All that this says is: “Germany – don’t you dare to cooperate with Russia – in any possible way”.

Because: We – the Illuminati – want to install world control by a global currency and Russia and Iran is “in the way” – because they have a currency backed by natural resources.

Second: within the current monetary system there are like a million loopholes and ways to cheat – and every day the “hackers” from the City of London sit together and try to find new ones – and they do.

Why is that so?

Because no matter east or west – BigBanks & BigCompanies & your Government & the Mafia sit down for a cappuccino daily and say “look – i have this and that money – don’t ask from where – how can i keep it?”

So they joint forces to cheat on you – the stupid average guy taxed to the max until collapse – who cares about sustainability in those circles? Maybe 1% – but not more.

This is like a corruption or cheating-competition.

Who cheats better wins. I can complain here in this blog about it… while not being able to change much – before a collapse.

German Russian cooperation at it’s best – Ain’t it great? Germany provides the creative solution – Russia the resources. 😀

I bet with you that Banks from London and USA did the exactly same thing – and did not get a fine 😀 but probably stopped for GeoPolitical / GeoEconomical / Illuminati reasons – otherwise they probably would get killed by some Illuminati-Member-and-CIA-Agent.

“One company which has been feeling US law enforcement’s interest in corruption is Deutsche Bank.

This week the company has been given

a fine by US and UK authorities of over $600m for helping to launder over $10bn.

The scheme worked on a system called mirror trading.

The company allowed clients in Russia to buy stocks in Rubles and then immediately sell them in London.

This allowed people to transfer money out of Russia and convert it into dollars without the individual in question making an international transfer.

As a statement by the UK financial watchdog said:

“The purpose of the mirror trades was the conversion of Rubles into US Dollars and the covert transfer of those funds out of Russia, which is highly suggestive of financial crime,”



Should Cash be Abolished?

my clear answer to this is: NO. NO WAY!

This would prepare the path for some hidden elite to take over the world.

“Ordo Ab Chao” – Order out of Chaos – first the Chaos then (OUR) Order… Illuminati Credo.

“They” the hidden “elites” and their speakers always argue with how efficiency and secure the world would become – how much jobs this would create… the alternative is Illuminati-Induced Chaos.

We need biodiversity – multiple currencies in the same country with different rules of play and purpose. Not world dominating idiots fear-mongering us into one crisis after the other.

Tags Money and BanksMonetary TheoryMoney and Banking


At the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, Joseph Stiglitz  the Nobel Prize-winning economist argued in favor of phasing out currency and moving toward a digital economy.

The view expressed by Stiglitz is similar to that of former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff who has been arguing for many years that there is an urgent need to remove cash from the economy. It is held that cash provides support to the shadow economy and permits tax evasion. Some estimates suggest this could be up to $700 billion in the US.

The Governor of the Bank of England — Mark Carney — has expressed similar views in support of the removal of cash.

“Carney began his career at Goldman Sachs before joining the Canadian Department of Finance. He then served as the Governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 until 2013, when he moved to his current post at the Bank of England. He intends to serve in this role until June 2019.[3]”

Yet another justification for its removal is that in times of economic shocks, which push the economy into recession, the run for cash exacerbates the downturn — i.e., it becomes a factor contributing to economic instability by facilitating a cash-induced savings surge rather than an increase in demand.

Other arguments go further, including the position that in the modern world most transactions can be settled by means of electronic funds transfer. Money in the modern world is an abstraction, or so it is held.

But is it true that money is an abstraction?

The Emergence of Money

Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit might not have been able to find a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not have been able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit.

The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved as being the most marketable commodity.

On this Mises wrote,

There would be an inevitable tendency for the less marketable of the series of goods used as media of exchange to be one by one rejected until at last only a single commodity remained, which was universally employed as a medium of exchange; in a word, money.1

Similarly, Rothbard wrote that,

Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. It is clear that in every society, the most marketable goods will be gradually selected as the media for exchange. As they are more and more selected as media, the demand for them increases because of this use, and so they become even more marketable. The result is a reinforcing spiral: more marketability causes wider use as a medium which causes more marketability, etc. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media — in almost all exchanges — and these are called money.2

Since this general medium of exchange emerges from among a potentially wide range of commodities, money is, as such, a commodity.

