11/21/2011; comments here.
Note: The article’s about the United States, but the general principles apply to all except a handful of nations.
From banks, except for coins. Banks create money, out of thin air, when people ask them for loans [fractional reserve banking]. Most of this money comprises of computer entries [book entries before there were computers]. A small amount comprises of printed bills. Coins are a much smaller proportion of the money supply. Banks don’t mint coins, letting the government [Treasury] do so, because they’re too cheap to pay for them. They’re too cheap to even buy and maintain the equipment that prints paper money, letting the Treasury print the paper currency and buying it at the cost of printing (a few cents per paper note).
Fractional reserve banking originated around a thousand years ago, and became a major player since the seventeenth century. Starting with an original amount, let’s say banks or money changers inflate the money supply three times by creating money for loans out of nothing. The original amount’s now worth a third of what it was. Extrapolate the process over centuries, demonetize [cease to regard as money] prevailing currencies [silver, tally sticks, etc.]... and most money circulating out there ends up representing debt, nearly all money ends up created as debt.
In this scenario: the vast majority of the debt can’t be paid off because the bankers created it out of nothing while not creating the money to pay interest; a debt that’s paid off simply disappears save for the interest that’s earned by the bankers; nullifying the total debt [because it’s fraudulent or invalid] removes nearly all money from circulation.
No. The legal authority for banks creating loans out of nothing is found in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 [see §19(2)(A)(i), §19(2)(A)(ii)].
The Federal Reserve system, the nation’s central bank, comprises of 1) a Board of governors and 2) 12 regional banks that are neither “wholly owned” government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor “mixed ownership” corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856; the Federal Reserve banks are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations [Lewis v. USA, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982)].
Federal Reserve banks are considered federal “instrumentalities” in a very limited sense, such as not being taxable by the States. The moniker “Federal Reserve” is a deceptive term to make it appear that one’s dealing with a federal agency.
The President of the United States appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and one Board member every 2 years. This is a show put on to make the Federal Reserve banks appear quasi-governmental agencies; the President’s told who to appoint, and if he doesn’t comply, then the bankers have ways to bring the economy down, blaming it on the President, and trash the President in the mainstream media, ensuring his removal.
The Federal Reserve Board annually reports on its activities to Congress. This is a show put on to convey the impression that the Federal Reserve’s accountable to the government; the reports can’t be verified and the Federal Reserve banks have never been audited by Congress.
Aside from asking this question, critics may alternatively point out that if the above’s true, the government would’ve intervened and corrected the system. But the government’s impotent. Let’s understand why.
The national debt’s close to 15 trillion dollars as of this writing, and counting. The hand that gives is more powerful than the hand that receives, and any hand capable of doling out trillions is powerful indeed. To understand this power, let’s look at the process of how the government meets its budget.
Regardless of spending cuts, a government needs to spend a sizable amount of money, and if the only money the American government creates is coins, then no matter how much it taxes the public, it’s bound to run into a budget deficit. How’s this deficit taken care of? The government issues Treasury notes/bonds/bills, which are promises to pay. The government thus borrows money from the people who purchase the Treasury paper.
The money that people use to buy Treasury paper represents debt. The Federal Reserve banks buy 10% of the Treasury paper from the individuals who’ve bought them from the government, paying for them by electronically crediting the bank accounts of these individuals [creating money out of nothing]. Then the banks where these accounts exist loan many times the amounts deposited, creating the loans out of thin air. This is how the banks create, out of nothing/as debt, 100% or more of the amount of the annual budget deficit, expanding the money supply in the process [inflation]. Banks are generally allowed to loan between 7-12.5 times the deposit amount. For most deposits, banks are allowed to loan 10 times the amount, but there are a number of exceptions, and the net result is that the Federal Reserve banks create, as debt, about 2% of American money and other private banks create, as debt, 98% of American money.
When the Federal Reserve banks sell Treasury paper, banks overall remove from circulation money 10 times the sales.
