james's blog

CRASHING THE MARKET: Short Selling Shares That Don't Exist For Fun and Profit.

(Foreword - In the following, the words “stocks” and “shares” mean the same thing and are interchangeable. Similarly, “share scrip” and “share certificates” are interchangeable. I have assumed, too, that you, the reader, are familiar with Credit Creation or the way money comes into existence through banking practice. If you are not familiar with this foundational piece of corruption in Western society, you can read about it here – Warring Worlds pt4b )

If I were to tell you that you had been 'shorted' in a deal you made, most people would ordinarily take that to mean you had been cheated. Being shorted is being dudded. So 'shorting the market' or 'short selling' is a very aptly named practice because basically it is cheating the market, i.e. it's fraud. Too many years ago, I worked for the Melbourne Stock Exchange in Australia and 'short selling' was banned there then for this reason because it involves selling something you don't have and that's illegal most places I know. It's really, really simple. (What the situation is now at the MSE I don't know). Back then when delivery of scrip was a lengthy process it was my understanding, and also of everyone I knew, that the short sellers simply took advantage of this lengthy delay. I heard no one talking about 'borrowing' share scrip (certificates) to deliver and replacing them at a later date. The 'borrowing scrip' idea is a relatively new explanation to my ears, at least, and this explanation is, no doubt, necessary now because of the much faster electronic settlement times. But, it still leaves many questions.

So how and why does it operate and how is it all explained away by the industry? The explanation goes like this: a trader considers a stock to be overvalued and expects the price to fall in the near future. So to profit from the situation, the trader borrows shares from someone to sell into the market. When the stock falls in price, the trader buys back the shares to give back to the compliant lender and everybody is happy. That's the story and I don't believe it. I have never believed it because it never made sense; and it still doesn't! Who's going to lend the trader his shares to do this especially when it is perfectly obvious that selling the 'borrowed' shares on the market is going to help depress the price? Why would anyone lend a trader their shares so this 'borrower' could devalue them? It's nuts, of course.

So how do they actually pull it off? Until fairly recently, I didn't know. But then I came across the following articles on the net and all was revealed. The conclusions that I will state presently are not stated in the articles but their reality is undeniable once they are highlighted.

Here are the articles in question and to save my fingers from Repetitive Strain Injury, would you, gentle reader, go have a Bo Peep at them before reading on?

You don't really own the shares you think you own

The unknown 20 trillion dollar company

WSJ: Blame the 'Stock Vault'?

Okay, so now you know that most stockholders never get their name on their stock certificates. Indeed, they never even sight their share certificates. They instead have an account with their broker that says they are the 'beneficial owners' of the stock. It's remarkably like the situation of having money in the bank; you have an account in their computer and that's all. The name that is actually on the stock certificates is “Cede & Co” (or similar) as in you cede ownership to Cede & Co. Ironic, no? Cynical, more likely. The similarity with a bank doesn't end there. It seems from all the preceding information that it is reasonable, even unavoidable, to conclude that the short sellers 'borrow' shares in exactly the same way a person 'borrows' money from a bank and both come from the same source; thin air. These borrowed shares are invented and exist temporarily in a double entry type bookeeping system until the short sellers buy back shares to cancel these 'virtual' shares. It is essentially the same method whereby banks lend money that doesn't exist and this extra money has a life until the loan is paid back and the extra virtual money disappears again. This seemingly fraudulent practice has been legitimised through the passing of laws allowing this banking practice. It is called 'Fractional Reserve Banking' overseen in the US by the Federal Reserve Board. The same practice involving shares, stock brokers, the New York Stock Exchange in particular and the Depository Trust Company, is not likewise legal as far as I know.

Cede and Co (the registered name on almost all stock) is the nominee company used and owned by the Depository Trust Company (DTC) otherwise known as the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC).
Who owns DTC?
Answer, the New York Stock Exchange.
Who owns the New York Stock Exchange?
Answer, the same Federal Reserve Board mentioned above.
Who owns the Federal Reserve Board?
Answer, American and European banks.
Who owns these banks?
Answer, a very good question!

What is known for sure, though, is that they are not your friends.

So the shares remain in the name of Cede & Co no matter who buys and who sells thus making it impossible to trace particular share certificates through transactions and which shares in the total are pre-existing shares and which ones are the extra 'virtual' ones and which shares disappeared when the short sellers bought back shares to cover those they sold and even the fact that there were extra 'virtual' shares at all. Facilitating this further is the fact that there are no certificates for the shares thus held. They are merely book entries or, more accurately, computer entries.