According to Rothbard,

Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.3

Moreover, according to Mises, “an object cannot be used as money unless, at the moment when its use as money begins, it already possesses an objective exchange value based on some other use”4

Why? According to Rothbard:

In contrast to directly used consumers’ or producers’ goods, money must have pre-existing prices on which to ground a demand. But the only way this can happen is by beginning with a useful commodity under barter, and then adding demand for a medium to the previous demand for direct use (e.g., for ornaments, in the case of gold).5

In short, money is that for which all other goods and services are traded. This fundamental characteristic of money must be contrasted with those of other goods. For instance, food supplies the necessary energy to human beings, while capital goods permit the expansion of infrastructure that in turn permits the production of a larger quantity of goods and services.

Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, people settled on gold as money — gold served as the monetary standard. In today’s monetary system, the core of the money supply is no longer gold but coins and notes issued by the government and the central bank. Consequently, coins and notes constitute the standard money, known as cash, that is employed in transactions. Goods and services are sold for cash.

At any point in time individuals can keep their money either in their wallets, under their mattresses, in a safe deposit box or stored — deposited — in banks. In depositing money, a person never relinquishes ownership. No one else is expected to make use of it. When Joe stores his money with a bank, he continues to have an unlimited claim against it and is entitled to take charge of it at any time. Consequently these deposits, labeled demand deposits, form part of money.

At any point in time part of the stock of cash is stored, that is, deposited, in banks.

Thus if, in an economy, people hold $10,000 in cash, then the money supply of this economy is $10,000. But if some individuals have stored $2,000 in demand deposits the total money supply will remain $10,000: $8,000 cash and $2,000 in demand deposits with banks. Should all individuals deposit their entire stock of cash in banks then the total money supply would remain $10,000 — all of it held as demand deposits.

This must be contrasted with a credit transaction. Credit always involves the creditor’s purchase of a future good in exchange for a present good. As a result, in a credit transaction, money is transferred from a lender to a borrower. Such transactions include savings deposits. These are in fact loans to the bank. With these deposits the lender of money (the depositor) relinquishes to the bank his claim over the money for the duration of the loan. These simple credit transactions, however, — i.e., loans which are not created by the banks as multiples of funds on deposit — do not alter the amount of money in the economy. If Bob lends $1,000 to Joe, the money is transferred from Bob’s demand deposit or from Bob’s wallet to Joe’s possession.

These savings deposits — to be contrasted with demand deposits — therefore should not be included as money.

The Digitization of Money

Does the digitization of money change this?

Electronic money is not money as such but a particular way of using existing money. For instance, by means of electronic devices Bob can transfer his $1,000 to Joe. He could also transfer the $1,000 by means of a check written against his deposit in Bank A. Joe in turn will now place the check with his bank, say, Bank B. After the clearance, the money will be transferred from Bob’s account to Joe’s demand deposit in Bank B.

Note that all these transfers, either electronically or by means of checks, could take place because the $1,000 in cash physically exists. Without the existence of the $1,000 nothing could be transferred.

Now, if Bob pays for his groceries with a credit card he in fact borrows from the credit card company such as MasterCard. For instance, if he buys $100 worth of groceries using MasterCard, then MasterCard pays the grocer $100. Bob, in turn, after one month or earlier repays his debt to MasterCard in whole or part. Again, all this could not have happened without the existence of cash. After all, what exactly has been transferred?

The fact that cash per se was not used in the above example doesn’t mean that we don’t require it any longer. On the contrary, the fact that it exists enables various forms of transactions to take place via sophisticated forms of technology such as electronic or digital transfers. These various forms of transfer are not money as such but simply a particular way of moving money. The underlying commodity being used as the medium of exchange is still cash — just the means of transferring that cash is different in a digital world.

RELATED: “Will Eliminating Cash Save the Economy?

Importantly, the digitization of the process of transferring money has been conflated in popular usage with “digital money.” As the above logic demonstrates, they are two different things.

The Removal of Money — the Case of India

Any attempt to totally remove cash — i.e., money — implies the destruction of the medium of exchange and, ultimately, the market economy. The recent experiment in India to remove large denomination notes has caused serious havoc. Toward the end of last year Prime Minister Modi surprised his country by announcing the banning of 500 and 1,000 rupee notes, with some estimating that around 86 percent of all cash in circulation in India was no longer considered as legal tender.