This system is ridiculous as the government could simply issue its own money, thus neither needing to tax the public, nor borrow from bankers, nor facilitate the bankers causing inflation [the dollar’s lost 95% of its value in the century after the creation of the Federal Reserve system]. Indeed, if the government can issue Treasury bonds, it can also issue the money it needs for its expenses.
In fact, according to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to create money [Article I, Sec. 8(5)]. The process of money creation’s an essential legislative function of the government, and hence can’t be delegated to other entities, such as private banks [Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935); A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)]. And, laws passed in contravention to the Constitution are repugnant to it, thus being null and void [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)]. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is therefore null and void.
Nevertheless, the Federal Reserve notes that constitute the paper money in circulation are printed by the Treasury, sold at the cost of printing [a few cents per printed note] to the Federal Reserve banks, and then private banks loan these notes to the public at the value printed on them! And, the government ends up paying hundreds of billions of dollars in interest to the bankers annually, which’s around a fifth of its budget, for loans the bankers create out of nothing, and this interest payment comes from taxes. This grossly unjust system’s an illustration of who really wields power.
How did the bankers acquire this power? The banker types have been facilitated by a relative lack of moral conscience. As a consequence, no crime is too atrocious for them. Their history’s sordid, full of scheming, plotting, conspiring, corruption, deception, bribery, treachery, treason, murder, massacre, and warfare. The history of the bankers in the American context has been made available by Patrick Carmack and Bill Still in the Money Masters movie. Google video usually has a copy of the Money Masters movie, and here’s the script of the video detailing how the bankers acquired control of American money.
Lots. Why stop at just creating loans out of thin air and enjoying the interest payments?
Bankers sell mortgages or other debts to investors [collateralized debt obligations; CDOs], not telling them that there’s no way the debtors can pay off the debts as only the bankers get to create money, which they do out of nothing. But why leave it at this? They sell insurance to cover the risk of people defaulting on their debts [credit default swaps; CDS’]. Why not make more money? They gamble on the probability of defaults [speculation]. But there’s more wealth to be made.
Since nearly all money’s being created as debt, what happens when the bankers loan less and start recalling loans increasingly? The money supply shrinks and there’s a recession. Less money means more defaults. So now the bankers get to acquire the assets of many of those defaulting for pennies on the dollar. Via insider knowledge, the net effect of trade regarding CDOs, CDS’ and speculation is wealth transfer from the general stockholder population to those at the top of the food chain; note net effect, as superficially some of the big names will also be “losers.”
It doesn’t stop here. During recessions, the bankers get the government to bailout some bankrupt institutions. Considering that the only money created by the government, already drowning in debt, comprises of coins, how’s the government in a position to loan any substantial amount or bailout any industry or business? Obviously, the government needs to borrow money for the purpose. Government bailouts/loans are just a scam to get governments and hence the people more indebted to the bankers.
Note the economics jargon [in brackets]. This is a small sample of the deliberate obfuscation in economics to hide the swindling going on. Again, since nearly all money’s created as debt and most money out there in circulation represents debt, it’s impossible for the vast majority of people to avoid taking out loans, and the swindling thus occurs on a massive scale.
Every year some economist wins the Nobel Prize. What do they win it for? They get it for outstanding arguments as to why the people should keep getting more indebted to the bankers and how the bankers can acquire more wealth and power.
Obviously, nothing of value to the public will come out of listening to any prominent economist as this individual wouldn’t have acquired prominence had he not promoted banker-sanctioned propaganda and banker-friendly policies.
It’s interesting to observe different economists/economics schools of thought attack each other over the extent to which the government should exercise control vs. the freedom that should be afforded to the market. The debate’s spurious and a digression from the swindling that goes on.
As an example, let’s consider the recent global economic recession resulting from the American housing crisis. The official claim’s that substantial amounts of loans were given to unqualified people to buy houses [mortgages]. Some blame insufficient government oversight of the institutions giving out the loans. Others blame government pressure on institutions to loan more to racial minorities that are less wealthy.
