More on Money – J Richards

December 23, 2011 at 6:17 pm (Money) (Money)

Money, banking and related issues

The money issue, specifically how it’s created and who controls its supply, is arguably the most important of all issues discussed at or relevant to MR. Tired of malicious individuals spreading disinformation on money and banking, I finally posted a Money FAQ. This should’ve been here from Day 1, but better late than never.

Preservation, survival; quality of life

Some of the discussion here’s been about preservation and survival. But survival can occur in a coma, and an endangered species can be preserved in a cage-like setting. Quality of living goes beyond mere survival or propagation, and money’s central to it for most practical purposes.

Higher order aspects of living such as the pursuit of special knowledge, philosophy, non-work-related attempts to improve ourselves on our own initiative, the indulgence of passions, etc., require financial stability, discretionary income and spare time. But people in Western nations are increasingly drowning in debt and face a not-too-distant future where the majority of us live in poverty, like most people in the Third World. The overwhelming, singular cause for this is that our money’s created, as debt [out of nothing], by bankers, and it’s these bankers who’re in control of the money supply, which they manipulate to their advantage.

Primary and secondary issues; cause vs. symptom

To facilitate their schemes, the bankers have taken numerous steps to realize their goals and consolidate their power. One of them’s acquisition of the mainstream media (MSM). It’s for this reason why the MSM won’t publicize some of the things that ail us, promote propaganda that harms us and occupy us with trivial news to deflect attention from what really matters. Obviously, ranting against the MSM is misplaced as the rant should be against the factors that have facilitated the acquisition of the MSM by a hostile minority, which’s wealth acquired through creating money as debt and manipulating its supply.

In another example, the bankers have used their money power to bring large numbers of alien races and cultures into Western nations. They’ve done this to undermine ethnic cohesion among the natives and to pre-occupy citizens with race- and culture-related troubles, thereby diminishing the odds of a community-based organized response or action against the bankers. Again, railing against unwanted immigration, forced integration of incompatible aliens, dispossession and deracination as the chief problems is misplaced as these troubles are secondary and employed by a hostile minority to facilitate their grip over our money supply and consolidate their power by leaching further wealth, which’s the primary problem.

These are some of the reasons why, apparently, the money issue’s more important than other issues relevant to MR because the other issues are either secondary or symptoms rather than the cause.

Principles of money vs. Jews

Now, it doesn’t take much research to observe that the international bankers are overwhelmingly Jews and that the Jewish community has a long history of money lending and manipulation of the money supply. But I’ve avoided mentioning Jews in the money FAQ. This is deliberate, for two reasons. The first is that the basic principles of money creation and its control are what really matter, and Jews shouldn’t be given an opportunity to deflect debate from these basic principles, which are the heart of the matter, to “anti-Semitism.” This is why I’ve written it so that readers can post it elsewhere, put the argument in their own words, adapt the FAQ to their own country, and discuss the basic principles of money rather than digress into Jewish-related issues, particularly “anti-Semitism.” By omitting Jews, I make the argument less precise, but it remains fundamentally accurate.

The litmus test

The second reason for omitting Jews in the money FAQ’s that the basic principles allow us to almost decisively address the issue of the litmus test, which has come up on some occasions. What’s the litmus test for deciding who’s “us” and who’s on “our side”? I’ve put ‘us’ and ‘our side’ in quotes because I don’t intend this to mean something very narrow. Let it refer to nationalists, or patriots, or anti-globalists, or anti-new-world-order people, or… other groups that recognize that the world’s taking a turn for the worse, particularly regarding issues related to wealth and money, and wish to do something about it.

If the problems being confronted involve wealth or power [wealth confers power], then the litmus test of who’s “us” or on “our side” is how one responds to the money issue, particularly the process of money creation and who should control its supply, not a vague agreement that yes, there’s a money problem and that bankers are responsible. Note that the litmus test isn’t what’s one’s stance on the money issue, but what’s one stance after being informed of the money issue or the nature of money, which is what the money FAQ’s about, and what’s one’s attitude toward the money issue thereafter. This is because many people simply don’t have a clue, and after being confronted, malicious individuals may superficially acknowledge the problem and agree to the solution, but quickly ignore it or go back to their ways and pretend that the issue never came up. This litmus test should be regarded as necessary but not sufficient.