Any policy directed at phasing out cash in order to stop the shadow economy has the effect of preventing individuals from employing their economy’s medium of exchange. This, however, is unlikely to succeed as individuals will always find various other goods or services to serve as money.

If legal tender notes were to be banned then people would simply use something else. The argument that removing cash will eliminate tax evasion and crime is doubtful. Tax evasion would be reduced if the incentives for it — high taxes based on big government — were removed.

But what of the claim that the existence of cash allows “panic withdrawal” during economic crises which therefore exacerbates those crises?

The fact that during an economic crisis people run to withdraw their money indicates that they have lost faith in the banking system — perhaps for good reasons — and would like to have their money back. The recent Greek “debt crisis” is a textbook example, and indeed bank depositors were quite correct in their assessment of the state of their banks.

Here it is necessary to consider the multiplication of “money” in a modern, fractional reserve banking system. In the modern world, banks are allowed — indeed encouraged — to lend multiples of funds on deposit, i.e., create money out of nothing. When this happens it is indeed likely that a mass withdrawal of cash deposits can result in a magnified effect on the economy through forced shrinkage in the credit system and the resulting collapse of the economic activities that relied on that artificially created money.

What is important to note, however, is that the problem in this case is not the existence of cash but rather the artificial creation of additional money by the commercial banks through fractional reserve lending — mostly with the support of governments. Cash doesn’t cause crises — central bank-enabled fractional reserve lending does.


Irrespective of the level of technological advancement of the economy, the essence of money can never change — it is that against which we exchange goods and services. It is only the (erroneous) definition of money as an empty abstraction that makes it possible to conclude that cash can be phased out of the economy with some hypothetical benefits. This is, in effect, what Stiglitz was suggesting in Davos.

There are other issues associated with the digitization of money flows which warrant comment.

First, there is the problem that the mandatory switch from physical money to money held as deposits within banks will deprive people of the privacy they may wish in the allocation of their financial resources.

Second, once all cash is transferred to the banking system, there is the real risk that control over that money is progressively ceded to that system and to the governments which thrive upon it. Political or consumption activities that are unpopular with government and/or commercial interests — especially in an environment of growing powers of the “security state” — could result in retributive action via restrictions on access to those monetary balances.

Third, in a purely digital world it would be impossible to withdraw physical money should people believe that their bank (or the banking system as a whole) was at risk of collapse. This could potentially lock people on board a sinking ship, or at least remove the ability of people to make their own judgments and vote with their monetary feet.

The compulsory switch to purely digital cash could well become yet another facet of the growing tendency toward the further centralization of state power and the decline in individual liberty.

Frank Shostak‘s consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments of financial markets and global economies. Contact: email.

  • 1. Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Classics, 1980), p. 45.
  • 2. Murray N. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money? (Novato, Calif.: Libertarian Publishers, 1963), p. 3.
  • 3. Ibid., pp. 27–28.
  • 4. Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 131.
  • 5. Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?, p. 9.


The European Union Sues RJR Tobacco for Two Decades of Global Money Laundering for Colombian Drug Lords, Russian Mafia, Italian Mafia, Saddam Hussein’s Family & New York Real Estate Investors.
By Catherine Austin Fitts

The European Union’s Lawsuit

If you are on a limited entertainment budget, have no fear. The legal complaint for the European Union’s lawsuit, filed on October 31, 2002 in the Eastern District of New York, US, against the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is available on line and is better than the latest James Bond movie or Tom Clancy novel. You don’t want to miss this primer on the corporate money laundering worldwide brought to you on behalf of ten sovereign nations of Europe (Finland, Germany, Sweden, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Spain, no doubt, with the help of their law enforcement and intelligence agencies).

Here it is:


mirror of html version:

ADOBE PDF – -> was taken down:


mirror2: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NEW YORK EUROPEAN COMMUNITY – Money-Laundering Narcotics Trafficking Links Between Europe The United States Russia and Colombia – 02cv5771cmp.pdf

acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the
MEMBER STATES it has power to represent, and the
Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Finland,
French Republic, Hellenic Republic,
Federal Republic of Germany, Italian Republic,
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
Portuguese Republic, and
Kingdom of Spain, individually,
– against –

For those who want the real short version, here is the EU’s press release of October 31, 2002 announcing the filing of their suit:

Who is RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings (RJR)?