The reality’s that if the bankers create loans out of nothing, what does it matter to them whether they loan to someone who makes 25k/year or 250k/year? The banks have nothing to lose as they’re not giving away their money, and in both cases they make money off of interest, more so in the case of the debtor with greater income, in which case they’re also able to extend the period during which they sell CDOs and CDS’ to naive investors.
All housing loans were invalid/fraudulent to start with, fraudulent loans were sold to investors, fraudulent loans insured, fraudulent loans gambled upon, fraudulent loans earned interest on, and fraudulent loans that defaulted when bankers voluntarily reduced the [fraudulent] loans in general they were giving out to shrink the money supply.
Thus we have the basic mechanism of an economic boom-bust cycle. It’s the bankers who create economic bubbles/booms by relaxing loan standards, thus giving people more money for discretionary purchases, and it’s the bankers who create a recession by loaning less and thus shrinking the money supply, which they do to force many people to default and acquire their assets for pennies on the dollar.
There’s absolutely nothing inevitable or natural about a boom-bust cycle unless by inevitable/natural one means a calculated, planned act by the international bankers.
Bankers, through their agents and the media they’ve bought, deflect blame, give us all sorts of useless leads/explanations, but it’s they who’re responsible for booms and busts.
Some people argue that the money problem stems from it being created out of nothing, i.e., money not being tied to anything of value [fiat money]. They propose that money should be tied to gold. This either reflects ignorance or malice.
The bankers have used a gold standard to their advantage. When destitute British colonies in America experimented with debt-free paper money issued by the local government, the colonies prospered and British bankers forced a gold standard, again impoverishing the colonies. The revolutionary war [of independence from the bankers] followed.
Another example of why the gold standard benefits the bankers is the aftermath of the U.S. civil war, when the bankers wanted a gold-based standard of money. Would they want this if it empowered the people?
They wanted a gold-based standard because silver was plentiful and being used as money, and because Lincoln had introduced debt-free money, Greenbacks, into circulation. The scarcity of gold made it an attractive candidate for manipulating the amount of money flowing around, and the bankers, naturally, had large quantities of the gold out there. How did they go about establishing this standard?
They recruited John Wilkes Booth to kill Abraham Lincoln, who would surely have repealed the National Banking Act (1963, 1964) he had reluctantly acquiesced to in order to fund the war efforts to maintain the Union.
Then the bankers started removing Lincoln’s greenbacks from circulation and demonetized silver. They got the government to stop minting silver coins in 1873. By 1876, Americans were mostly destitute, with one out of three unemployed because the bankers had removed a large amount of money from circulation. In 1877 there were riots in many cities. In 1878, facing intense public pressure, Congress was forced to reissue silver dollars in limited quantities and, facing the heat, bankers eased up on loans, thus granting Americans a brief respite from the post-war depression they had caused.
A brief threat appeared in the form of President James Garfield, but the bankers had him assassinated.
More financial misery followed as the bankers wanted to replace the many National Banks with a single central bank; the modus operandi was to cause financial panics, then argue that a centralized bank was needed to prevent such panics.
In 1900, a gold standard for the dollar was finally established. In 1913, the bankers got their central bank when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Soon thereafter, they exploited international rivalries and funded the build-up leading to World War I. The gold standard was briefly suspended during this war.
Then the bankers sharply contracted the money supply, causing the Great Depression; the contraction of money causes a lot of people to default and thus, again, the bankers get to acquire homes, farmland and other assets for pennies on the dollar. The Bank of England abolished the gold standard in 1931. The United States held out a little longer but the gold standard was suspended in 1933 when people started hoarding gold and distrusting paper money as banks started to fail; on top of this, the bankers had the U.S. government confiscate people’s gold.
After World War II ended, the world’s currencies were tied to the U.S. dollar, which maintained a gold standard. By 1968, the bankers had separated the value of gold traded between central banks from that traded publicly. In 1971, the gold standard for the U.S. dollar was abandoned as it had served its purpose.
