Mencken’s Law: Whenever A annoys or injures B on the pretense of improving or saving X, A is a scoundrel. – courtesy of Captains America

This is the third of my articles responding to Karen Hudes, with background and documentation communicated in the first two’s titles:

Karen Hudes claims I’m a ‘Vatican agent’: here’s her evidence, and my counter-claim of the challenge to know comprehensive facts and allies for victory over .01% empire

Karen Hudes’ lies, unprofessionalism & threats = her unreliable testimony anywhere

This status is best communicated by my direct challenge to Karen to document her claims, at the least by providing a paper, and best addressed through a structured written debate with me.

Karen Hudes refused to provide any documentation to support her claims for only gold currency in Earth’s future economy.

My direct challenge to Karen and her responses via e-mail on December 8-9, 2015:


I challenge you to this and will hold you publicly accountable:

Please explain the process you see to your claim of gold backwardation and your capitalized consequences, and the future importance of using gold as money:

“Permanent gold backwardation MEANS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ALL STARVE AND ALL TRADE WILL CEASE if Vatican Agents like you manage to confound everyone before we take care of the Global Currency Reset….You are a Vatican agent because you are trying to confuse people when we have limited time to get the job done. You are a Vatican agent because you are working with other Vatican agents like Ellen Brown, all busy in the monetary field where the Network of Global Corporate Control likes to try and maintain its control.”

Here’s why I see this as a central point for professional and public scrutiny:

The history of Earth (known and recorded within those limitations) has been manipulated for people to serve as debt-slave work animals to the .01% monsters through banksters creating what we use for money as debt owed to them. This scam only worked with related control of political, media, and academic “leaders” in an Emperor’s New Clothes tragic-comedy play.

Those of us working for reforms who are willing and able to debate you right now factually assert a literal rich history of solutions using debt-free money for direct payment of public goods and services, and public banking for at-cost and in-house credit. If, and you are so correct that this is the key to avoid capture by the .01% monsters, this is done in total transparency and for full professional and public consideration as tools of positive and negative numbers to regulate value/supply of money (imagine this as a real-world ongoing economics course topic rather than most of the bullshit models), professionals can engage in the first time in history with good-faith work in the public issue of money.

Of course, this can only occur with arrests to stop ongoing lies in corporate media in elegant power of the conclusion of the Emperor’s New Clothes analogy: laughter, relief, and the beginning of honest solutions.

So, I challenge you for an answer, Karen. If you’ve done your homework to back your claim, you likely have work already established with this answer. I’m cc-ing my fellow “Vatican agent,” Ellen Brown (as you call us) because I’m concerned that you’re a front-person to herd the sheeple into a gold monetary system once either the current system collapses, or We the People win with disclosure of the .01% control system. Again, for the nth time, I assert the actors in our Earth opera are working with severe limitations of what we’re able to clearly see, and absolutely apologize in advance if you’re working in good-faith effort and dancing with the same challenges of disinformation we are!

This is an ongoing topic worth trillions, as you know, so it’s vital that the public have your best argument for gold as money. I’m going forward with my challenge. The ball’s in your court.

Finally, in hope you’ll empathize with my response to you, Karen: you publicly claimed I’m in the agency of evil, hinted for my fucking arrest in an Earth history where assassinations happen upon such hints, and refuse the professional respect you fully understand to address my actual work. To contrast what you did with an acceptable response, I imagine you could have said something like:

“Carl, I read your conference paper. Nice work to document the garden-variety crimes in war, money, and media. I have bigger fish to fry. Would you be so kind to alert your readers to my work? I looked you up with any mention of me. I see you reported in 2013 on an interview I did; thanks for that. Can you interview me for a full explanation of what I see, or repost my best shot with video???”

With all respect and intentions for your most virtuous response as best you can imagine, Carl


Carl, I am rushing and do not have time to deal with you, nor do I have any desire to.  You can just find someone else to interact with.  I am done with you.

Good bye.


Karen: you have zero prepared documents, previous articles, or anything to substantiate your claims to use only gold and how gold backwardation will cause everyone to starve and stop all trade??? I’ll take others’ work that agree with your position, if you wish.

I don’t believe you don’t have time to provide this when you have time to attack my work, but will go public with your response if that’s what you want the public to know about your argument.

Your call.

As for me, I don’t have anything more valuable to do with my time than working on tens of trillions worth of our dollars, and have both my lifetime of work and hundreds of years of our strongest historical minds already publicly communicated and available.

