Lost Within the Rate Cut: The Fed’s Drive to Establish a New Payment System

Part way through delivering a press conference following the Federal Reserve’s first rate cut since December 2008, chairman Jerome Powell let it be known that the central bank was ‘looking carefully‘ at developing a new faster payments system. Unsurprisingly, his words on the subject proved the equivalent of screaming into the face of a force ten gale. Besides a handful of financial outlets, nobody heard him. All that analysts and observers were really interested in was the Fed’s stance on interest rates.

This was unfortunate because whilst they may appear banal and complex on the surface, payments systems are of far greater significance than whether a central bank opts to cut or raise interest rates. Anyone keeping pace with the myriad of speeches and publications emanating from central banks will know that globalists are working incrementally to introduce a cashless monetary system under their control. The Federal Reserve are one strand of this strategy as we will discover.

Less than a week after the rate cut, the Fed announced that they were planning to devise a new ‘round-the-clock real-time payment and settlement service.’ Called ‘FedNow‘, the system would be an RTGS run service designed to initiate faster payments.

RTGS stands for ‘Real Time Gross Settlement‘, and is the same model through which the Bank of England and the European Central Bank operate their payment systems. The BOE announced back in May 2017 a blueprint for the introduction of a ‘renewed‘ RTGS service, whilst the ECB in late 2018 launched a new system dubbed TIPS (TARGET Instant Payment Settlement). It was around the time that TIPS launched that the Fed issued a ‘request for comment‘ on reforming their own system. Taken as a whole, this is a further example of central banks working in coordination.

In a press release announcing ‘FedNow‘, the Fed justified the venture on the premise that the ‘rapid evolution of technology‘ had presented them with a ‘pivotal opportunity‘ to modernise the U.S. payment system. Exactly how long the Fed have been looking into adopting a new payment system is unclear. But if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed, they have been exploring a faster system since at least 2013.

The press release also pointed out that over 10,000 financial institutions are incorporated into the current Fed payment system known as ‘Fedwire‘, and argued that new real time infrastructure developed through the central bank would be best placed to offer full nationwide coverage.

The next stage of ‘FedNow‘ sees the Fed ‘requesting comment on how the new service might be designed‘. As for when it becomes available, the expectation is either 2023 or 2024. The Bank of England’s renewed RTGS system is due to be operational by 2025.

On the day ‘FedNow‘ was announced, Lael Brainard, a member of the Fed’s board of governors, offered up more information on the system in a speech at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. As you might expect, Brainard was there to extol the benefits. The big selling point was 365 days a year access, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Funds would be available immediately after payment is sent. It would be a system built on convenience and one that was fit for the speed of the 21st century.

Of greater interest than these superficial benefits, however, is the motivation behind what the Fed are seeking to achieve with ‘FedNow‘. Brainard was equally as explanatory in this regard.

We learned from her speech four key bits of information.

Firstly, fintech companies are openly supportive of the Fed’s new system. These are companies that are part of an industry that has pioneered the creation of distributed ledger technology.

Secondly, the planned implementation for either 2023 or 2024 is not a fixed objective. More important to the Fed is the goal of achieving ‘nationwide access for all‘, meaning that their overarching aim is for ‘FedNow‘ and private sector payment services to work in conjunction (or, as Brainard put it, to ‘interoperate by exchanging payments among services directly).

Thirdly, Brainard told us that no one private sector provider of a U.S. payment system has ever been able to establish nationwide reach by itself. Nationwide coverage would have to encompass the many thousands of small and medium sized banks. Hence why the Fed are now making a determined move to utilise private sector technology and incorporate it into their own system. I would contend that the Fed’s goal is to achieve full spectrum control of America’s payment infrastructure, with all digital transactions falling under their jurisdiction. ‘FedNow‘ would be the mechanism in making this happen.

Fourthly, as Brainard laid out, the path that the Fed are embracing is not one of ‘incremental‘ change. Rather, it is of ‘transformative‘ change. I would take this to mean that the infrastructure underpinning current payment systems must be overhauled to allow for the implementation of fintech devised technology.

