|
UNDERSTANDING MONEY by Theresa Dunford Control of the world’s finances via the International Banking institutions has been a key factor in the Global Elite’s (1) ongoing agenda of worldwide control. Numerous books have already been written on this subject but I have attempted to compile an article which places some key facts together; i.e. demystifying money, information on the gold standard; GATT, NAFTA, the setting up of the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in the U.S. and a story about “Malaysia: A good example for the small nations”. The Global Elite anticipate that we will leave economics to so-called “experts” to negotiate, this whole subject being confusing to most people. I believe that this is intended so that we believe that it is beyond our understanding. We don’t need to have a deep knowledge but a general understanding can be a help. Certainly, I believe that economics doesn’t need to be so confusing. In Promise to Pay: An Inquiry into the modern magic called High Finance (1934) the author, R. McNair Wilson, couched the fundamental principles of money in a literary rather than technical manner, so that they could be more easily understood by those people who do not have a basic grounding in conventional economics and finance. Quoting from the Introduction: “In former times new, good money was issued only by the King and his Government. It was used to pay for public works such as the upkeep of the army and navy and the service of public health and education. Thus, what the owners of money had lost, when the new money was created, came back to them, later, in the form of a reduction of taxation. The ‘invisible tax’ took the place of the visible one. But since, in modern days, Governments have everywhere surrendered to private individuals the right to create what is in effect new money, the benefit gained by the creators of the new money is no longer returned to the public. The private creators of money, like the counterfeiters, keep the benefits to themselves and thus profit at the expense of all their neighbours.” McNair Wilson then goes on to explain about the beginning of banking by a fictional ‘home banker’: “From very early times people have taken their money to strong-rooms and vaults because of their fear of burglars. In most towns some citizen built such a strong-room and set up in business as the keeper of his neighbours’ gold and silver. He offered security and charged a small fee for it. He used, further, to supply his clients with receipts for their money. If you put £100 in gold into his strong-room he gave you an IOU for £100. When you came back to take your money away the IOU was destroyed. The IOU in other words was a promise-to-pay signed by the owner of the strong-room. “The particular owner of a strong-room, with whom we are now concerned, happened to be an observant man. He noticed after a time, that very little of the gold and silver which had been entrusted to him was ever taken away again. People brought hundreds of pounds; but they seldom wanted to remove more than a few pounds at a time. He noticed, further, that people whom he had not seen before came to his strong-room with IOUs and demanded money for them. These people explained that they had taken the IOUs in payment for goods supplied or in payment of debt. ‘But my IOUs are not money,’ he protested, ‘Why should you take them instead of money?’ ‘Because we know that you’ve got the money here in your strong-room.’ ‘How can you know that?’ ‘We trust you. Those who have taken your promises-to-pay have always got their money when they asked for it.’ ‘So you are using my promise-to-pay instead of money? Just as if they were money?’ ‘Why not? It’s much safer and more convenient to use a slip of paper than to carry round bags of gold or silver. We all know you in this town. Your name on a promise-to-pay is as good as gold. The shopkeepers take your IOUs. One can buy food and clothes - anything at all - with them. Why bother to draw out gold or silver unless one is going on a journey into towns where your name is not known?’ “The owner of the strong-room thought long and deeply about this conversation. It was true; his promises-to-pay were being used instead of money by the whole town. Farmers took them in exchange for their beasts and crops at the markets; shopkeepers took them; the doctor and the lawyer and even the tax-collector took them. Very well then, they were money, seeing that money is anything for which people will give goods or services or which they will accept in payment of debt. The owner of the strong-room opened the door of his vault and looked at the bags of gold and silver on his shelves. Suppose that, by chance or ill-luck, half of that money got lost, nobody would be a penny the wiser or a penny the worse off. There would still be enough, far more than enough, left to meet all the demands for gold or silver that were ever likely to be made. The promises-to-pay would go on circulating just the same; people would take them just as eagerly as before. “The owner began to study his ledgers. He found that, on an average, only one-tenth part of the gold and silver held by him was ever asked for. If a client had put £100 in the strong-room, the odds were that, during any year, that client would not draw out more than £10. The other £90 would lie idle on the shelf from one year’s end to the other. That meant, as he saw, that if he lost even as much as nine-tenths of all the gold and silver entrusted to him, he would still be in a position to meet every claim for gold or silver that was ever likely to be made upon him. His promises-to-pay would be just as highly valued as before and just as readily accepted. For all those who wanted gold or silver could be supplied with it the moment they presented their IOUs. “He had, at this time, some £10,000 in gold and silver in his strong-room and there were, therefore, promises-to-pay to the value of £10,000 in the hands of his clients. Why not increase the number of promises-to-pay to £100,000? The idea seemed so wild, so preposterous and so dangerous that, at first, he put it away from him. How could he sleep easily in his bed if he knew that people held his IOUs for £100,000 while, in actual fact, there was only gold and silver to the amount of £10,000 in his strong-room? Could he be sure that his promises-to-pay would go on circulating instead of real money? Might not all his clients descend on him, one day, in a body, with their IOUs in their hands, demanding gold and silver in exchange for them? “But that mood of panic passed. Day followed day without bringing any change in the habits of his fellow townsmen. A few of them came to take away small sums of money; these were people about to travel into regions where his name was not known and where, therefore, his IOUs would not be accepted, or people in need of pocket-money or people obtaining coin with which to pay servants’ wages. The great mass of the population never entered his door. They went on paying and receiving in