I support your strongest and most virtuous self-expression always, Carl


(no response for a day)


Ok, silence it is from you to do exactly what you say is most important: work for the ethical future of monetary economics in a forum of educated opinion leaders by simply documenting your policy proposal!

You initiated conversation with me, Karen, with a challenge that I publicly address your work. I have done so, and are you sure you wish to offer no documentation of your position, at least, and to do what those of us passionate and confident in our policies do: accept an invitation for debate?

I offer you opportunity for decency; printed in my last article:

Although I bet Karen takes the polar opposite response, these are my terms to forgive her:

  1. Either present evidence I’m a “Vatican agent” and “shill,” or withdraw the claim with an apology.
  2. Apologize for extensive criticism of my work while ignoring the one paper I provided best documenting my work.
  3. Either present evidence I’ve committed a crime subject for arrest, or withdraw a comment suggesting I’m subject for arrest with apology.
  4. Either present my text that I somehow accused you of working for the CIA and are corrupt, or withdraw your statement that I said that with apology.


your statements and mine are in the public record, and people are free to see who is spinning what.   I have repeated three times my request that you leave me in peace.  This is the fourth request.  GET A LIFE.

Please note that Karen again lies while playing the victim in her last comment: she never previously asked me to not e-mail her, and she is the aggressor for publicly claiming I’m a minion to evil, a shill, and hinting for my arrest.


  1. Karen’s refusal to support her claims that “gold backwardation MEANS THAT WE ARE GOING TO ALL STARVE AND ALL TRADE WILL CEASE”  means literally that this is an unsubstantiated claim (even if exaggerated). In serious professional consideration of proposals, Karen would be excluded from further comments.
  2. Karen’s refusal to address the one academic paper I provided her on multiple occasions means that her attacks and insults are also unsubstantiated claims. Again, professionals would exclude Karen from further comments on my work from her choice to speak while literally not knowing what she’s talking about.
  3. Karen’s claims that I’m a “Vatican agent” and “shill” are unsubstantiated, which makes them lies and/or unprofessional ad hominem attacks. Professionals would require a retraction and apology, or remove Karen from the discussion.
  4. Karen’s hints for my arrest regarding the work I do to earn a living, especially from her standing as an attorney, borders on libel. With years of my professional documentation that US wars are not close to legal, and should be ended in arrests as the lawful tool to stop an obvious crime, Karen stated in a comment: “Herman’s calls for arrests? Maybe he wants to be the first arrested.” Again, Karen’s refusal to substantiate any crime I might reasonably be accused of would result in her dismissal from professional discussion.
  5. Because none of Karen’s points are substantiated, we can professionally conclude they are distractions from serious discussion. This is center to what disinformation agents (shills) do.

Among those of us who consider law, we like to operate with prima facie factual understanding as our best initial read of all available facts on our allegorical table of evidence. Therefore, unless anyone can provide further evidence and/or remove any of the above five points, it seems Karen is offering zero credibility, zero contribution, and only unprofessional distraction in policy consideration for what we’ll use for money after We the People win. 

Again, my best contribution to our condition and solutions:

Seizing an alternative: Recognizing ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ as THE STORY of today (1 of 7)

And again, my immediate response of what the public should do is expressed best in just 90 seconds: former US Marine Ken O’Keefe powerfully states the “very obvious solutions” to US/UK/Israel unlawful Wars of Aggression to arrest the obvious criminal leaders (video starts at 20:51, then finishes this episode of Cross Talk):

Btw: among our ~2,000 Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers’ considerations and discussions on our listserve, a colleague just offered this article addressing Karen’s proposal of having gold connected to US currency. Karen apparently argues for only gold as currency, so this is different, but as she refuses to provide documentation perhaps this is helpful expert witness testimony. Article excerpt:

In 2012, the University of Chicago asked 40 leading economists whether a gold standard would improve the lives of average Americans. All 40 said no.


Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008 among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.


Carl Herman is a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History; also credentialed in Mathematics. He worked with both US political parties over 18 years and two UN Summits with the citizen’s lobby, RESULTS, for US domestic and foreign policy to end poverty. He can be reached at

Note: has blocked public access to my articles on their site (and from other whistleblowers), so some links in my previous work are blocked. If you’d like to search for those articles other sites may have republished, use words from the article title within the blocked link. Or, go to, paste the expired link into the box, click “Browse history,” then click onto the screenshots of that page for each time it was screen-shot and uploaded to webarchive. I’ll update as “hobby time” allows; including my earliest work from 2009 to 2011 (blocked author pages: herehere).