An accompanying list of FAQ’s lent credence to the understanding that fintech is central to the construction of ‘FedNow‘. Here, the Fed expounded that the market for faster payments in the U.S. remains in the ‘early stages‘. Banks and fintech firms can provide a range of services, but the functionality of them is limited which restricts their level of coverage and reliability. They lamented the ‘lack of a universal infrastructure to conduct faster payments‘, which means that at present users who are signed up to one service such as Paypal invariably cannot send or receive payment from a user signed up to another service. As a result, the market remains ‘fragmented‘.

With the Federal Reserve system encompassing twelve regional banks, and the relationships the Fed has with 10,000 plus banking institutions, their belief is that they are ‘well positioned to overcome the challenge of extending nationwide access.’

Throughout their communications there is a preoccupation with the objective of achieving nationwide access. So much so that the Fed board are apparently intending to ‘explore interoperability and other paths to achieving the ultimate goal of nationwide reach.’

‘FedNow’ would provide the necessary universal infrastructure that the Fed are seeking, and allow banks of all description to offer real-time payments.

Undoubtedly this presents an opportunity for the Fed, and indeed central banks throughout the world, to move in and claim hegemony over the next generation of global digital payment systems. But they, along with the Bank for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund that preside over them, cannot do this by themselves. This is where the private sector comes in, for it is here where the expertise and technological innovation is found.

Within the FAQ’s it is also stated that the ‘FedNow‘ service would ‘operate alongside private sector RTGS services for faster payments‘. Prior to the announcement of the new system, the Federal Reserve board had come to the conclusion that private sector RTGS services ‘cannot be expected to provide an infrastructure with reasonable effectiveness, scope and equity alone.’ A roundabout way of saying that whilst the Fed do not possess the technology, they do have the reach in order to disseminate private sector innovation to every corner of the U.S. The beauty for the Fed is that they would have full regulatory authority over ‘FedNow‘. In conjunction with fintech, their level of control over the payments infrastructure would be unassailable.

If central banks manage to utilise fintech successfully, it will give them a clear path to begin the gradual implementation of central bank issued digital currencies. Back in April I published an article (BIS General Manager Outlines Vision for Central Bank Digital Currencies) that looked into the subject of CBDC’s more deeply.

In regards to ‘FedNow‘, equally as interesting as what was discussed by the Fed is what was left unsaid. There was no mention throughout any of the supporting documentation of plans to incorporate distributed ledger technology. Instead, there will be ‘engagement between the Fed and the industry to inform the final service design.’ This is a process that is now getting underway.

I would expect that once the final design of ‘FedNow‘ is confirmed, it will have the capability of interacting with systems that use distributed ledgers. This would follow on from the Bank of England who in 2018 announced that their new RTGS service would enable such systems to achieve settlement in central bank money.

Once this has been achieved, the next logical step for central banks is to complete the process of digitising all financial assets through the issuance of central bank digital currency. And as BIS general manager Agustin Carstens warned back in March 2019, this would mean that people would no longer have the option of paying with cash. ‘All purchases would be electronic‘.

In a follow up article I will be exploring the process underway at the Bank of England and the European Central Bank to reform their payment systems, and how China is proving to be the test bed for fintech innovation.


  1. Excellent post, keeping the public informed as to the measures being introduced to achieve end goals and allowing each to draw their own dark conclusions on where we are being herded.

    When viewed across a broad spectrum of fronts and levels within those fronts that view becomes very dark if considering human freedoms. It is really quite a wide ranging operation, hideous in its nature but at the same time fascinating to behold. Rather like a snake hypnotizing its prey before swallowing it whole.

    Regarding human freedom, if one never experienced them would they even be felt as missing? It seems much of the pyramid cap are counting on this being the case.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I read your article with interest as always.

    But I was also expecting an article analyzing the feds interest rate decission in july.


    • Hi Tomy,

      Thank you for reading the article.

      Ordinarily I would have written a post on the Fed’s rate cut, but there wasn’t a lot more I could say beyond what I had already mentioned in previous articles. I was mistaken in my belief that they would keep rates on hold, but judging by what the Fed have since communicated the cut does not signal the beginning of an easing cycle. Markets have ‘priced in’ a 100% probability that they will cut again in September. For all I know they may do so. What I don’t think they will do is try to stave off a market crash by reintroducing quantitative easing.

      We saw how a series of rates cuts in 2007 and 2008 did nothing to prevent the financial crisis. Rates did not drop to 0% until after the crash had hit a crescendo. And they also did not introduce QE as a preventative measure.

