Philippines.

Wolfgang Struck. The Karen Hudes mystery man.

If any reader has ever seen Mr. Struck speak on camera, or seen any photos of him, or heard him speak on a radio program – if you have any evidence of this “World’s Gold Controller” – please share your information. Most readers are familiar with an American union boss by the name of Jimmy Hoffa who mysteriously disappeared decades ago after last being seen in the Detroit, Michigan area – and never seen again. If by chance, Ms. Hudes, you come to these words, please answer this question, “Is Wolfgang Struck your version of Jimmy Hoffa?”

Ms. Hudes appeared on the scene some three or more years ago, yet has anyone seen her give an academic-like presentation? Has she ever been seen in front of a live audience? Has she ever collaborated with her fellow whistleblowers around the world in a Skype conference call of two hours or longer in duration, where her “team of whistleblowers” discuss specific actions to bring into reality their shared goals?

Just a few moments on the uneventful way I made the decision to separate from Karen Hudes. The son of Academy-award winning filmmaker Oliver Stone – Sean Stone – was spoken about by another talk show host. Without knowing that Ms. Hudes had been interviewed by him, I went to see what was happening lately on his (Sean Stone’s) “Buzzsaw” show. So, Ms. Hudes was appearing and I listened to it. The show began with talk about a so-called “secret constitution” of 1872, where the name of the original became changed from “Constitution of the United States” to “Constitution for the United States”, allegedly making the United States and each of the 50 states corporations.

Sean Stone:    “In 1871, the Constitution of the United States was changed, from the original constitution we all believe we live under, giving us certain rights and laws, and that was changed from the Constitution of the U.S. to the Constitution for the U.S., as a corporation. And that happened in 1871. Can you get into a little more detail as to what actually occurred at that point?”

Karen Hudes:    “Yes Sean, thanks for having me back, and that’s exactly what happened. In 1872, Benjamin Franklin went to Paris and was negotiating with the banks that were helping to finance the Revolutionary War, and, uh, so when the money came due and we couldn’t pay it, this was after the Civil War, which by the way was incited by the Jesuits, at the end of the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln had issued greenbacks that were not going to carry interest to the bankers, he was assassinated by the Jesuits, and after they had taken care of that business, what they did was they set up this secret constitution, and under that constitution the U.S. Congress became managers of a corporation in the District of Columbia. The states were also turned into corporations, and this allowed the money that was being generated to go to the bankers to pay interest. The money went to the City of London which kept about 40% of it, and then it went off, 60% roughly, went off to the Vatican, the Jesuits, whose bankers were financing the United States. The Federal Reserve is for taking taxpayer money and transmitting it to the City of London and the Vatican.”

Ms. Hudes error of starting the interview by saying, “in 1872, Ben Franklin went to Paris” drew some not small notice from viewers in the comments section – Ben Franklin died in 1790. In the moments after she spoke that historical error, it seems Ms. Hudes has, in her legally trained mind, acknowledged to herself that she had made the date error. Evidence of this shows up/is seen at her first “uh”, where in her mind she comes to realize her mistake. But, instead of sensibly and properly issuing an immediate correction: “Did I say 1872, Sean? I meant 1782”, she makes sure to, a few words down the road, to squeeze in “this was after the Civil War, which by the way was incited by the Jesuits”.

Later on she tells Sean Stone that Franklin negotiated British/European financing for 100 years, resulting in the 1872 default by the American government and necessitating the “secret, second Constitution”.

Bill Still is a man who has researched, written, and produced documentary films on monetary reform for 34 years. He also listened to the talk, then commented on the Stone/Hudes interview: “Ben Franklin died in 1790. That’s all you have to know about Karen Hudes.”

Unfortunately it needs saying but, because of a great respect for Oliver Stone and a wish for his son’s success, Sean Stone allows Ms. Hudes to fill in the half-hour interview without pressing her with probative, get-to-the-essential-facts/proof of her claims questions – an all too universal interviewer style in every Karen Hudes appearance. Simply, no interviewer that I know of has ever directly challenged her to go any deeper, with requests for detailed and complex specifics to prove her – well – unproven claims.

The final straw came after listening to the Stone/Hudes interview when I listened to her on another show. Some internet surfers may have an awareness of these elongated human skulls that the Smithsonian evidently has in their safekeeping. Karen Hudes claims that there is a second human-type race/species walking this Earth, and that they are the “real World power behind the scenes”, essentially pulling the strings of the Jesuits and the Vatican. She gave her proof as coming from a Peruvian man who emailed her that he had seen one of these elongated-head species – “Homo Copensis” (or something) – inside a Peruvian bank while attending a personal loan-related meeting.