Obviously, a gold standard won’t help the general public. In general, tying money to a commodity [not necessarily gold], using a commodity as money or using money as a commodity favors the bankers because they have most of this commodity and know how to obtain most of what they don’t possess.
Money shouldn’t have any intrinsic worth; worth lies in the goods and services being exchanged. This means that money must be created as a fiat of law, as a public service. The debt problem of the world has nothing to do with money being created out of nothing, but has everything to do with money being controlled and created as debt by bankers who charge but don’t issue interest.
Let’s consider a farmer who wants to buy a stereo. The bankers want the farmer to borrow money to buy the stereo, and the owner of the stereo to borrow money to buy food from the farmer, and the farmer to borrow money to rent space to sell food so that he can pay his debt to the bankers… the bankers create the loans out of nothing.
A government creating debt-free money would give the farmer paper money that it determines his food’s value is and would give the stereo owner money that his stereos are worth. This money’s of no intrinsic worth, but it can be used to exchange goods and services that have some worth (food, stereo and rent space in our case). So the farmer uses the money the government gave him to rent space and then he sells food to the stereo owner to earn money, which the stereo owner obtained from the government, and then the farmer buys a stereo. So no one’s in debt and the government created the money out of nothing.
Does this mean that the government has to sit down and audit people’s worth to assign them money? No. Here’s an example. Suppose a government needs to build a highway. It takes paper, cuts it into small rectangular pieces and stamps values of $5, $10, $100, etc. The cost of production of each of these rectangular pieces is a few cents per piece, and since the value stamped is arbitrary, the money is essentially created out of nothing. Now the government pays contractors with this money to build the highway. Since this money is legal tender, the contractors can purchase equipment and raw materials with it, and they can pay their workers with it. The workers can use their earnings to buy food, clothes, supplies, etc. In short, the government-created money is spread in circulation as legal tender and no one’s under debt related to the cost of creating the highway. More generally, people will end up with the money they’re worth after the ravages effected by the bankers are undone in a few years following monetary reform; read on.
There’s an obvious advantage to creating money out of nothing in the government example above, aside from it being free of debt. Since the money can be created in arbitrary amounts, it’s an easy matter to create as much money as needed, whereas if money is tied to a commodity, one is limited by the amount of the commodity available. Another advantage is that those who possess the most commodities/wealth don’t get to control the money supply as money isn’t tied to a commodity. A potential disadvantage of money creation in this manner is that an arbitrary amount of money may be created, i.e., it may exceed the need or fall short. But why would an arbitrary amount be created? The government is elected, the appointees aren’t based on heredity, public officials are accountable and removable, there are term limits, and the Constitution limits what laws can be passed. Thus, debt-free money, created as a fiat of law, will work.
There’s a vigorous debate on how an economy should be run. Capitalism vs. Socialism refers to the means of production in private vs. government hands, respectively. Critics of capitalism point out instances of corporate greed, job losses as a result of outsourcing/globalization, recessions, etc. Critics of socialism point out the situation in Eastern Europe under socialist rule and other instances of government mismanagement. The debate’s essentially useless.
Let’s consider two hypothetical scenarios. In both, money’s created by the government, out of nothing, as a debt-free public utility for the exchange of goods and services, which’s nationalization of the money supply, but this is no more an example of socialism than it is of capitalism as the money has no intrinsic worth and doesn’t fall into the categories of goods, services and means of production.
Minimal government [performing bare minimum regulatory functions]. We imagine a society where people pay for their own transportation, housing, food, medical care, etc., and the vast majority of people can afford to pay for their essential needs and have some discretionary spending money.
Powerful government [acting as major provider]. We imagine a society where the State provides citizens free public transportation, housing and medical care. A large proportion of the populace is employed by the State. The vast majority of people are able to work toward acquiring funds for discretionary spending.
In both scenarios, the vast majority of people thrive and society prospers indefinitely. But there are different pluses and minuses for each scenario.