      My contention remains that whilst the Fed and other major central banks continue to promote their 2% mandate for inflation, they are not simply going to ignore rising inflationary pressures once the effects of trade tariffs and a prospective no deal Brexit kick in. The crisis that is coming will I believe manifest into an inflationary recession / depression. Markets have convinced themselves that central banks will override their mandates if the economy is failing, and will once again cut rates to 0 or negative territory and print trillions more in stimulus. Personally, I am unconvinced.


  3. Has everyone read None Dare Call It A Conspiracy? Published in 97 it looked fanciful and no-one believed such things could ever happen. Yet here we are with the whole thing unfolding around us.

    Of course the question is – how tf do you take down the Central Banks?


    • JFK attempted to eliminate the FED and in fact ordered the release of US (NOT FEDERAL RESERVE) notes: Not a pleasant outcome.


  4. Hello mez, Your question is one for the ages. The problem with central banks is in the moral DNA of their owners which cannot be changed. So that leaves either tearing down these institutions as they currently exist and replacing them with a new model, eliminating CBs altogether with a new monetary system or changing the nature of the current monetary system through perhaps class actions, lawsuits or ? to something that would get the job of dividing up the human economy and its surplus on a more shared basis however that would be done.

    With the actual form of monetary exchange on the cusp of technological transformation and with the greater majority of people not even aware of monetary theory, or how the system harvests the human economy of the many for the few on an on going basis the very first step is education. I try to distribute Guinness’ and Brandon Smith’s (Alt Market blog) writings as far and wide as possible. Henry Ford, controversial as he was said it best…”It is well enough that the people do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if hey did I believe there would be revolution before morning.”

    Good luck out there.


  5. Polemically:

    It often takes me a few days of meditation to apply the information or notions you present to my own understanding , the above being no exception. That is not because own existing picture does not include knowledge of the above directions, but because your message is very focused and therefore allows the rest to reassemble with respect to it. That is just to say “kudos”.

    In principle more direct access to money services and base money should be of benefit to the individual, that if we prematurely assume that cash will be maintained due to its primary reference and utility, and that parallel unofficial monetary systems would be allowed to exist unhindered – national central banks do not have any honest obvious reason to monopolise digital currency apart for purposes of extraction, which widely judging by their spending to gdp ratio by whatever method, i.e. debt or taxation, they clearly are more than on a roll aiming for social control.

    The argument proposed and fought with by socialist trends is with regard to the concentration of power, leverage and profit allowed to the banking community in its use of money, due to frl ability and connection to central bank policymaking. The argument goes that this form of capitalism is unjust, and that it is creating a globalist elite. Therefore centralised financial/economic management and reduction of commercial banking is to be sought after . This has a grain of truth to it, but is very far from the whole truth and in fact crony capitalism is able to be understood as a socialist corruption where the communal value of money is manipulated, in other words it starts with a social (government fiat money “creation”) origin. Austrian economists are targeted as shills to this system because they apply base human behaviour where money is considered own property and true resource, extending from barter to mercantilist view of economy. This primacy of earnt individual ownership is simply hated by socialists and mmt theorists, using the corrupted/hybrid form of capitalism we now have as “proof”. It would be merely sad to see such a misunderstanding propagated if it were not for the fact that this theory is being used to try to destroy any existing basic capitalist order, or worse still to deny the knowledge of capitalist theory so as to brush over the corrupted picture of capitalism that socialism represents and is.

    The other side to the argument ( as partly mentioned above) is that modern fiat is actually product of socialism, in terms of central bank assets being largely public spending in the form of debt, in terms of public spending being a common counterclical endeavour that is politically motivated, all the way to an evident permanent “cycle” of Japanification, or US low rate trap , or ECB economic consumption of any pre-existing European political order. The latest theory being pushed by Hudsonite mmt crowds is his theory that money actually originated as debt, that that debt should therefore be managed by government because that debt is an impersonal communal creation as expressed in some ancient hierarchy. Being so, the view is government should control that communal reality, basically and directly, via the supply of money. He bases his theory by selective historical interpretations, his peculiarly unpunished first-hand revelation of government corruption has won him a kind of anti-empire cult status, a socialist one though that seems to speak for the globalist left.