In the case of the Holocaust hoax or 9/11, in many contexts people can get in major trouble for taking the correct stance, which’s why these can’t be the litmus test, at least as of present, and can only serve as litmus tests in narrow circumstances, such as commenting anonymously on the internet.

But ensure that Jews aren’t mentioned in a money FAQ, and there’s no excuse in most circumstances to adopt positions on the money issue that favor bankers unless one happens to be a banker, an agent of the banker, a malicious Jew or an economist whose livelihood depends on promoting bankers’ propaganda.

The Jewish question

Whereas I wanted to keep Jews out of the money FAQ, this post’s about comments on the money FAQ, and I don’t intend to avoid discussing Jews here.

If the money power’s not taken away from Jews, they can survive an expose of some of their most serious crimes and lies, such as 9/11, the world wars and the Holy hoax. Those not convinced of this assertion need only spend a few weeks browsing the website wakeupfromyourslumber.com. This website’s run by malicious Jews who don’t shy away from blaming Jews for the world wars, economic recessions, 9/11 and numerous other false flag operations. Why do they do it? Notice two things about them. At the very least, they’re not keen on linking to or bringing independent critics of Jewry into the fold, and in a number of cases they display marked hostility toward independent critics of Jews. In addition, they also post lots of disinformation that minimizes Jewish involvement, makes it appear that the problem stems from a small minority among Jews, or even that the Jewish majority’s a victim of a malicious Jewish minority. It’s all about controlling dissent and damage control, which’s increasingly becoming more important for Jews.

As long as the Jews hold on to their money power, the worst [for them] is that they’ll sacrifice some of their criminals for the greater good of their community, intending to maintain the bare minimum level of malfeasance required to hold on to their money power and hopefully resume their schemes for greater wealth and power at a future date. But take away their money power and all the dominoes fall, and there’s no way they could prosper as a community once their crimes are widely exposed, which’ll happen rapidly once the money power’s gone. We might thus see a decisive answer to the Jewish question after Jewish money power’s taken away. I don’t intend, at this point, to discuss what shape this answer might take or should take because I’ve intended this discussion to be about basic money principles and want to address Jews only to the extent that it’s necessary to point out that without taking away their money power, their malfeasance can’t be stopped.

Nationalism

Now for something closer to home. In general, the money issue [basic principles and solutions] isn’t properly addressed by nationalists or those close to them, which’s consistent with most of the prominent ones either being useless/ineffective or controlled opposition.

Watch out for the following types of treatment of the money issue among apparent nationalists and closely related individuals.

First there’s this David Duke video on the debt problem and the Jewish role in it, which, in a nutshell, acknowledges both. There’s no argument about the creation of money as debt; the causation of recessions by the contraction of the money supply, a result of fewer loans; and the simple solution, which’s creation of debt-free money by the government and the prohibition of money creation by bankers, which the Constitution calls for. There’s more than sufficient time to discuss these issues in brief, but they aren’t discussed, and they’re not properly addressed in the mass of his writings, although he’s had decades to work on them. It’d take less time and fewer resources to write the basic argument than what it took to produce this video.

Duke’s presentation’s of the type that uses emotional manipulation to establish rapport, offers no true understanding of the problem and no solution. Some readers may know that I’ve argued that Duke’s [blackmailed] controlled opposition, but this video alone isn’t decisive [feel free to watch other videos or podcasts of his on the topic]. The point’s to beware of this approach and carefully examine other arguments of the author to decide whether the author’s largely useless or controlled opposition.

The second argument’s of the type of posting by Kievsky here, where he argues that the coming economic dire straits/higher unemployment will perhaps effect a cultural renaissance. He starts with claiming that the bankers have apparently outsmarted themselves because non-productive paper-shuffling jobs can’t be sustained and there’s going to be a high level of unemployment [presumably bad for the bankers]. In reality, the move to leaving increasingly paper-shuffling jobs in the U.S. has been a calculated approach by the bankers as it:

• Allows them to reap more profits from cheaper offshore labor.
• Counterbalances American power by building up another nation, China in recent years. Such balance–of–power arrangements assure that the bankers can’t be overthrown worldwide by a political revolt in any single country, and if an ouster attempt occurs, the bankers simply shift support to the counter–balanced country. Additionally, the inevitable military rivalry between roughly balanced powers results in massive expenditures and hence more national borrowing and debt.