No photos, no nothing.

A search at Amazon books failed to find any authored by Karen Hudes.

The questions about who or what is behind or sponsoring her are in need of answers.

Probably the most disappointing aspect of all is that so many fine men and women journalists/alternative media hosts will now have to admit what has been confessed here. Karen Hudes took a lot of people on a long ride to nowhere. While disappointing for many who placed their hopes on her, probably the most descriptive word is saddening. One feels deep sadness for both her followers/believers and Karen Hudes herself.

Let’s hope Wolfgang Struck is happy in Peru.


That was not pleasant.

Reason for optimism, though.

Bill Still’s latest report goes into some important writings by a world-respected economist about monetary reform. In an April 24, 2014 article by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, Mr. Wolf – according to Bill Still, a man who “when Martin Wolf speaks, the world’s economists listen” –  suggested the potential of major reform in the way money is created. For monetary reform activists like Mr. Still, Ellen Brown, and others, this development is very large and analogous to an historic scientific breakthrough that promises to change the world.

One has to feel good for Bill Still. Here’s a man who has had his nose to the grindstone researching monetary issues for some 34 years. He’s been like a voice crying out in the wilderness, like the man who has been crying wolf – except that the wolf has been real. He can take some satisfaction that his efforts may finally be paying off, that his very important work making films and writing for over three decades is finally producing fruit.

Visit Bill Still’s website at


From “Desiderata”:

“Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy.”


Banking Money Or Sovereign Money? That Really Is The Question.

Posted April 8, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

“The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining… and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.”

– Andrew Jackson (1768-1845) 7th President of the United States

Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

mountain2Michael Kumhof is deputy division chief of the modeling division at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the following lecture at the London School of Economics, he makes the case for a new monetary system on Earth. For readers, it is helpful to know that Mr. Kumhof is not expressing any official view of the IMF but that his lecture is a result of independent research. For men and women who have spent time on monetary reform, his lecture – especially because he comes from the IMF and traditional monetary environments –  comes across as nourishment to famished souls who, in some instances, have advocated the same ideas for decades.

It is especially encouraging for monetary reformists because it signals movement toward banking/money reforms that will benefit societies/nations greatly. For those readers who haven’t had the time to research into monetary issues, don’t allow your first perceptions that economic theories are very complex and difficult to understand fool you. What Mr. Kumhof talks about here is actually simple. He is advocating monetary reform that takes money creation away from private commercial banks and placing it in government.

Fractional reserve banking is now the system.

A quick look into fractional reserve tells us that banks need to keep approximately 10% of their total loans in reserve. An individual example would be: “Local Bank” takes in $10,000 on deposit from Ms. Johnson and it goes into her savings account. With a 10% reserve requirement, the loan officers at the “Local Bank” can lend an additional $90,000 to customers. Ms. Johnson’s $10,000 = 10% reserve, $90,000 in loans = 90%, 10%+90%=100% limit of fractional reserve rules, and $90,000 has been “created” and added to the money supply. If you owned the bank and your customer deposited $20,000 in a savings account, you could then loan (“create”) $180,000 to other customers.

If “Local Bank” has a grand total of $30 million in deposits it could then, according to current fractional reserve rules, write loans for $270 million to other customers. The problem with fractional reserve banking is that not so straight and narrow bankers will go far beyond the limits and rules, throwing economies of nations – now, planets – into the bust part of “boom and bust”. This returns us to Mr. Kumhof and his suggestion for 100% reserve requirements at banks, and an end to fractional reserve lending.

The 90% that banks loan out to customers is how money gets created at present, and represents 97-99% of the entire money supply in circulation. The other 1-3% is coins created by, in America, the government. The 97-99% is “banking money” and the coins/1-3% is “sovereign money”. What Mr. Kumhof is advocating is 100% “sovereign money” created and controlled by the government. If, and when, such a monetary reform occurs, banks would become intermediaries of sovereign money instead of creators of banking money.

In his lecture, Mr. Kumhof revisits the theories of economics/banking of the 1930’s known as “The Chicago School”. He finds that the level of thought on economics decades ago was greater than here in 2014. After pointing this out he then adds some heavy-duty reinforcement by stating: “and I’m not kidding”. Historic examples of “sovereign money” are found in America’s experience. Many are unaware, because the history books don’t include it, that the War of Independence was fought over “banking money” demands from the British Crown and the colonists’ self-created “sovereign money” system.