    So where does this all lead to ? Does it mean peoole might look forward to a true capitalist environment with respect for private property, using a modern efficient form of hard or open market money, of open market financial service? Does it mean that money supply will become centralised, controlled, and socially distributed with no means for free individual endeavour allowed ?

    To answer these questions means paying attention to how societies are being directed or molded at the moment, watching what ideology policy lines are taking, studying the interaction between state capitalist systems like China and try to discern if there is a global convergence planned. That means also understanding that existing apparent disputes may be no more than theater.

    Deeper still is the reconciliation of our own very personal interpretation of economic or material fairness. That is to say is faith in the good nature of others and society as a whole enough to support a true capitalist system, where competitive monopoly is balanced out by common sense and consideration, or simply by lack of the tools that are currently used to build excessive monopoly? Might the existing distortions, historical injustice and claims, somehow evolve positively without monetary intervention, or by transparent legal means only?

    Or are we basically in some eternal competitive trap that will endlessly lead to repeats of the same kinds of endeavour at supremacy, whether sponsored by alpha primed action or beta flacid invitation, where some empty scientific hybrid parades its own disgusted uselessness as alternative for whatever that might ensnare ?


    • I read your comment with great interest and with the many questions you raised also posing lines of inquiry of equal interest. I’ll not get into a long discussion here but would like to share a link that I think you might find equally interesting as it comes from a similar type of equivalent to Steven Guinness in the person of Brandon Smith. So Smith’s take is from a North American perspective of where the financial world and its entourage of humanity is being led.



      • To Brad

        Thank you for that. i am familiar with Brandon Smith’s work, and have read that article also, but it is good you link it. Narcopathic governance is a must understand that I now systematically cross check any external influence for. Very hard own experiences with regard to.

        The wider concepts we are looking at are a truly vast theme or panorama, it is very hard to discuss them objectively, to me it is more a question of trying to build a clearer picture from a mosaic of perceptions or realities, gradually the view becomes more refined, for the purpose of remaining vigilant if nothing else.

        Best regards.


      • Re, Yes the shear scale of operations across so many fronts and levels within fronts, each incrementally and sequentially coordinated while taking error conditions into account is both fascinating to watch and hideous in a contemplation of goals.


    • I thought it would be sensible to explain my association of mercantilism with Austrian economics, because the definition is always contested. Mercantile etymologicaly means of the markets, so the root definition of mercantilism is of that which is to do with, allows or allows the benefit of, encourages, the market, or more simply trade. Adam Smith who is said to have, maybe indirectly, originated the term spoke of “mercantile system”. This later was denoted a political economic label that seems to have stuck, basically of empire minded gold hoarding feudal nations exploiting all within reach. That interpretation would be funny if it were not for the confusion and misrepresentation sown. So here is a slightly more thoughtful deconstruction of the setting and evolution of the labeling of the concept.


      Though I am not familiar with the work of the author in thst link, or his stance, I have the impression of socialist leaning maybe, which ironically might actually lend more weight to the sincerity of the interpretation due to there being little appetite there for excusing anything that can be represented as capitalist monopoly. Please correct me on that though.

      So, in Austrian economics, and I certainly don’t speak as outright authority, the notion presented is of true and fair representation of any endeavour in an economic setting, including human nature as a basis. Trade, which is mercantile, is encouraged for what it is, for the benefit it brings. Capital formation, the right to profit from the use of capital, is also respected. Some have an obsession with gold , financial manipulation, nationalism – but this is not the basic meaning. Capital starts with own labour, organisation, physical resource and productivity. Here the wanted distribution of property often clashes with historical allocation, class repartition, cultural norm, political hierarchy, and so forth, basically anything that can be considered legacy or tradition even. These are topics that economics will not resolve, might only help to guide in terms of pointing out some of the direction of human nature.

      Austrian economics therefore does encourage a market system of trade, a capitalist approach – because it is a very natural and fair evolution of incentives.

      It therefore can be said to be mercantilist. However, the extension of private, say household, economic management as intermediary from individual to national economy, has to confront the above wider realities of society and world attitude, so mercantilism at national level will have very different attributes to a household shrewdly saving and seeking to maximise profit by deft organisation, which is after all done in the name of security or efficiency, not simply to count pieces of gold into the night. Nor does national mercantilism need denote interventionist policy, though that is what it has often come to mean – a person may choose to balance his private trade how he likes without ever being called interventionist, a nation not?