the shops and markets his IOUs exactly as they had always done. And still his ledger bore witness that, on an average, only one-tenth of the quantity of gold and silver in his strong-room was ever asked for. “Timidly, therefore, and with great caution, our owner of the strong-room went into the business of lending promises to pay what he did not possess. Having found a client who was short of cash he offered him £100 worth of IOUs on condition that the loan was repaid by a certain day and that it carried, meanwhile, interest at 5 per cent. As a guarantee of good faith the borrower handed over the title-deeds of his house, saying that, if he failed to repay the IOUs the lender could sell the house and so recoup himself. This guarantee given by the borrower caused the lender a pang of conscience. For he was well aware that he had lent no money at all but merely a promise to pay money. The fact that people would give goods for these IOUs did not in the least alter the fact that they were IOUs and nothing more - IOUs moreover, which lacked a backing of gold and silver.” Later on our fictional home banker was contacted by an international banker. Quoting p. 26 of the same book: “A cloud of a most unlooked-for kind had begun to darken his horizon. This cloud was in the form of another banker, living in the capital city of the country, who had developed the business of lending his IOUs to the merchants engaged in trade with foreign countries. The International Banker was concerned, above everything else, to see that the volume of foreign trade was well maintained, that is to say that a brisk demand for his loans continued to exist. He had noticed that when booms occurred in the home market the volume of foreign trade tended to diminish because people were able to buy their own goods and did not wish to export them. He was anxious, therefore, to prevent the Home Bankers from lending too much in the home markets. When Our Banker understood what was afoot he became very angry and declared that he would tolerate no interference with the conduct of his business. He would lend his IOUs when and to whom he chose and he would withdraw them only at such times as seemed good to him. He defied the International Banker to do his worst. “But he was uneasy, nevertheless. For in his heart of hearts he knew that the promises-to-pay in which he dealt were promises he could not possibly fulfil if any large number of his clients asked for their money at the same time…..The International Banker, however, had another plan to propose. Why not, he suggested, bury the hatchet and co-operate instead of quarrelling? ‘I am in need, often’, he said, ‘of sums of money to lend to shippers and merchants. I am prepared to borrow for short periods of time, a night or a week-end even, so that your money will always be within your reach if you want it. Why not lend me the IOUs for which, at the moment, you cannot find good borrowers in your own town?’ The banker thought over this proposition; and the more he thought about it the better he liked it. It was true that he often had difficulty in making a new loan immediately. Good, sound borrowers were none too easy to find, especially in times of slump [caused by the Home Banker’s inbuilt policies-TD]. Consequently he was often in the position of having IOU’s to lend and not being able to lend them - a most distressing state of affairs seeing that his unlent promises were earning no interest. The International Banker offered him what was, evidently, a way out of his difficulty…..He accepted the offer therefore and began to reorganize his system of lending.” The Five Myths of Money Quoting extracts from “The Five Myths of Money” by Eric de Maré as presented in Resurgence magazine (2), November/December 1990: “If the quality of life on earth is to improve, five myths about money will have to be discarded. Myth One is that industry, in some mysterious way that no one quite understands, creates the money which enables it to finance its capital assets and then to distribute its products to consumers. In fact, industry creates no money of any sort; it borrows money and then distributes it. Only banks possess the power to create money. Myth Two is that money is not what it should be, a useful ticket system, but is in itself a form of real wealth, a rare commodity. Myth Three is that banks merely lend the money deposited with them, making their profits by charging their borrowers a higher rate of interest than they pay their depositors. This belief fails to answer the question of how new money comes into existence. Myth Four is that the first purpose of any economic system is not to make and distribute wealth to the full for the benefit of individuals but to provide everyone with employment - a ridiculous illusion firmly held by all political parties all over the globe. Myth Five is that all wealth is the product of human labour, when the truth is that the bulk of wealth is produced ever more rapidly - and, for the time being at least, abundantly - by machines, tools and processes to provide a vast and increasing Unearned Increment…… “WHAT IS MONEY? Money is a most useful invention; without it the modern world with all its technical marvels could hardly have come into being. But when abused, as it so often has been throughout history and is particularly so today, its effects can be catastrophic. When not abused, money is obviously more convenient than the old process of barter; it facilitates trade and co-operation and it allows individuals their choice in buying what, where and when they wish…. Gold in particular has served as money, mostly as coins…. In Britain the Golden Guinea continued as legal tender up to 1914….Today the small change we use daily is either coins struck at the Mint and made of some relatively cheap amalgam, or paper bank notes (the Fiduciary Issue of the Bank of England), but most monetary transactions today are made of paper (and increasingly of electric impulses in computers), these being mostly in the form of cheques. The money we use nowadays consists of ½ per cent coinage, 4 ½ per cent bank notes and 95% paper cheques, bills of exchange and book entries…. “According to Myth Three, banks merely lend the money deposited with them. That is not so; they lend up to thirteen times the value of their deposits…..In this country the trick began when the so-called Bank of England [more information on the creation of this bank later -TD] was formed. One of its founders, a Scot called William Paterson, declared with open audacity, ‘The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies it creates out of nothing.’ Very few people like to accept this startling fact that banks create money out of nothing. However, it has the support of many an authority, including a number of bankers. At least twenty could be quoted; let six suffice here to establish the fact beyond doubt: “ ‘They [the international bankers] manufacture Credit by
a mere stroke of the pen.’ - W. Hadley Robinson, Fellow of the Institute of
Bankers.