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings (RJR) is the holding company for the second largest tobacco company in the US, manufacturing and distributing Camel, Winston, Salem, Doral and other cigarettes. RJR, headquartered in North Carolina, claims to manufacture one out of every four cigarettes in the US.

The Complaint also names Nabisco Group Holdings, makers of Oreo cookies and numerous other consumer food products, which spun RJR out several years ago (that is Nabisco and RJR were one company until they split into two companies) and is now part of Kraft Foods, which also owns Philip Morris.

If what the EU says is true, every time you buy a pack of Winston cigarettes or a bag of Oreo cookies, you are voting with your money in the market for organized crime.

The First RJR Takeover War

This story has personal meaning to me. I was a partner and member of the board of directors at Dillon, Read & Co. Inc on Wall Street during the 1980’s. Dillon Read represented the RJR board during the famous takeover war in which Henry Kravis emerged as the lead investor for the takeover of RJR. The fight was so ugly that it resulted in a book and movie about the RJR “takeover war”. The Dillon partner involved in leading our role in the transaction left the firm and started a tree farm in rural Virginia — we all had the distinct feeling that the RJR transaction had helped inspire him to want to get himself, his family and his assets as far away from Wall Street as possible.

At the time, I could not figure out how Kravis and his leveraged buyout firm, KKR, could afford to pay the winning bid for RJR. I remember we would watch the price go up and up and say, “What’s that about?” Later, as I read news reports that KKR was successful paying down the incredible debt load assumed by RJR to pay for the KKR bid, we would wonder, “How? How are they coming up with the cash?”

Well, many years later, if their allegations are true, the European Union has solved the mystery. KKR was paying for one of the premier global corporate money laundering networks — and that money-laundering network was paying down the KKR debt. The RJR Takeover War was an Organized Crime Fight.


Is This Part of the Currency Wars?

In my various articles about the addiction of our economy and the stock market to organized crime profits and money laundering (See “Narco Dollars for Beginners” & “The Myth of the Rule of Law”), I have written that the real mission of the Department of Justice and the US enforcement and intelligence agencies is the “control and concentration of cash.” That is, they are not trying to stop money laundering, rather ensuring that the US leadership and control of money laundering grows. The goal is to ensure that global money laundering and its reinvestment goes through our bank accounts and corporate stocks. J

John Laughland and other observers of the European Union have noted the EU’s role as also the “control and concentration of cash.” With the competition between the dollar and Euro underway, is RJR’s use of cigarettes for money laundering part of the larger competition between the two trading blocs? Is the competition between dollars and Euros squeezing out cigarettes as currency?


RJR’s Stock Trades on the NYSE

RJR’s stock is traded on the NYSE. Here is the disclosure from their website:

Common shares of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. are traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the RJR ticker symbol. Information in this section includes recent and historical stock data, earnings and dividend news as well as direct access to SEC filings.

The stock traded up a bit after the lawsuit was filled on October 31, 2002. This is commensurate with the trading patterns on the Bank of New York’s stock when it was announced that they were laundering money for the Russian mob. Is this a sign that investors respond positively to a corporation that engages in money laundering and gets away with it?

When it comes to your own 401(k) or oversight of your company or organization pension fund, this is a stock you might want to ensure gets sold. Do you want your personal savings and your retirement invested in increasing the power and compensation of people who are helping to hook your kids on cigarettes and drugs? Lest you think they are profitable, think about what this is costing you in tax dollars and personal expenses from living in a sea of crime.

If what the EU says is true, this is a stock to dump.

Richard Grasso & the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) — Money Laundering ‘R Us

Lest you think the ten sovereign nations are being farfetched in their accusations, let’s look at one incident that is symptomatic of what has been going on at the NYSE. In 1999, I wrote a story called “The Ultimate New Business Cold Call” about Richard Grasso, Chairman of the NYSE Exchange, traveling to Colombia to meet with FARC Commanders to encourage them to reinvest their money in the US stock market and banks. That same week, the General Accounting Office of the US Congress issued a report saying that the FARC now controlled 40% of the Colombian cocaine market. I presume that Grasso’s trip was not successful which is why US taxpayers are now paying for Plan Colombia to ensure that the likes of Citibank and Merrill Lynch can grow their market share for the “control and concentration of cash” in Latin America.