      So we have a “lost in translation event” involving the extension of private economy and trade to the national version, and it is for anyone to try to discern the whys and wherefores of that.

      Maybe I should not have used the term mercantile, but then I did label the comment as polemical, and it would not seem fair to approach modern economic and political reality with one very important facet of its existence condemned eternally to a corner where anything remotely associated is also sent and not to be heard of again.


  6. The henchmen at the BIS who prophecy their intent in “The Economist” rag offered up their intent in 1988 to be cashless within 30 years:
    The next crisis that is now well underway will pave the way to blame the evils of cash for the suffering of the masses so they can fully implement their ability to control who buys and sells in their system. Now where have we heard of such a system being prophesied before? Ah yes here is a 2000 year old claim that seems very plausible in the months and at most a few years ahead:
    Revelation 13:16-17 And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that they give them a mark on their: right: hand or upon their: forehead; (17) and that no one be able to buy or sell, save who hath the mark, the name of the beast or the number of his: name.
    So once the system goes completely digital(cashless) and a person is then required to give their biometric identity uniquely found in each persons hand or eye to access that system then a 2000 year old prophecy is fulfilled!
    Add to this the famine thast is coming along with the peace being taken from the earth and you have the necessary ingredients for all that is prophesied in that ancient book:


  7. @Brad

    I was also reading Brandon Smith’s Alt Market Blog for a while, but I now propagate and recommended only Steven Guiness. David Haggith’s Great Recession Blog and Wolf Richter’s Wolf Street are also worth to be read but have a more limited focus on the Fed and the economy in general, but miss out the much more important topic of the monetary system as a whole under the rule of the BIS (of which the Fed is only a part), its reformation, the advent of digital currencies, etc.

    Brandon Smith however, while he has some contributing inputs on these matters, first and foremost is not a person of integrity, and yes this matters when we accuse the globalists of what they do. There is a very old spiritual wisdom that says the sin you accuse somebody to commit, is exactly your own sin.

    Brandon does not omit in every post to accuse the globalists of being narcissists and sociopaths.
    While he deletes every comment that is not a question or does not sound like “WOW! What an article! I have forwarded it to 50+ already.”
    He doesn’t allow any discussion that differs, even slightly, from his view.
    This is a far worse censorship than even Google or FB apply.
    It is the behaviour of a full-blown narcissist. And it is not how any movement can proceed, because progress is made by putting the heads together and exchange with other people.
    Brandon blocks this exchange to happen, and this is because his intention of running his blog is not helping the community to proceed, but to please his narcissism with ‘Likes’.


    • I read your comment with interest but will take it with a grain of salt as I have no personal experience with narcissist behaviour from Smith. Any verifiable evidence? I’ve seen him debate with those commenting over the content of his posting and have never heard any criticism of his ever moderating viable comments from his site. Including recently a debate with a digital currency advocate on his site. I also don’t care what his personality characteristics are and would certainly not try to diagnose such through a web site and comment section such as his. For all I know Guinness could be cut from the same accusatory cloth but this would not change the value of the information and opinion he shares with his readers. The other two you mention are also good sources of information if more trees than forest overview. I’ll give you that I’m not particularly enthralled with who Smith has allowed by lines to flesh out his site of recent… as controlled COINTELPRO assets imo.

      In a time when twenty odd TRILLION USD (FRN) can wash through the American federal government budget, coming from and going to who knows where I am finding it more difficult to apply any sort of economic theory to a system devoid of any. Devoid of any other than fascist concepts wherein allies are defrauded, enemies plundered by any workable means while worth while assets are stolen out the back door and handed to friends and personally controlled holding companies. This type of mystery money phenomena was first noted in the aftermath of the 2008 event when several tranches (three if I remember correctly of five Trillion USD each) transited through the RBS, again coming from and going to who knows where. ‘Investigated’ by the House of Lords with no results I ever herd of. There is of course much bigger things at play than any argument over which economic theory would better express the problem and offer a solution when the monetary system is owned by a mafiacracy, with nation states acting as mere cutouts.

      Best regards S.A.


  8. @Brad

    Evidence can be found for example here: http://www.alt-market.com/index.php/articles/3879-this-is-the-same-pattern-the-fed-followed-before-the-great-depression

    User with nickname Paulo Vaz writes:

    “Brandon, did you read about the thesis of swiss anonimous posted as comment in the other article ? He talked about a currency crisis not in stock market. Now the comment is missing. Can you elaborate about that (crash in currency, USD, not stock market crash). regards.”