High levels of unemployment aren’t bad news for bankers as during recessions, people default on loans, and bankers acquire assets for pennies on the dollar, which is why bankers periodically contract the money supply to cause recessions.

Back to Kievsky. Kievsky shifts gears and starts blaming the government for manipulation of employment, and engineering laziness, idleness and mental dullness, whereas the government’s controlled by the bankers, and it’s the bankers who also control the media.

Kievsky says, “We are finding that most white Americans are lazy and apathetic, and this is why we are being run over. Only a contracting economy and the bite of hunger can awaken them from their anaesthesiac slumber.” Aside from shifting the blame further, this is an argument of the type, “You’ll be raped; you might as well enjoy it as you’ll be emerging a stronger person, better able to handle adversity.” It’s a form of psychological manipulation to resign people to their fate instead of making them fight it while they still have some vitality left. Of course, no useful cultural change came out of the Great Depression. It’s clear that one’s dealing with a malicious individual, and Kievsky’s left a trail that reinforces this conclusion.

Another argument’s like a four-part series [1, 2, 3, 4] by Kerry Bolton, titled “Breaking the Bondage of Interest: A Right Answer to Usury.” Anyone who puts something like this together knows about the nature of money. Notice what’s identified as the main problem: usury [excessive interest on loans; obsolete usage refers to interest on loans].

Charging interest on loans goes toward covering the risks associated with loans, and getting back a little more than what one lent is a reasonable incentive to lend to strangers, which should be acceptable to those who really need a loan.

Let’s assume there’s no fractional reserve banking, i.e., banks lend no more than a dollar for each dollar they possess. Since interest is charged but not issued, interest’s a problem in the hypothetical scenario where the amount of money remains constant, all borrowers return the principal sum and there’s no money to pay interest, but this hypothetical scenario won’t be seen as some borrowers are bound to default, the sum thus not returned as principal sum being available for interest payments by others, and the government [responsible for money creation] will match the money supply to the need for money. Those who default won’t necessarily lose their assets to the banks as there’s bankruptcy protection. In summary, charging interest on loans isn’t a problem.

However, charging excessive interest [usury, in modern usage] is a problem, and creating the amount of the loan out of nothing is a much more serious problem. The overwhelmingly major basis for the bankers’ power is creating loans out of nothing [fractional reserve banking], not excessive interest. Yet Bolton identifies usury as the problem.

Bolton mixes a few gems with largely irrelevant details to detract focus from the gems. The presentation of fractional reserve banking’s in a vague, obscure manner that many naive individuals won’t get, and no clear solution’s presented except for a historical survey of approaches to combat the problem of “usury,” that includes examples of governments getting into the money-lending business, whereas there’s no need for the government to expand itself by getting into banking; all the government needs to do is prohibit banks from creating money and create the nation’s money as a debt-free utility.

Kerry Bolton’s approach is to give the impression that he possesses in-depth historical knowledge, include interesting tidbits here and there, and empathize with the reader over debt problems, thus establishing rapport, and then he wastes their time with distractions, offers no solutions, and elsewhere you can see him defend the bankers against some of the crimes they’re responsible for—e.g., his treatment of the U.S. civil war; contrast with the clear presentation of history by Patrick Carmack. Kerry Bolton’s another malicious individual.

There are those who promote banker-friendly policies, such as a gold-based money standard or Austrian School economics, easily giving their game away if they obviously know enough about the nature of money and claim to express an interest in solving the debt problem. The three approaches above—by Duke, Kievsky and Bolton—however, avoid promoting banker-friendly economic policies, but resort to other tricks to mislead. Be careful; think more critically; the controlled opposition problem’s worse than you think.

Posted by J Richards on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 11:21 PM in Activism,  Economics & Finance,  That Question Again,  World Affairs

http://www.majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/money

Permalink Leave a Comment

Oz and Our MONEY

December 1, 2011 at 1:06 pm (Money) (Money)

Permalink Leave a Comment