So what’s the capitalism vs. socialism debate? The capitalism and socialism we’ve seen have both involved money created as debt by bankers, who’ve held the real power rather than the governments superficially in control, and people have suffered under both systems, not because there’s anything intrinsically deficient in either system but because of the manner of money creation and the bankers who’ve created this money.
The communist revolution in Russia was financed by the capitalist bankers. There’s no irony here because the issue was never the welfare of the working class, but the acquisition of power by the international bankers. The Russian royalty stood in the way of the bankers, and the masses had to be incited against their elite, who were blamed for oppressing the masses. When the communists were successful, they slaughtered the royalty, starved millions to death in the process of acquiring their farms and killed millions more to maintain control, none of these a consequence of socialism but of the criminal intentions of the banking community that had financed the revolution.
Similarly, the stark, and increasing, concentration of wealth among a small minority that’s blamed on capitalism is a result of fractional reserve banking, which has nothing to do with capitalism but is a form of counterfeiting/swindling that predates capitalism by centuries. Then there’s corporate greed that’s blamed for the outsourcing of jobs, but a publicly-traded corporation has to increase profits to please investors, a CEO that refuses to use all lawful means necessary to increase profits won’t be CEO for long, and investors have to be pleased to facilitate the wealth-transfer stocks scams run by bankers:
Naive investors are enticed to invest by showing them rising stocks values. Periodically, the bankers will crash the stock market, resulting in the net transfer of wealth from the general stockholder population to the top players.
Capitalism isn’t to blame here, nor the greed of corporations other than financial corporations as the publicly-traded non-financial corporations involved in outsourcing and other aspects of globalization have no choice but to please the bankers running the show.
Don’t be misled by the largely useless debate between capitalism and socialism. The ills seen under either system have resulted from bankers creating money as debt and controlling the money supply. A government creating debt-free money while prohibiting bankers from creating money is compatible with both capitalism and socialism, both of which will work for the masses under said condition though there are different pluses and minuses associated with the two approaches.
In general, debates such as capitalism vs. socialism, right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, and Republican vs. Democrat are largely a waste of time as the reality’s aptly illustrated by Ben Garrison below.
First we note sound principles of money.
Money’s issued as a debt-free utility/tool for the exchange of goods and services.
Money isn’t of any intrinsic worth.
Money’s issued by a group working transparently, directly accountable to the public. The individual members of this group must be removable by the public, all actions being bound by the Constitution. In the U.S., this group has to be Congress, according to the Constitution.
Next we put these principles into practice.
The first step’s obviously preventing bankers from creating money in any form. Since bankers use the fancy term “fractional reserve banking” for creating money as debt, the corresponding terminology’s requiring banks to maintain 100% reserves. This means that for each dollar they possess, banks can’t lend more than a dollar, or can’t invest more than a dollar, or can’t bet more than a dollar.
The second step’s replacing money as debt with debt-free money. A replacement process keeps the amount of money in circulation intact, causing neither inflation nor deflation. This can be achieved in various ways. To understand the basic principle involved, consider some details of how banks create debts out of nothing.
Two bank customers, A and B, have deposits of $100 and $50 in a bank, respectively. On paper, A and B have $150 between them. Now B asks for a $90 loan. The bank’s allowed to create a fraction of the amount A has on deposit, and it changes $50 to $140 with a few keystrokes, thus creating $90 and giving it to B. On paper, now A and B have $240 between them ($100 for A and $50 + $90 for B), whereas in reality the bank only has $150 between A and B. The bank hopes that A and B don’t simultaneously attempt to withdraw a combined sum in excess of $150 or else the bank fails [extrapolate this to a large number of customers, and it’s obvious why banks fail when too many customers attempt to withdraw substantial amounts of their deposits, a phenomenon known as a run on the bank]. Now that this bank’s required to maintain 100% reserves, it has to come up with the $90 it created as a loan for B.
The simple solution’s that the government creates debt-free money and uses it to pay off the national debt. The bankers don’t pocket this money because of the 100% reserves requirement [e.g., putting in $90 in A’s account in above example]. For details of monetary reform, see this proposal at the Money masters website. This isn’t the only possible solution.
