|
To whom it may concern and/or
Dear Social Crediters,
I had posed the question
below on the MediaLens site to the participant who had posted a lengthy
insightful article introducing me to Catherine Austin Fitts. Here is his reply, which
strengthens my belief that Social Crediters may want to link up
with activists fighting against drug money being laundered through major
banks.
Anyhow, I'd like to write an
appropriate/relevant reply, both to continue/strengthen this new contact, as
well as informing/educating the intelligent people posting on MediaLens about
essentail Social Credit thinking and/or monetary reform ideas generally - and so
would appreciate any comments/corrections you might like to
add.
Thanks,
Ekky
Irion
Sorry, since I'm not a member of the
active lists mentioned in the e-mail addresses above, you could help me by
forwarding this message to those discussion groups you are active in,
- if/when appropriate.
Thx
Posted by BMW on May 1, 2005, 2:29 am
User
logged in as: BMW
--Previous Message--
: Hi BMW,
: Thanks for
posting this whole (long sordid
: story.
: I copied/pasted and was going
to comment on
: the excerpts below, but will now not bother
: and would
like to ask you a question
: instead:
: What's so hard to understand about
the
: multiplier effect of either drug dollars
: invested in the stock
exchange, and/or the
: 'magic of compound interest' as generated by
:
central bankers inventing/creating
: credit/money as interest bearing
loans/debt?
:
: What I mean is, why do most people take no
: interest
in/do not bother to understand that
: the same systematic dysfunctional
:
multiplier/compounding effect which drives
: drug pushing, is pushing
unsustainable
: growth in civilian production/consumption,
: and is the
driver for modern wars (e.g.,
: facilitating forced exports, importing
cheap
: raw materials, destroying excess industrial
: capacity)
etc...
:
: Compared to the
: multiplier/compounding/leverage power
of
: finance capital (drug dollars or otherwise
: invented fiat money) the
private ownership
: of the physical means of production is a
: fractional
problem.
: (IMO)
: Ekk
Apologies for the delay in replying.
In my opinion there's nothing hard to understand
about the multiplier effect of narcodollars combined with the stock market or
the effect of compound interest earned on money/debt created out of nothing. As
Fitts says in the article “There is very little about how the money works on the
drug trade that you cannot know for yourself by coming to grips with the
economics over a fifty year period of Sam and Dave and their boat loads of white
agricultural substance. It is the magic of compound interest.”
What is hard is to accept are the implications. For
example to believe the thesis of “Narcodollars for Dummies” is to believe that
the top criminals and the top business, banks and politicians are all
representing the same interests if not being one and the same. It suggests
systematic criminality on the part of government and big business above and
beyond that which most people are prepared or conditioned to accept e.g.
pollution, collusion, etc. It also does it in a way that is incontrovertible
when you just look at the numbers, follow the money and apply commonsense and
unsettling when you find real world examples or consider you own financial
dependency upon the health of various aspects of the economy e.g. investments
related to the stock market. It is also impossible to ignore if understood as
the drug trade is closely related to and compromises nearly every other major
issue e.g. war, crime, civil liberties and debt financing not to mention the
opportunity cost of money spent on such issues.
Whenever I hear the subject of drug legalisation
(which I would support) I raise the point that the world economy (the stock
market, mortgages, pension funds, employment etc) is dependant on the laundered
proceeds of illegal drug sales and that the top people in the drug trade have a
controlling interest in many aspects of society and that this is a major if not
the major obstacle to legalising drugs. The response is nearly always silence
(as evidenced on the thread I originally posted in).
I suspect most people take little or no interest in
these factors simply because they are unaware of them. Even when such facts are
conveyed they are so far from "conventional wisdom" as to be incomprehensible.
In the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" Chomsky makes the point that due to
the need to make a point between 2 commercials i.e. a need for concision, you
can only repeat conventional thought. If you say anything that is outside
mainstream opinion you will sound like you're from Neptune and you will not have
enough time as to cite evidence and sources to back up your
arguments.
For example I studied Economics at A-Level and the
whole notion of the creation of money as interest bearing debt while it was on
the syllabus was easily glossed over and while the idea never sat well with me,
it was never presented in such a way as to recognise the private power behind
central banks such as the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England, their history
or the knock-on effects of such a system apart from the need for growth i.e. the
types of activities that are favoured by such a system (e.g. greed and
environmental and social destruction as opposed to health and
education).