The Gold standard It is important to remember that it is the goods and services which provide the true value of a country’s wealth. However, I have included this section as it helps to:
Quoting Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt: The Solution of the Economic Paradox (1921) by Frederick Soddy, M.A., F.R.S., p.164: “If, as in this country before the War, the money is kept on a gold basis by being exchangeable on demand for gold coinage, and if gold can be freely imported and exported at a price fixed by law, minted into sovereigns or melted back into bullion as required, the purchasing power of the money is kept constant in terms of gold, though not in terms of goods in general, which is the true measure of the virtual wealth.” The following extracts from an article by Mr. E.J. Ekker in the “Contact Newspaper” (3) dated 27thDecember, 2000, provides further information on the financial system and how a banking system based on a gold standard could work: “The Debt Trap The Debt Trap can best be illustrated by using the current [December 2000 -TD] situation in the Philippines. The nation’s debt to just the IMF/WB [International Monetary Fund/World Bank] is something close to $60B and the interest cost some $6B per year. The IMF/WB rules do not allow the nation to print money to pay the interest, nor would they accept pesos if it did, so its precious foreign exchange is drained away to pay interest. This has gone on for many years until the nation’s money supply is down to less than $26B. “Basing a currency upon gold is often referred to as using the ‘gold standard’. It implies that any holder of the currency can redeem that currency for gold at any time. Thus the old declaration, ‘Good as gold!’ was frequently intoned when speaking of the paper money of the U.S.A. which was gold-backed until 1933. The gold standard does not require the use of any gold in the money in circulation, even though gold coins have been used throughout recorded history. A nation, or a bank, has some flexibility in the amount of paper money it can circulate relative to the gold it holds in reserve. The result of several historical studies of bank runs and ‘panics’ is the conclusion that no bank or nation that had 40% or more of its issued currency (debt) in available gold failed to meet its requested withdrawals. That allows the issuing of 2.5 times as much currency as there is gold in the vault. As a comparison, currently most banks and nations use various things as reserves, some real property, but mostly the paper debt of other banks and nations…..the value placed upon the currency in virtually all nations at this time is dependant upon the payment of debt by someone else; there is no real value behind any of them; their value is derived from proclamation and so they are referred to as ‘debt-based’, or baseless, fiat currency (fiat means ‘by proclamation, declaration, or decree’). A currency based upon gold is a ‘value-based’ currency and will always be more stable and desirable to the citizens of a nation issuing it as well as everyone engaged with its citizens in international commerce…. “The value of a currency based on gold cannot be manipulated by either the big banks or the currency traders/hedge funds. Granted that the price of gold is currently manipulated by ‘fixers’ in London, the active use of gold as a currency base in the amount of only a few hundred tons will soon remove the control exercised by that small cartel. The more nations using gold as their standard for issuance of currency, the more stable and less manipulatible will become the price. For the greatest majority of the people in the nation, the major benefit of a gold-based currency is that it will not ‘inflate’…. “Foreign Exchange: Whilst there are many benefits to a nation in the use of gold as the base of its currency, probably the most impressive is its effect upon every aspect of foreign exchange. To understand why this is true, one must have some understanding of why foreign exchange is required of nations whose currencies are unacceptable, which applies to all currencies except the U.S. dollar and the Euro. Quite obviously the real reasons for the currency of one nation to exclusively be, until recently when the Euro was added, the only medium through which international transactions can occur, are mostly hidden. That there is always a profit in it for the dollar, that it creates a huge market for U.S. Treasury debt, and the fact that it creates virtually a monopoly of control for the international bankers is well known. What is not talked about is the fact that it also gives the bankers complete control of the value of virtually every nation’s currency. We are told that political factors and financial events create changes in the ‘market perception’ of the peso, causing it to go up or down, or that the BSP [Bank of the Philippines] is able to ‘intervene’ by purchasing pesos, thus shoring up the price. The latter is allowed to occur for two reasons: to perpetuate the illusion that there is a ‘market’, and to capture, for literally zero investment, the reserves of the BSP. ‘Market perception’ can be better read as the ‘discipline arm’ of the London-headquartered bankers making sure the Finance and Central Bank people do exactly as they are told by the IMF/WB. Finally, manipulation of currency values destabilizes governments at the same time as it mortally wounds domestic banks and their major borrowers, usually the same corporations that employ most of the better-paid workers. ….It is much different when a nation’s currency is gold-based, and it gets better as more nations follow suit. There is no further need for the purchase and accumulation of foreign exchange (gold takes the place of foreign exchange in the nation’s financial architecture); payments made in the nation’s currency are directly acceptable by vendors in other nations. Without the need of foreign exchange, there is no further need of remittances from OFWs, or concern with ‘balance of payments’, or the nation’s ‘credit rating’ since the nation will no longer have to borrow foreign money, which means that all of the constant squabble with the IMF/WB can be done away with…. “The reader, having studied the information presented so
far, might wonder what REAL objection could any civic-minded person raise to the
price of gold? The correct answer is, of course, none. “The objective seems to be to force smaller banks to merge into larger ones which can more easily be controlled by the international banks….. “A gold -based currency does not just ‘level the playing field’, it moves the game to a different field where the rules are the same for all nations and all banks…. “Not enough gold? It will be said by gold-standard critics that there is not enough gold to allow all of the nations on the planet to use it as a standard for their currencies. One somewhat superficial answer to that position is that if the 1.05 billion ounces of gold currently reported to the IMF as being held by all reporting central banks were to be priced at $100,000 per ounce it would be worth $105 trillion, far more than all of the money currently in circulation. A much more accurate answer, however, is that the satellite maps show that there is enough gold in the Philippines alone to satisfy the need. Further, it is well known that, during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, President Marcos shipped thousands of tons of gold to some 50-plus countries for the purpose of putting all nations on the gold standard as part of the ‘New World Order’ being promoted at that time. That gold still exists, even though a large part of it may have been confiscated by the Big Banks in which it was stored….. “Foreign control. Through their control of the IMF the Big Banks can dictate policy to all of the Central Banks of nations that have taken IMF or World Bank loans. …. “Competition, the myth. ….we must debunk at least one more myth, the myth of ‘competition’. In 1920 the U.S. industrialist Henry Ford commissioned a two-year, very in-depth study of the economic and political conditions because he was experiencing difficulty obtaining and/or maintaining loans at competitive interest rates coupled with an inordinate number of labor problems. The investigation cost more than $1 million, a sum worth more than $25 million in current dollars. When the results began to take form, he decided that they must be published, but the Detriot, Chicago and New York newspapers all declined the material. So he purchased a newspaper called the Dearborn Independent and published it as a continuing series in the newspaper…. Mr. Ford was eventually forced to reach an accommodation with a clique of businessmen and bankers and his businesses were, to a major extent, lost to his control and, after his death, that of his family. The important enlightenment gained was, of course, the information gleaned by the Ford investigators. What they learned was that, through the use of an extensive network of banks and brokerages, and the use of cross-directorships of hundreds of corporations, a small group of financiers had gained control of the major newspapers, the movie industry, the tobacco and liquor businesses, the oil and steel industries, the shipping companies and railroads, most of the manufacturing companies, and huge amounts of real estate properties in all of the major cities of the U.S. What they couldn’t control through direct ownership, they could control through economic coercion and the fomenting of labor problems, since they had organized and controlled the unions. “The most disturbing information that Ford uncovered, however, was the extent of the control exercised by the same group over the ‘democratic’ election process, resulting in the placement of their people, or people designated by them, in the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of government at the highest levels. The ‘voice of the people’ had been stilled, and let us remind the reader, that was in 1920….What does that have to do with the Philippines [and elsewhere- TD] and competition? Far more than we have space to reveal here; the most important point is to recognize that the Big Banks, the small group of people controlling the U.S.A. and virtually all of the developed nations, have the organization and dedication to make, and change, the banking and brokerage rules to suit themselves, and to assure that those rules are inculcated in all your students of economics, brokerage, and banking. One of those rules is, ‘To be a successful (student, businessman, business, nation, etc.) you must be competitive’. That nations must compete with each other for loans and foreign investment money is probably the greatest and most expensive hoax ever designed, developed, and foisted off upon the unsuspecting so-called ‘developing nations.’ …Please be reminded, when your money is gold based you do not need foreign exchange. That one fact frees the nation from any further need to be ‘competitive’. “Stock and bond markets. One last item concerning competition: The stock markets. Over the years the Big Banks and Brokerages have turned the world’s stock and commodities markets into giant casinos wherein they always have the position of the ‘House’ because they can make, and change, the rules. They have invented and introduced ‘new products’ by the dozen till only they can remember how to turn a profit with each one…..The whole stock market idea has been perverted into a trading market designed to steal the money of honest investors and the companies of honest entrepreneurs; any person bringing his new, fresh money to the typical stock market is 99% sure of losing some, or all of it. God is abundance, not poverty.” GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) & NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) Most people have heard of the GATT Treaty, and NAFTA, without necessarily understanding what they are about, so I will give a brief explanation of these terms. Quoting “On Target”, Vol.22, No. 16, 6th February, 1993 (4): GATT Treaty (General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade). “What is GATT?” by David Thompson: “Following the
end of World War II, Western nations proposed a Multilateral Trade Organisation
which would eradicate the pre-war trade protectionist measures, such as
tariffs. NAFTA Agreement (North American Free Trade Area) NAFTA is currently comprised of the U.S. Canada and Mexico and also has connections with the United Nations. Continuing to quote from the same publication, Walter Russell Mead says: “The international system being hammered out in these trade talks [as at c1993] is not really free trade at all - it is something far different, and more sinister….Under conditions of perfect free trade, investors can put their money wherever they think it will earn the highest return; producers can sell their products in the market where prices are highest; and labour can similarly look for the market where wages are best….The proposal on the table is actually something else: freedom for capital and freedom for goods, but nothing comparable for people. …. GATT and NAFTA are about more than sending First World factories into the Third World; they are about importing Third World economic pressures and social conditions into the West.” (My italics - TD) The following gives more information about NAFTA’s long term agenda. In a Spotlight newspaper e-mail (5) (19th March 2001) entitled: “An international panel claims it [NAFTA] can overrule the Supreme Court - and the United States, under NAFTA, is obligated to comply” by James P. Tucker Jr.: “It may soon be demonstrated, for all to see, that a NAFTA panel is superior to U.S. federal courts. The outcome of The Loewen Group Inc. v. U.S.A. is less important than the fact that it will be decided by the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes - a NAFTA panel. NAFTA, the panel ruled, has jurisdiction over complaints from foreign countries about court decisions in the United States. It also claims jurisdiction over complaints about state and federal administrative agency actions. While the landmark case involves a state court ruling, the panel claims power to overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions as well… The panel’s decision will be final and unappealable except on very limited grounds. Under NAFTA, U.S. courts are compelled to enforce the panel’s decisions…..This establishment of an international court superior to the Supreme Court of the United States or the highest courts in Canada and Mexico is the first of a series of dramatic steps that are designed to establish an American Union similar to the European Union - long on the common agenda of Bilderberg and its brother group, the Trilaterial Commission. As NAFTA expands as the Free Trade Area of the Americas to include the entire Western Hemisphere, its 90-man commission is to expand accordingly, evolving into the American Union Parliament. ‘Dollarization’ is to produce a common currency like the European Union’s euro.” (My italics -TD) “A vastly expanded NAFTA to be known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas was the central theme at the “Summit of the Americas” held in Quebec City, Canada in April 2001. This whole process is backed by George W. Bush and the New York based ‘Council of the Americas’ comprised of bankers and big corporate bosses.” (6) The Bank of England The following quote from Pawns in the Game
(c.1956) by William Guy Carr, Commander R.C.N. Ret’d., provides pertinent
details on the founding of the so-called Bank “of England”. On p. 23
Commander Carr informs us: “1689: William of Orange and Mary, were proclaimed
King and Queen of England. …. Their [the money lenders] first objective was to
obtain permission to institute a Bank of England and consolidate and secure the
debts Britain owed them for loans made to her to fight the wars they instigated.