Lest you think I am making this up up, here is a picture of Richard Grasso, Chairman of the NYSE, hugging
a FARC Commander and his rifle in 1999:

Richard Grasso is recently in the news involved in another corporate fraud. Here is an excerpt from this week’s
International Forecaster weekly market report by Bob Chapman:

“As we predicted the criminal investigation of Computer Associates has intensified with many subpoenas being issued. Charles B. Wang, the founder, has recently resigned. We expect criminal charges. Richard Grasso, Chairman of the NYSE, was a director of CA while all the crimes were taking place. We went short at $36.00 and covered at $18.43, went short gain at $18.00 with no cover. The stock traded at $14.88 on 2/21/02.”

What this means is that the people who are supposed to be overseeing the stock market and making sure that NYSE listed companies like RJR are not engaged in criminal money laundering are busy pursuing money laundering opportunities for NYSE listed companies and profiting from stock market fraud.

As I said recently to a Congressman at a town hall meeting who was talking about the War on Drugs, “How are our children supposed to say no when the Chairman of the NYSE is saying yes with a full body hug?”


Ask the RJR Board of Directors and Senior Management if They Feel That Children
Should “Just Say No”

The same could be said for the board of directors and senior management of RJR. To review a list of the board and management as well as full disclosure on their rich compensation — money laundering must pay well—here is a link to their latest proxy filing at the SEC:

The corporate address is there as well. If you feel that narcotics trafficking and the War on Drugs is a drain on your family, your community and your business, please feel free to send the members of the board and senior management a letter telling them how much you appreciate their help in bringing these expenses into your life. Better yet, why not make sure you and your neighbors express yourself by boycotting their products and selling their stock?

If you happen to live next door to any of them, feel free to tell them how you feel.


Lawyers – Making Money Laundering Sing

One of my favorite parts of this complaint is the description of a meeting in 1978 of the Committee of Counsel of The Tobacco Institute, including RJR’s general counsel and several law firms representing other tobacco companies, including the very prestigious Washington law firm, Arnold & Porter, and the New York law firm, Paul Weiss. Not included is my nominee for the mother law firm of all money laundering, Sullivan & Cromwell, but I will bet they show up in this story before it is over.

One of my favorite money laundering stories is told by Christopher Simpson, in his marvelous book Blowback, of the Dulles brothers starting the first Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) slush fund operation. The ESF is a fund run by the NY Fed for the US Treasury. This first operation, run from the Sullivan & Cromwell law offices, used monies seized by the Nazis from Jewish victims and then seized by us (and not returned to the victims), to rig the Italian elections for the conservatives at the request of the Vatican.

I have found that the attorney client privilege is part of the essential train tracks over which money laundering operates. Hence it is not surprising to read the EU’s allegation that a group of law firms organized a global money-laundering scheme through the auspices of an industry association committee of lawyers. This tracks my intuition regarding the counsel committees for real estate, tax and bar associations that I observed as the Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration.

Arnold & Porter is of particular interest. Their former managing partner, Jerry Hawke, as Undersecretary of Domestic Finance and Comptroller of the Currency, has presided over the most fiscally irresponsible bubble in federal credit in the history of the US, been responsible for federal accounts missing $3.3 trillion and counting and numerous banking scams such as Enron, the derivatives bubble and the rigging of the gold markets.

I started to learn about Jerry, when I spent several years watching his son fabricate allegations against me and my company, all part of a successful effort to run the honest officials and financial advisors out of HUD, so that Jerry and his network could feed at the trough. The year after we were fired, HUD announced that they were missing $59 billion and refused to produce audited financial statements.

If Richard Grasso is hugging FARC Commanders and leading corporations are laundering money with the Russian mob and Hussein’s son, I can only guess what Jerry Hawke’s real responsibilities have been in running the US domestic credit and accounts and them banking regulation. I dare say it has something to do with the “control and concentration of cash.”