The American colonies issued government created money on a state-by-state basis; Benjamin Franklin said in his writings that it was “extremely economically beneficial” and, because the colonists left Europe to escape financial slavery – and knew what would happen if they were to go along with British demands – the decision to fight the British was chosen, leading to independence. Further along in American history, after Abraham Lincoln went to Wall Street bankers for loans to finance the Civil War and he was given a “yes” – at 35% interest – he then huddled with his political colleagues and they printed “Greenbacks” (sovereign money without debt) and successfully financed the war.

Lincoln was killed by an assassin and the “Greenbacks” were removed from circulation, ending sovereign money during that period in America.

President Andrew Jackson was the most ferocious opponent of private Wall Street bankers and took the power to create money away from them, leading to America being debt-free when he served. Although debated, John F. Kennedy wrote Executive Order 11110, and issued some billions of dollars in government currency into the society; many believe JFK’s assassination shortly after those billions went into circulation was the reason he died. Lincoln’s assassination is seen by some as retribution for his decision on the “Greenbacks”. Jackson would have been killed but for his assassin’s weapons’ malfunctioning.

Mr. Kumhof lists several good advantages to sovereign money during this talk. If the Chicago Plan becomes followed through, there would be no government debt (or negative debt), plus a lower level of private debt. It would bring about an enormous, economy-wide debt-to-equity swap. Bank runs would be completely eliminated. Monet would now be completely safe as it no longer depends on what is happening in the private credit market. Money – the lifeblood of the economy – is no longer afflicted by problems in the credit system. Other benefits include lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and lower fraud-monitoring costs.

The instances of boom-and-bust cycles would be greatly reduced, Wall Street financial fraud would be reduced significantly, and money would be directed to the broad, real economy instead of toward “casino finance”. It is instructive to note that before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, there was no such thing as a World War. The present worldwide economic downturn has shown that too much of a “dynamic” financial system can most certainly cause major problems. Mr. Kumhof suggests that to help the real economy grow needs a “real boring financial system”, which he believes the 1930’s Chicago Plan offers. Although he admits that “getting from here to there” is anything but trivial – a complicated transition – if governments can get there, tremendous benefits will become realized.


For those readers who are new to monetary reform issues, there are a few people and films which will convince you that change is simply needed and – most importantly – changes will bring about better conditions for people. Many men and women, because they are unaware that another, more beneficial financial system is possible, have never questioned finance/banking/money creation as they’ve always felt “this is just how it is, and has always been”.

Find and view “The Secret of Oz” by documentary filmmaker Bill Still. Mr. Still’s latest video reports on his YouTube channel featured clips from the lecture by Mr. Kumhof. The film is an excellent explanation of money-creation and the subject of sovereign money. Bill Still has been talking about sovereign money for decades. Visit the YouTube channel “Bill Still” and/or

Find and listen to any interviews of public banking advocate Ellen Brown – founder of the Public Banking Institute – and/or visit the website Ellen Brown is like Mr. Still in that she has devoted years of research and writing on monetary reform. Visit the YouTube channel “Public Banking Institute TV”.

Find and view the Academy award-winning documentary “Inside Job” by Charles Ferguson, to learn what really happened leading up to the 2007-8 financial crisis.

Watch “All Wars Are Bankers Wars” by radio host Michael Rivero, to learn how private central banking is a big part of issues surrounding war and peace. The film is found on this blog by going to “categories” and scrolling down to documentaries.

To the best of my knowledge these sources – “The Secret of Oz” by Bill Still, Ellen Brown (Ms. Brown’s latest book is “The Public Banking Solution”), “Inside Job” by Charles Ferguson (he has written books available at Amazon as well), and “All Wars Are Bankers Wars” by Michael Rivero – offer the quickest education on money/finance/banking for those men and women interested in gaining a more thorough understanding.

Please suggest or recommend any additional sources of information on this most important global issue in the comments section below. Knowledge is power, and there is a real possibility that men and women from many nations will benefit from knowledge sources you provide here. Thank you very much.

This issue is central to the situation now unfolding in Ukraine.

Monetary reform is one of the most important issues – if not the most important issue – on this Earth in 2014.


(Thank you to London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) at YouTube)