…It is important to remember that no sooner was the Dutch General [William of
Orange] sitting upon the throne of England than he persuaded the British
Treasury to borrow £1,250,000 from the …. bankers who had put him there. The
school book history informs our children that the negotiations were conducted by
Sir John Houblen and Mr William Patterson on behalf of the British Government
with money-lenders whose identity remained secret….. The international
money-lenders agreed to accommodate the British Treasury to the extent of
£1,250,000 providing they could dictate their own terms and conditions. This
was agreed to.
Thus, for the sum of £1,250,000, King William of Orange sold the people of England into economic bondage. The ….money lenders gained their ambition. They had usurped the power to issue and control the currency of the nation. And, having secured that power they cared not who made the laws.” Again quoting “On Target” Vol. 26, Nos. 8 & 9, 12/26th October, 1996: “1694-1994 Three Centuries of Bondage….” by Donald Neale, O.B.E: “The Bank of England, so-called, was founded in 1694 to lend £1,200,000 to William III. Its chief founder, William Patterson, is reported to have said: The bank hath benefit of interest on all monies it creates out of nothing. Thus began the U.K. National Debt, today represented by the total of government stocks and bonds (‘Gilts’) listed in the daily press. ‘Bonds’ of course means bondage not only to pay interest on them for their duration but also to redeem them by repaying the loans. From such seemingly small beginnings, U.K. National Debt (or more strictly total Public Sector Debt) reached £204,174,000,000 in 1991-92, costing taxpayers £16,691,000,000 in debt charges.” Quoting What’s Wrong with the World (1935) by G.W.L. Day, p.25: “The Bank of England ….began as a private institution and it remains a private institution to this day. It adopted the practice, which had been invented by the goldsmiths, of handing its customers paper notes in exchange for the cash which they deposited in the Bank. Since these notes could be exchanged for cash whenever the customer wished, they became money. Soon the Bank began to lend the Government some of its gold and to issue further notes up to the amounts which the Government owed it. Thus, if the Bank had £10,000 of gold in its vaults, it could first of all issue £10,000 in notes; then it could lend the Government £5,000 of its gold and issue another £5,000 in notes on the Government’s guarantees. In this way it had manufactured £5,000 of new money. After a while it decided to go one better than this. Noticing that its customers very rarely removed their gold, it found that it could issue, say, £100,000 of paper notes for each £10,000 of gold deposits. “Later, when the Industrial Revolution came, trade increased so rapidly that the joint-stock banks asked leave to do the same thing and were allowed to do so. Finally the whole business was defined and centralized in the Bank Charter Act of 1844, which is still in force, while the joint stock banks discovered that they could go on creating and issuing money by using cheques. “So it was that the nation handed over its sovereign power of creating and issuing its money to a private concern, and for more than two hundred years, by common consent, the banks have been able to carry on their game of bluff. By this I mean their game of issuing money (notes and bank credit), all of which is supposed to be ‘backed’ by gold, but isn’t. “Well, one day their bluff was called. In 1914 we suddenly declared war, and instantly thousands of people rushed to their banks and demanded gold in exchange for their deposits. What happened then? There was nothing like enough gold to pay everybody who asked for it, so the Bank of England closed its doors and declared a moratorium. It then flew to the Government and persuaded it to issue Treasury notes, which it could give the public instead of gold. Now nobody pretended that these new Treasury notes could be exchanged for gold. Their value depended on something far better than this - namely, on the nation’s Real Credit, which may be described as our power and willingness to ‘deliver the goods’. It goes without saying that our Government was the proper authority to issue these notes, because rightfully they belonged to the nation. But it didn’t. On the contrary, the Bank claimed this right - and got it. “Far worse followed. Enormous sums of money were soon needed to pay for the War. How were they raised? In this way. War Loans were floated. A small proportion of them was taken up by private investors, who were encouraged with liberal over-drafts (that is, money created by the banks), while by far the greater part was subscribed by the banks and financial houses, who paid simply by writing drafts on themselves! In other words, by creating money out of thin air on our (the nation’s) security. (All this can be confirmed by referring to the Cunliffe Report on Currency and Foreign Exchanges, 1918.)…. “Altogether we spent about £8,000,000,000 on the War. The bulk of this money was created by the banks on our Real Credit, and then kindly lent to us (who are really the owners of it) at handsome rates of interest. In fact, we are still paying round about three hundred million pounds a year in interest for this priviledge, and are supposed eventually to repay the whole ‘loan’ of our own property! “There is nothing nothing unique about this particular deal. The banks are treating us like this all the time. It is just the way the Financial System works.” And so it continues to the present day. The history of the setting up of the Federal Reserve in America appears to have parallels with the setting up of the European Central Bank. Originally the USA was made up of Colonies, became the United States of America, then a Bank of the United States was created, which became the Federal Reserve Bank. The American Civil War and the Federal Reserve Act, USA Quoting further from the same issue of “On Target”: “The following article first appeared in the Populist American tabloid newspaper The Spotlight 12 December 1994, with the title Country With Honest Money would Defeat Bankers, and the introduction: ‘The United States is a role model for many other countries, including bankers who would control a nation’s money. Here, a Canadian explains how and why. By Alain Pilote’.” “The First Phase during the 17th and early 18th Centuries.