It doesn’t help that the few articles that are
written about the drug trade nearly always concentrate upon isolated aspects
rather than the bigger picture. For example the issue is usually presented from
the point of view of street sales and related crime by drug users or
occasionally crime syndicates and is often combined with race and imigration
issues e.g. Jamaican yardies and drug mules. When the issue of money laundering
is raised the companies involved are usually presented as being “victimised” (in
the process of adding millions to their bottom line) or banks are lax about
checking the sources of their clients money as opposed to actively seeking out
drug money as evidenced by Citigroup buying out Banamex, a known drug money
laundering Mexican bank. Sometimes pleas are made for tougher regulations
tightening money laundering laws and such laws do come into force but they will
never stop money laundering because the interests that benefit from the system
of off-shore accounts (including tax evaders) and other aspects of money
laundering control or are related to policymakers.
I listened to the money masters series and have
read/watched several books (I’d recommend “The Grip of Death” by Michael
Rowbotham), articles and documentaries on the monetary system and a point that
is often made is that bankers and financiers despite degrees, masters and
practical experience, often don't understand or appreciate the monetary system,
where money comes from and the power of the central banks.
Also there are so many other distractions in life
that you could happily live out your days with ever having to contemplate these
issues even if you work in the banking/finance sector.
The story of Catherine Austin Fitts is illustrative
of what happens when light begins to shine on "how the money works" and
information of that sort is generally marginalised in hard to get books or in
places where you're unlikely to come across them by chance. As Chomsky might
say, it not surprising as such information would be dysfunctional to the
institution itself.
Recommened reading/viewing
Link: Narcodolars for Beginners
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 12:48
AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Canada: Class Action Accuses Banks
of Illegal Creation of Money
> Former Deputy-Prime Minister of Canada, the Hon.Paul Hellyer,
who
> has now formed the Canadian Action party, was in Australia to
speak
> at a seminar in 1999, for Economic Reform Australia, to promote
his
> latest book entitled "Stop. Think". He got a good response and spoke
on
> a Radio National programme called "Background Briefing".
>
> He said that he asked 100 of his friends, mostly business men and
academics,
> even Bank Managers the same question:-"Where does our Money
supply come
> from"? Not one got it right, most thought that the Reserve
Bank printed it.
> And he replied that if they did we wouldn't be in the
mess that we are in
> now.
>
> Our publicly owned Reserve
Bank admits that of the total Money Supply only
> 5% is their's.the rest
has been manufactured "legally" as bank cheque-book,
> credit card
>
"promise to pay legal money" mainly by the private, non-public banking
and
> financial system on the process of granting loans, to governments,
business
> and
> private borrowers of their credit. This
non-government money evaporates into
> the Ether, from whence it
came.
>
> We have a Debt-money system that grew fom inception, in
1694 when the Bank
> of England, a private company was allowed to create
credit, creating two
> paper
> notes which were backed by only one
piece of gold. If more than 50% of the
> savers required gold, bad
luck. The bank couldn't pay what was promised on
> every note. It was a
legally sanctioned fraud.
>
> In 1791 America adopted the same
system, the Secretary of the Treasury
> Hamilton
> said that if the
National Debt did not become too large it was going to be a
>
great
> invention..The Bank of England came into public ownnership in
1945.
> The Federal Reserve is still Quasi private. Australia established
a people's
> bank in 1912.
>
> When a private bank creates
money and rents it out, only the principal is
> created, money that has
never been in existence before it was created.
> But the problem arises
that the interest to pay on a private bank loan is
> not
> created
from private sources, so that there is always a shortage which can
> only
be paid by further borrowing. Banks do not lend out people's savings.
>
> When I lend you money, the deposit in my bank reduces, your bank
increases,
> there is no extra money in the system. But when a bank lends
new money it
> swells the money supply. When loans are repaid the money is
cancelled from
> the
> system as is the interest, excepting the
amount of expenses the bank incurs
> as well as the dividends paid
out.
>
> As Emeritus Professor of Economics Dr. John H.Hotson told
ABC interviewer
> Julie Lester in Adelaide in 1993 there is now 4 to 5
times more debt owing
> than
> there is money available to pay that
debt, and to pay it down would cause a
> deflationary depression. As he
told Terry Lane,Phillip Adams and Ramona
> Koval
> in his broadcasts
on Radio National unless we have a fundamental change to
> the system we
will have a Meltdown! The greatest force on Earth is
> exponential
>
compound interest. The people have to be told the Truth, the media
are
> gagged.
> |
Re: Fw: Canada: Cl
Reply to this message