    Good question… Where is that comment gone? Must have been a contributing comment, if other users ask to continue the discussion of that thought. I estimate the Brandon-Algorithm deletes about 50% of the comments.

    Yes, he allows also comments that criticize him, but only to answer them in a demeaning way, making the writer looking ridiculous, naive, and stupid. And in this case, there will never be allowed an answer to his answer.

    So this is the second evidence of Brandons narcissism: the language he uses to answer comments that differ from his opinion. From the same post, Brandon answers a user:

    “When you pigeon hole people’s analysis with broad assumptions I suppose it helps you to avoid harsh realities and remain happily ignorant. If that’s what you you need to get through your day then I suppose I feel sorry for you.”

    This is a breach of every journalistic code of conduct. If a journalist of a newspaper was ever to answer a reader’s comment in this way, he would be laid off immediately. It absolutely doesn’t matter what the user wrote, which opinion he advocated. You cannot be offensive never in your language.

    And let’s give a third evidence, same post again. A user proposed, to be sarcastic (hopefully he didn’t believe that but you never know), that the Fed conducted the .25 bp cut to counter Brandons call for not cutting.
    Brandon’s answer:

    “If that was their goal, then they only helped me out with Powell’s statement afterwards. He basically vindicated my entire position. I do believe that the banking elites shift their strategies from time to time if one strategy becomes too exposed or obvious, but I don’t think the .25 cut was just for me.”

    How humble. It was not just for Brandon (one could be tempted to believe he seriously elaborated the thought). It was only partially for Brandon.

    If a blogger of such a small site comes to the result, the Fed took his writings into consideration while discussing the rate decision, I can tell you this is absolutely not ridiculous. I mean of course this thought is ridiculous, but it is not that one can come to the point to believe that.

    This is called a spiritual condition named ‘Prelest’ and it is not rare at all. On the contrary, nowadays, it is a very common phenomenon. It describes the condition, when one trusts only his own thoughts, and does not consider anything else (take flat earthers). The enemy (the devil), as is not stupid, can use, now pay attention to this, very correct views in the beginning to promote to the attacked. Only to catch him later as he looses his humility in the process, because the correct views brings him praise from sophisticated people, academics, etc.

    There is one example of a monk fallen into Prelest, which could ‘from memory’ recite (by the help of demons but of course he didn’t accept that) the whole Bible.
    This is an extreme example of the enemy using good, correct things to fight a person which is unprepared for such an attack.

    This is why we must never forget what the only goal of life is, independent of wether you are an academic or a cleaner: To achieve pureness of the heart and humility.

    If you miss this, you lost all the effort of your life, even if you appeared fighting on the ‘good’ side against the ‘evil’ ones.

    That’s why i criticize following people like Brandon. At the end, you will see, they lead you into the abyss.
    You can loose a marathon very well in the last 100 meters.

    If we want to fight the globalists, we need people of integrity, and integrity is even more important than the absolute correct view. Because the latter can be changed by putting heads together. The first is very hardly changed, if at all.


    • Hello again S.A., Hope all is well in your baliwick. You make some very compelling points and I knew it would be your comment that was dropped. We’ve all been there on activist sites. I’ve had comments ‘waiting for moderation’ and then dropped while citing economic data taken off the internet but likely for questioning the cost price net of criminal black market operations to this nation’s GDP and raising the question of what the possible costs to a positive balance of payments boycotts, divestment and sanctions might have on that balance. Poof. Gone from a very well know site known for being edgy. Like you I no longer frequent that site even though it still provides some value to some readers.

      I doubt Smith is so delusional he thinks the Fed is concerned with his take on things monetary and context may have been missed in that reply. Sometimes when doing sarcasm one has to actually write the word at the end of a comment.

      Gottcha on the Prelest. I agree that the fight against repression is as much a spiritual one as worldly. I am a firm believer in Natural Law and Natural Rights which encompasses the non aggression and self defense principles. Not being a prefect human I am always reluctant to throw the first stone. That said I will take your warning under consideration and will have my antennae dialed more so to detect any purposeful misdirection, obfuscation or propaganda coming from Smith……Regards and thanks for the heads up, Brad


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.