…..We are in 1750. The United States of America does not exist yet; it is the
13 Colonies forming ‘New England’, a possession of the motherland, England.
Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population at that time; ‘Impossible to find
a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe’. “But the bankers did not give up. Their agent, Alexander Hamilton, was named Secretary of the Treasury in George Washington’s Cabinet, and advocated the establishment of a federal bank to be owned by private interests, and the creation of debt-money with false arguments like: A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing….The wisdom of the Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous expedient, as issuing its own money. Hamilton also made them believe that only the debt-money issued by private banks would be accepted in dealing abroad. Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to that project, but President Washington was finally won over by Hamilton’s arguments. A federal bank was thus created in 1791, the Bank of the United States, with a 20 years charter. Although it was termed ‘Bank of the United States’, it was not owned by the nation, but by individuals holding the bank’s stocks, the private bankers…..The charter for the Bank of the United States ran out in 1811, and Congress voted against its renewal, thanks to the influence of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. ‘If Congress,’ Jackson said, ‘has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.’ Thus ended the history of the first bank of the United States. But the bankers did not play their last card. “ ‘Bankers Launch the War. Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank
of England, issued an ultimatum; ‘Either the application for renewal of the
charter is granted, or the United States will find itself in a most disastrous
war’.’ Jackson and the American patriots did not believe the power of the
international moneylenders could extend so far. ‘You are a den of thieves -
vipers,’ Jackson told them. ‘I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal
God, I will rout you out.’ Rothschild issued orders; ‘Teach
these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status.’ The implications behind the above statement “Bankers Launch the War” are further elaborated upon in the following paragraphs: In his book The Creature on Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (1994) the author, Mr. G. Edward Griffin, further explains how the cause of the American Civil War had economic implications. Mr. Griffin is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in Speech and Communications. In preparation for writing this book, he enrolled in the College of Financial Planning located in Denver. His goal was not to become a professional financial planner but to better understand the real world of investments and money markets. He obtained his CFP designation (Certified Financial Planner) in 1989. Quoting from p.370 of this book: “There are many popular myths about the cause of the War between the States. Just as the Bolshevik Revolution is commonly believed to have been a spontaneous mass uprising against a tyrannical aristocracy, so, too, it is generally accepted that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. That, at best, is a half-truth. Slavery was an issue, but the primary force for war was a clash between the economic interests of the North and the South. Even the issue of slavery itself was based on economics. It may have been a moral issue in the North where prosperity was derived from the machines of heavy industry, but in the agrarian South, where fields had to be tended by vast work forces of human labor, the issue was primarily a matter of economics…. In addition to the conflicting interests between North and South, there were other forces also working to split the nation in two. Those forces were rooted in Europe and centered around the desire of France, Spain, and England to control the markets of Latin America…..The global chess match between [President] Lincoln on the one side and England and France on the other was closely watched by the other leaders of Europe. One of the most candid observers at that time was the Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck. Since Bismarck was, himself, deeply obligated to the power of international finance, his observations are doubly revealing. He said: ‘The division of the United States into federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the high financial powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economic and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds prevailed. They saw tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, burdened with debt to the financiers,….in place of the vigorous Republic sufficient unto herself. Therefore, they sent their emissaries into the field to exploit the question of slavery and to open an abyss between the two sections of the Union…. “The economic chaos and conflict of this period was a major cause of the Civil War. Lincoln made it clear during his public speeches that slavery was not the issue. The basic problem was the North and the South were dependent on each other for trade. The industrialized North sold its products to the South which sold its cotton to the North. The South also had a similar trade with Europe, and that was an annoyance to the North. Europe was selling many products at lower prices, and the North was losing market share. Northern politicians passed protectionist legislation putting import duties on industrial products. This all but stopped the importation of European goods and forced the South to buy from the North at higher prices. Europe retaliated by curtailing the purchase of American cotton. That hurt the South even more. It was a classic case of legalized plunder… Meanwhile, there were powerful forces in Europe that wanted to see America embroiled in civil war.” (My italics - TD) Quoting Pawns in the Game (1956) by William Guy Carr, p.53: “History records that Judah P. Benjamin, a Rothschild relative, was appointed as their professional strategist in America. The American Civil War, which split the Union in two, became an accomplished fact. Napoleon III was persuaded by the Bankers to extend his French Empire into Mexico. The British Government was persuaded that the Northern States could be made into a colony again…The international bankers loaned unlimited credit to all forces engaged by the South fighting the forces of the North. They loaned Napoleon III, 201,500,000 francs for his Mexican campaign. When the Confederacy needed assistance in 1863 the Powers-that-be offered Napoleon Texas and Louisiana in exchange for French intervention against the Northern States…..An article, inspired by the International Bankers, appeared in the London Times. It concerned Abraham Lincoln’s issue of Greenbacks [Lincoln’s honest non-usury printed paper money]. It said ‘If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That Country must be destroyed or it will destroy every Monarchy [a footnote in this book says that monarchy really means money lender (in this instance) - TD] on the Globe.’