The Accountants — In on the Deal?

RJR’s auditors are KPMG. If the EU’s allegations are correct, it is highly likely that KPMG is part of this deal. The RJR proxy filed with the SEC shows that RJR paid KPMG $2.3MM for the last year of audit fees and consulting services.

If you want to know how badly the books are cooked at HUD, KMPG is the firm that would not give HUD a clean audit opinion in fiscal 1999 when the $59 billion was missing.

HUD and RJR is a lot of a liability for one accounting firm to handle. After Arthur Anderson, KPMG is an accounting firm to wonder about.

The Investors — Making Stock Market Profits

According to the 2002 RJR Proxy, the following investors are the largest holders of RJR stock with more than a 5% ownership position.

Investor # of Shares % of Total

Capital Research and Management Company 14,328,330 15.4%
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071

FMR Corp. 12,554,713 13.5%
82 Devonshire Street
Boston, MA 02109

Ross Financial Corporation 9,261,803 10.0%
P. O. Box 31363-SMB
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, B.W.I.

Wellington Management Company, LLP 5,600,129 6.0%
75 State Street
Boston, MA 02109

Another thing you can do to express your feelings about the cost to you and your family of narcotics trafficking and the War on Drugs in your neighborhood is to pull your investments out of mutual funds or other investment pools run by these companies — and send them a letter saying you would rather earn stock market profits from companies that do not lose you more in tax dollars and other hidden costs — let alone your children’s health and lives.

Real Estate — NY Real Estate Industry & Narcotics Trafficking

Another part of the complaint that I find fascinating is a brief reference to the reinvestment of narcotics trafficking profits — laundered with cigarettes – being invested in millions of real estate within the Eastern District of New York. I am reminded of the story of Ricky Ross, the dealer who led the crack cocaine explosion in South Central LA. He complained to his Iran-Contra wholesaler that he did not know what to do with so much cash — he had a stash in the millions under his bed and it was growing. His wholesaler said something to the effect of “don’t you know, you buy real estate.”

It would be interesting to see exactly who financed the exit of a generation of HUD developers out of their Section 8 tax shelters during the 1990’s, while Bob Rubin and his friends oversaw the “enforcement” at the US Treasury and the issuance by the US Treasury of generous new corporate tax credits for “low income” real estate.

Recommended Reads

If the EU complaint is something that inspires you to learn more about the impact of money laundering on our economy and our lives, here are some suggestions for more to read.

My favorite money laundering pulp fiction novel is Black Money by Michael Thomas.  For a more in depth non-fiction overview, try Hot Money and the Politics of Debt by RT Naylor.  To access a list of my articles, “Narco Dollars for Beginners” and “The Myth of the Rule of Law” on the impact of money laundering on our economy, go to the articles section of my Solari website. If you still want more, Narco Dollars has a longer bibliography at the end.

Yes, Virginia, There is a Conspiracy

The Department of Justice says that US money laundering is $500 billion to $1 trillion annually. That is a large high margin business. Financial flows this large must – by definition – be managed by the large banks and corporations. By definition, the profits will end up leveraged in the stock market.

For decades we have enjoyed the popular notion that black teenagers and Colombia drug lords have controlled these high margin businesses while the rich grew richer on the low margin businesses that were both legal and respectable. Obviously, such notions of reality defy financial “gravity” not to mention the laws of multiplication and compound interest. The European Union has laid out allegations of a criminal corporate conspiracy more amazing and exotic than any pulp fiction novel or Hollywood film has ever posited. And yet, as I read it, it resonates with the spirit of truth and everything I have observed about money laundering and the extent to which organized crime and warfare profits control what happens in government, in enforcement and even in the judiciary.

Rich corporate salaries and bonuses are happening for a reasons. Corporations are not just engaging in organized crime. They are leading it — and crime pays big. That can change the day that consumers and investors realize who is really behind the drugs and War on Drugs destroying our neighborhoods. Forget voting in the polls every two or four years. We chose in the market place every day with our money, our time and our attention. Want to withdraw your support from organized crime and government corruption? Sell your RJR stock and delete Oreo Cookies from your shopping list. Persuade your family and friends to do the same.

The moral of the story is that we should “just say no” to RJR-Nabisco and their investors.