Another solution’s in the form of H.R. 6550, introduced by Rep. Dennis kucinich, mainly differing from the previous approach in that the replacement of bank credit with debt-free money is seen in terms of the indebtness of banks to the Treasury; the banks have to pay off this debt, partly utilizing the loans paid off by their customers and partly using the enormous wealth the bankers have leached from the public.
Bankers and their agents don’t have a valid response to the two-step solution. They may attempt to argue that 100% reserves will prevent loans, which’s false as nothing prevents rich people from getting together, forming a financial institution and loaning a subset of their personal wealth, nor are bank customers prohibited from agreeing to let banks loan a certain proportion of their deposits, say, in the savings account, and share the profits. Besides, with debt-free money and a correspondingly better distribution of wealth, the need for loans will drop considerably. Stocks will remain an option for enterprises to come up with the necessary capital.
The second objection’s over the alleged inability of the government to successfully create and manage its own money. Two classic examples cited are the failure of colonial script around the American revolutionary war of independence, and the collapse of the currency/hyperinflation in Weimar Germany. However, the revolutionary war was a direct result of the success of colonial script, which the bankers were dead set against, and the reason for its collapse was massive counterfeiting of colonial script by bankers in England, who shipped it by the bale to America. In Weimar Germany, the central bank was under banker control when the currency collapsed, and when the government [NSDAP] took control, financial prosperity followed soon thereafter while the rest of the world—except Japan that began banking reform, eventually modeling it after Germany—suffered under the Great Depression.
This is the holy grail. There’s a Catch 22 situation. If the bankers and their agents are hanged, the government’s free to enact monetary reform, but bankers and their agents can’t be hanged without the government’s cooperation, and the government’s full of agents of the bankers! So how do we go about it?
Bankers aren’t voluntarily giving up power and will resort to any crime necessary to hold on to and consolidate their power. They must be removed from power using non-violent and violent means, whatever it takes, or else the vast majority of the Western people will soon live in destitution, too weak to mount any sort of resistance against the bankers, too dependent on scraps from the government to survive, lacking any sort of financial cushion to use mass strikes to force the government to enact monetary reform, and subject to periodic culling by the bankers when the beggar/starving numbers are too much to handle.
A focused Occupy Wall Street (OWS)-type movement can serve as an effective vehicle for [mostly] non-violent change. The OWS movement is the brainchild of the bankers, who took a pro-active shot at such a movement before genuine opposition organized this type of protest. Correspondingly, the OWS movement hasn’t focused on the real causes of the global debt problem and served as an opportunity for undercover bankers’ agents to get to know some of the people aware of the true causes of the periodic recessions and increasing debt problem, those who have the correct solutions and those who could potentially lead genuine opposition. The potential leaders or major contributors to future genuine opposition, if found, will be targeted for elimination, say, under the cover of martial law following a major false flag operation masterminded by bankers.
A focused, genuine OWS-type movement would organize its message along the following sample lines, that go to the heart of the matter, all suitable for signs, posters and banners:
Banks are counterfeiting money
END Fractional Reserve Banking
100% Reserves for Banks
Banks must not create money
Say NO to money as debt
DEMAND debt-free money
Read Article I, Sec. 8(5) of the Constitution
Congress must create money
Fiat money created by the government NOW
Pull out of international banks
Repeal Federal Reserve Act (1913)
Federal Reserve notes United States notes
The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional
End National Banking Act (1863, 1864)
Federal Reserve is not a government agency
This movement will picket the right targets: banks and other financial corporations, bankers and their agents, politicians, mainstream media outlets. They may even burn corpulent effigies of bankers in piles of fake money. Imagine if a million people each marched on Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street, with the clear messages listed above, reciprocated at online social networks, and the pictures and video feeds made available at any given time to the entire world via the world wide web. How many could be arrested and abused?