…..On the letter head of Rothschilds’ Brothers, Bankers, London, England, under the date of June 25th, 1863, the following was written to Messrs. Ikelheimer, Morton and Vandergould, No. 3 Wall Street, New York, U.S.A: “Dear Sirs: A Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to profits that may be made in the National Banking business, under a recent act of your Congress; a copy of this Act accompanies this letter. Apparently this Act has been drawn up on the plan formulated by the British Bankers Association, and by that Association recommended to our American friends, as one that, if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world. “Mr. Sherman declares that there has never been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money as that presented by this Act. It gives the National Bank almost complete control of the National finance. The few who understand the system he says will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests…. Your respectful servants, Again quoting Pawns in the Game, p.62: “A secret meeting was held on Jekyl Island, Georgia. This hide-away was owned by J.P. Morgan, and a small group of his financial affiliates. The business discussed at the meeting referred to was ‘Ways and means to ensure that proposed legislation to curb financial racketeering and monetary manipulation in the U.S.A. be sabotaged and legislation favourable to those attending the secret meeting be substituted.’ To achieve these two important objectives was no easy task. Mr. Paul Warburg was asked to suggest solutions. His advice was accepted….To make a long story short, Aldrich, Warburg and Company, drew up the monetary legislation which Aldrich ultimately presented as the work of his special committee. He had it passed by Congress in 1913 under the title ‘The Federal Reserve Act of 1913.’ The vast majority of American citizens honestly believed that this Act protected their interests, and placed the Federal Government in control of the nation’s economy….They think that profits made by the Federal Reserve Banks benefit the National Treasury. They are wrong on all suppositions. What the majority of the people think is exactly what the Federal Reserve System was originally intended to accomplish, but the legislation drawn up on Jekyl Island, Georgia in 1910, and passed by the American Congress in 1913, did not benefit the people or the government of the U.S.A. It benefitted only the American Bankers, who were interlocked with the International Bankers of Europe.” (My italics -TD) The following provides what I believe to be a more positive note. This article describes how the President of Malaysia and his economics advisor implemented certain provisions in order to regain the sovereignty of their country - and avoid the debt trap and high interest rates of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank: Malaysia: A Good Example for the Small Nations By Lee Kar Yean and P.W. Thong, The Star - Malaysia, 28th February 2001 “Malaysia has shown the world that small countries can retain control over their economic destinies through the measures taken in September 1998 to defeat the currency speculators, said Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop, special advisor (finance) to the prime minister. ‘Among other factors, Malaysia’s unorthodox stabilisation measures of September 1998 opened the eyes of the world, that it is possible to prosper without relinquishing the destiny of the nation to the globalisation advocates of the West and the IMF (International Monetary Fund),’ Nor Mohamed said at the two-day International conference on globalisation jointly organised by the Finance Ministry and the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (Isis) in Kuala Lumpur yesterday. He said the Malaysian government only took two major measures in September 1998, namely, the ringgit funds of residents in the country were no longer allowed to be lent to non-residents for short-selling, and the exchange rate regime was changed from a floating rate to a fixed-rate regime. Nor Mohamed said that at the end of the day, just one measure - preventing off-shore currency manipulators from having access to ringgit funds - was enough to stop the relentless attack on the ringgit by currency manipulators. He said the second measure, the fixed-exchange-rate regime, had nothing to do with capital controls or exchange controls. It merely changed the method of quoting the ringgit exchange rate. “Nor Mohamed said that during the currency crisis Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed had micro-managed the economy through his daily meetings with the National Economic Executive Council (NEEC) and saved the Malaysian economy from a downward spiral and revived it to a healthy state. ‘But the battle is not over. There are strong indications that the West will use the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to force the developing countries to liberalise further, even if it creates instability in their [country’s] financial system,’ he said. “Nor Mohamed emphasised that Malaysia was not against globalisation per se. He said the local financial sector had long been open to foreign participation, and there had been significant foreign ownership of banking and insurance assets. ‘Opening up the Malaysian financial system to further competition, be it in terms of allowing foreign-owned banks already in the country to open branches freely or allowing new foreign banks to operate, or even allowing unlimited equity participation by foreigners in local banks and other financial institutions, will have to be considered in the context of the criteria of sovereignty, prosperity and national stability,’ “He said while Malaysia recognised that a country had to give up a degree of freedom in its actions through its involvement with the international community, it saw no reason its financial system should be dictated by ’25-year-old dealers’ sitting in their dealing rooms in Singapore, Hong Kong or London. ‘This concept of the market disciplining the government is fraught with ego, private agenda and greed. What do the 25-year-old forex [foreign exchange] dealers have that makes them feel that they have better wisdom than the government? The government must at all times have the ability to serve, and protect, its people. And any proposed globalisation measure which involves diluting this ability must be resisted’.” Lastly, “A New Paradigm for Monetary Reform” by Philip Snow, which appeared in the October 2002 edition of the "Prosperity" (7) newsletter, Glasgow, Scotland, provides some interesting information about the possible effect of the present-day collective consciousness on "money": “A New Paradigm for Monetary Reform "The basic and controversial premise of this article is that the present system of money creation is a reflection of the present-day collective state of consciousness, notably in the western world. My understanding of consciousness, and as I have experienced and studied it through 15 years practice of transcendental meditation, is that it is the awareness of Being. In its most fundamental state, and its highest level of consciousness, Life is blissful, and exists as, or in a state we could call, Heaven. “Our collective, and in varying degrees our individual, state of consciousness is, however, a lot lower, held down by the grossness of the physical universe, our physical bodies and our individual nervous systems. Thus we do not live in a heavenly state, a Heaven on Earth, but in a hell of sorts. The conditions and circumstances and societal systems in which we live are innocent reflections of that state of consciousness, created by us as an inevitable, outward expression of our inner states. Take the supply of money, for example. In Heaven we would probably imagine there to be no money. Everything we would desire would manifest instantly. There would be no lack. Here on Earth, in our lower state of consciousness we behave as if there is a shortage of resources. We act greedily, we seek a greater share than others, we allow others to experience poverty, we compete for what we consider a lack of resources. I believe this to be a matter of faulty perception. There is no lack of resources. We are capable of creating infinitely. Our spiritual parent, the Universe, Life, Nature, God, whomever or whatever we conceive as mankind's creator, supports us in our desires and our creative endeavours and wants us to fulfil our individual and collective potential, which is its own potential which it seeks to actualise. But having somehow in our conscious minds, but not in our superconscious souls, detached ourselves from the realisation of who we really are, we behave as if we are lost in an unsupportive universe, that there is no access to the creative energies and resources of the universe other than those we can grasp for ourselves from a limited supply. We have allowed the governing people in our societies, to create a system for the supply of money which reflects a supposed tack of resources. However, were we to remember that our essential state is spirit, linked to the infinity of life, we would create a system of money supply which reflected that. A NEW PARADIGM Therefore, and here is the new paradigm, if we seek to reform the supply of money, we need to reform the perception of who we are, our place and purpose in life, and thus raise our state of consciousness. Having done so, it will become more widely and readily apparent that the monetary system which has prevailed for three centuries needs reform. The million pound/euro/dollar question is how do we achieve that? I am encouraged by the worldwide growth of awareness and empowerment that has given rise to the Monetary Reform Movement, for example, and the anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist movement which seeks to halt a perceived power struggle in world economics. I see movement towards a rising of consciousness which would support our efforts to reform the money supply. The question now is: how would this higher consciousness be reflected in the money supply? I would suggest this is how things could change: My experience is that, even at this low level of consciousness, it is possible to manifest money when it is desired, or required. In the mid-80s I conducted a private ceremony in which I sold a gold Guinea coin which I had been given as a Christening present as a baby in 1945. I sold it for the going rate of £72 as an affirmation that I now knew that whenever I needed money it would come. I exchanged the £72 for a pair of shoes, which I thought suitably prosaic. At the time I had recently taken over as managing director of a group of companies which was teetering on liquidation, and was running a Creditors' Moratorium in which I was doing my best to keep the company afloat, pay the bills and find a solution to the satisfaction of creditors. We had little income but large monthly debt instalments to pay. Fortunately the group consciousness of the companies' employees was high, and I found that exactly the right amount of money would come just in time to pay the bills. This continued for several months until one of the creditors pulled the plug. More recently, after a long spell out of the harsh commercial world I started a business in the motor trade. I started with no money and no idea how much I would need. I was anxious that I had no source of funding and our group consciousness was fairly incoherent by past standards. Nevertheless, month by month I found the money to pay the bills and develop the business. I have been reminded of what I learnt in the 80s, that money will come when the need arises. My experience is that money can be manifested when it is called for. This seems not to be conditional upon one's deserving or anything else. It seems to be conditional only upon one's state of consciousness, and even then it is only the ease and speed of manifestation which is different. The higher the state of consciousness, the easier and faster the money is manifested. So by raising one's own state of consciousness, and more importantly by raising collective consciousness, by which we are all held down, the manifestation of money is facilitated. To give you some idea of how I believe this would appear at a day-to-day, practical level, here are a few levels, ranging from today's low to a heavenly high: At today's level of collective consciousness, money is somewhat hard to manifest. Its supply is restricted by a governing force which seeks to keep people under control, and to accumulate as much of the perceived shortage of resources, and creative power, to itself. As we see, the governing world elite restricts money supply, loans it repayable with interest, and engages in restrictive practices. At a somewhat higher level of consciousness, money becomes easier to manifest at both individual and collective levels. More 'debt-free' money is created, more systems of exchange are created. The flow of money is facilitated. People feel that money is easier to obtain and the pressure on resources eases, reducing inflationary tendencies. Universal, basic wages are provided to reduce poverty; people no longer have to take multiple jobs, fewer spouses work, leading to improved quality of family and community life. At the next level there is a much freer availability of money
and resources but we have not yet reached a level of community or world
responsibility where people can use resources freely. At a yet higher level of consciousness world poverty is
eradicated, and more of Nature's inherent potential is actualised leading to
greater availability and use of renewable resources and infinite energy for
everyone. At a level where we have created a Heaven on Earth there is no longer any need for money as such. Desires are fulfilled virtually instantly and Nature pours forth her bounty as if there is no end to it. So to conclude, I propose the paradigm that the supply of
money is a function of our level of collective consciousness, and that reform in
the supply of money will come as a reflection of our society's rising level of
consciousness. Whilst it is true that paper “money” controls our world at present, I do believe it is important that we wake up from this illusion and at least have a rudimentary understanding. Compiled by: Theresa Dunford, Perthshire, Scotland, UK, November 2002. Copies available by e-mailing: theresa@sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk (1) International Banking families, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilaterial Commission, multinational corporations, etc.(2) Caduceus, 38 Russell Terrace, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV31 1HE. Tel: 01926 451897 (3) Contact newspaper, P.O. Box 27800, Las Vegas, NV89126, USA. Tel: 001 (800) 800 5565 (only toll free within the U.S.) (4) On Target is published by Intelligence Publications (UK), 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 6TD. Subscriptions: £20.00 per annum. Cheque payable to Donald Martin (5) The Spotlight. (Now American Free Press. Website: www.americanfreepress.net). Also available from Bloomfield Books (same address as Intelligence Publications above). (6) "Who Runs the World…..?" by Richard Greaves – "The Old Stables", Cusop, Herefordshire HR3 5RQ Free copies of this excellent 60 page document are available by e-mailing: rgreaves@supanet.com. HARD COPIES are available by POST at £1.60, plus 54p postage – payable in cash or postage stamps, PREFERABLY MADE UP OF 1ST OR 2ND CLASS STAMPS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. (7) Prosperity: Freedom from Debt Slavery, 268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR,Tel: 0141 332 2214, e-mail: admcc@admcc.freeserve.co.uk website: www.prosperityuk.com |
|
Farming Politics
Government Posters Humour
Technology Religion
Nature Me Links
|