Notice how leftists groups protest against the G-8 or G-20 summit? They act as if the Heads of State are the decision makers instead of being the front men of the bankers. Accordingly, when picketing or protesting against politicians, they should be mocked as tools and puppets of the bankers. It should be embarrassing to be a politician. Mainstream media companies should also be picketed as tools of the bankers.
People who attempt to organize a genuine OWS-type movement or infiltrate the OWS movement should observe certain precautions:
Be professional and don’t get too friendly with strangers, especially those who’re very inquisitive about you. Don’t explain your stances at length to those curious about what you’re trying to accomplish; just give them a sheet of paper that distills the main points, saying that all answers will be found in the paper and that you don’t exactly understand everything in it, but the people who wrote it do and it seems to make sense. You may even adopt a disheveled appearance while distributing pamphlets so that when asked where you got them from, you could convincingly say that someone whom you don’t know gave you $50 to distribute them; describe this person, if necessary, using the most vague description: white male, mid 30s, average height, average build, medium-length medium-brown hair, don’t recall eye color, no tattoos/scars, etc. Be vague in response to inquisitive questions, and appear to be of low-to-average intelligence; don’t give the impression that you could be a key member of genuine opposition.
Focus on money, banking only. Keep out other issues: women’s rights, the right to unionize, immigration, etc. Ask people who insist on bringing other issues to the table to set up their own, sufficiently distant booth/tent so as to not appear affiliated with your group.
Don’t hand out freebies such as free food as you’ll attract transients, panhandlers and others who have no wish to contribute but are just after the goods and looking to harass the women.
Individuals can contribute to a project that compiles at least the names and addresses, preferably also pictures, including pictures of family members, of all high-ranking employees of banks, other financial corporations and agents of the bankers [economics professors, authors, publishers, etc.]. It’d be an easy matter to anonymously distribute this list on Usenet. On the internet, the database could be made available as an archive through various file hosts, and the links posted at various websites.
If it’s necessary to collaborate on this project in an open manner, it’s best to host the website offshore [southeast Asia, eastern Europe, Latin America] and dispense with a domain name, i.e., the URI to access the website would be something along the lines of http://220.127.116.11/ [the I.P. address] because the domain name would be quickly seized by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the United States Department of Homeland Security.
This list shall serve a twofold purpose. It’ll be a warning to the bankers and their agents that we know who you are and you have an opportunity to peacefully end your malicious rule. The bankers could strike a deal with world governments, not difficult as they own them, that hands over the money creation and control process to the governments in exchange for the governments providing armed protection to the bankers and their families, allowing them to live the rest of their lives without prosecution and ensuring that their housing, food and medical necessities are taken care of. This would be a peaceful transition of power. Alternatively, if the bankers involuntarily lose power, they’re looking at lengthy prison terms, often life without parole, that is if they’re lucky... most people would prefer to see them swinging from trees, by their necks.
If the bankers don’t heed the warning, the list shall facilitate the tasks of lone wolves in taking out some of the bankers and their agents, which’ll generally not be difficult unless those targeted flee the country, in which case we’ll make sure they don’t come back.
There’s no shortage of people who think they’re worthless and wish to end their misery. Some such people will successfully commit suicide. What a waste as they could do something worthwhile before departing, even redeem themselves! They could make the world a better place by taking out parasites in the form of bankers and their agents.
Normally, people looking into taking out others will have some plan to flee and avoid arrest, which limit the risk they’re willing to take, but the suicidal have nothing to lose as they’re about to kill themselves anyway and could be highly effective recruits that take out the bankers.
Many online fora and websites cater to the suicidal, which is where one should start recruiting soldiers.
An effort should be made to educate and bring into the fold police and military personnel as they have access to weapons, databases and could refuse to act, or act against some of their peers when the bankers have the police and military ordered to target the opposition.
Patriotic cells among the police and the military could help with taking out groups of bankers in one go. Imagine a meeting of a hundred bankers interrupted by a thousand pounds of RDX, courtesy of the police hired to secure the premises.
What you can do as an individual’s limited only by your imagination. Here are some suggestions.
Write to your Congressman about the nature of money. Have fun voting incumbents out of office.
Pull out your money from banks and use credit unions for your banking needs.
If you have a choice between using a credit or debit card, use a debit card. Yes, credit cards come with better protections, but by using debit cards you prevent bankers from creating money out of nothing equal to the purchased item’s value; just watch your statements regularly, set up your checking account so that you aren’t able to overdraw. Use cash to avoid being tracked by financial institutions.
Minimize existing debt. Credit card debts can easily be slashed by half or three-fourths if you confront the issuers with how they create the loans out of nothing and demanding they settle for a fraction of the amount or you stop paying. If they don’t agree, stop paying for a few months, and they’ll agree to a settlement. Whereas one shouldn’t pay them anything, bad credit on one’s record doesn’t look good for job interviews or if some calamity forces one to seek a loan. Even if you don’t wish to pay anything, never file for bankruptcy as it becomes part of the public record and stays on your credit report for 10 years instead of just 7 years for bad credit. You can avoid debt collectors harassing you on the phone by sending them a certified letter requesting them to communicate in writing only, which they’re supposed to honor by law. If you confront credit card issuers with how they create loans out of nothing and demand, in writing, a sworn affidavit from someone of authority at the bank that the credit extended to you wasn’t created out of nothing, but involved real asset transfers, the debt hence being valid, then the credit card company won’t take you to court to get the money you allegedly owe them.
Avoid unnecessary debt. Rent instead of taking out a mortgage. Set aside money regularly. In 15 years, you may have enough to buy a decent foreclosed house with cash.
If you have to lose your house to foreclosure, make sure the mortgage provider or bank that acquires the house doesn’t benefit from it. Ever noticed that banks sometimes donate foreclosed homes to charity or demolish them? Why? They created the mortgage out of nothing. Now they got the house for free, but they’re liable for the taxes on the property, which they’re too cheap to pay, and what if the house needs repairs before it can be re-sold? So how does one ensure that a bank’s forced to either donate a foreclosed home to charity or pay for demolishing it? Add to repair costs [in a subtle manner to avoid criminal liability]. Here are some tips, by someone who doesn’t wish to be identified.
If you have money to spare, get a thorough medical check-up and nip any problems in the bud. You never know when the economy may crash and you lose your savings and investments. Toward the same purpose, you may consider stockpiling canned food, medical supplies, firearms and ammunition, etc.
Look for tax loopholes. You may gather like-minded locals and persuade them to make tax-deductible donations to a local non-profit group that’s useful for the community, or perhaps set up this non-profit organization.
Spread the word in your community and get a barter system going. Imagine something like Craig’s list, where people say that I’ve a stereo to offer that’s worth $45 and I’m willing to exchange it for DVD movies of equivalent value. Maybe this person can find someone interested in the stereo that can come up with DVDs worth this much, or agree to providing $40 worth of DVDs and $5 cash, or agree to providing $60 worth of DVDs and taking $15 or something worth $15. The idea’s to avoid, as much as possible, using the banker-issued money for exchanging goods. Be warned not to set up a local currency or coupons that can be used as money locally as the bankers will have the Federal government crack down on the practice, citing the Constitutional provision that only Congress can issue money, a provision the government never applies against the bankers, but the Courts won’t regard this as a valid excuse.
Don’t stop here... use your imagination!
Don’t be apathetic. Destitution for the masses, likely including you, your family, friends, and descendents, is guaranteed unless the bankers are removed from power.
Act. Don’t leave it to others.
Don’t be afraid of the bankers. Each of us will die individually and so will our children and grandchildren, and the deaths won’t be pleasant: horrible diseases, accidents. Make an effort to live a life with dignity. Death fighting the bankers, and thus fighting for a dignified life, is preferable to living in servitude, destitution and squalor, and if you manage to send some bankers and their agents to Hell, you’ll die with a sense of accomplishment . To Hell with the bankers!