The only thing that changes are the broker's accounts and brokers, as you would have read at the links, are allowed to fudge things in the name of prompt settlement i.e. behave as if they have them in one of their accounts when they don't at all – fraud, in other words; shares created out of thin air. If this were not the case, then shareholders would notice that shares would disappear from their accounts and be replaced at a later date. This doesn't happen, of course, just as money doesn't disappear from your (or anyone else's) banking account when the bank lends someone money. The banks create new 'virtual' money whenever they lend and stock brokers and the DTC must, by all appearances, do exactly the same thing with shares to cover short positions.

Getting back to our 'borrowed' stocks and their accommodating owners, we can now see that they can not be borrowed at all but must be newly created. Who can do this? Who are they. They have to be none other the stock brokers who are allowed to do so to a limited degree under the NYSE rules but also the DTC and Cede & Co which is its nominee company that owns most of the real shares on behalf of the 'beneficial' or real owners, the ones that put up the money to buy them. The stocks are sort of held in trust, if you like. Except the trustee is acting against the interests of the rightful owners and without their knowledge whenever they conspire with large short sellers by creating fictitious shares and selling them to deliberately drive down the value of that stock. They can go on creating and selling these fictitious shares until they achieve their desired result; a low share price and driving legitimate owners of stocks that find themselves in financial straits to sell their shares on to a falling market and lose money. These shares are then purchased by the short sellers to cover their sale of fictitious shares at the previous higher prices and the loss suffered by the legitimate owners forced to sell becomes the profit of the short sellers. How is this not theft on a grand scale?

As I noted previously, an individual broker can cover for an individual short seller but this individual trader is unlikely to have the clout to crash the market under a wave of selling all by himself. To do that you need numbers and volume and co-ordination. And to cover the stock and share certificates for that necessarily involves the DTC itself because they are the ones that can 'supply' (actually, invent) that amount of scrip to cover the accounts that allows it all to happen. So the owners of DTC, the NYSE and the Fed have to be involved in, if not directly directing, any crash involving substantial short selling into the market. And they can do it any time they like and there's no one to blow the whistle on them. There's no one to say, “Oi, you pinched my share certificates to sell into the market without my permission!” More to the point, there's no one to say, “Oi, there seems to be a whole lot more “Ajax Hot Air Balloons” shares on issue today than there was yesterday!” If anyone on Wall Street wants to maintain that share scrip is really borrowed from existing shareholders, let them name them and show documentation to prove it.

Yes, folks, shares are created out of thin air when they are 'lent' just like money is created out of thin air when it is lent into existence. Because no shareholder's account at his brokers is suddenly missing shares to cover the short selling before they are bought back, extra shares have to come into existence for the bridging period. When the shorted shares are bought back (at lower prices), the extra ones, the virtual ones, the thin air ones, disappear into the ether from whence they came leaving no trace for investigators to find (assuming they would ever be appointed and also assuming they would be granted access to the DTC's or Cede & Co's books). Neat, huh? It's just like the banks and your money which they issue and control.

So next time there is a major stock market crash, you will know what is going on, who is doing it, how they're doing it and why they're doing it. This leaves the question of what to do about it? Given that these 'wise and honourable men' are the experts followed by the regulators, not much can be expected in the way of reform of these institutions and certainly not of their owners. Public education is the only recourse really, that I can see.

So spread the word and tell anyone who will listen that 'short selling' is fraud and why. And if you have shares (and/or have friends who have), insist on receiving your stock certificates in your hand and registered in your name or the name of your own nominee company. If this is not possible, consider selling those shares and buying others where you can be the 'registered owner' and hold actual share certificates instead of being the 'beneficial owner' as suggested in one of the above links.
The sooner the practice of short selling is eliminated the sooner the economy, which means everybody including non share holders, will be better off.

ON CHARGING AT WINDMILLS (and other things that might whack you)

ON CHARGING AT WINDMILLS (and other things that might whack you)

The other day, McJ put up a link to a story of a New Zealand journalist, Clare Swinney, who was incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital against her will for 11 days. She had written about the truth of 9/11 and had sent DVDs to television station personnel showing this truth. She also accused these people of lying about this truth. I felt very disturbed after reading this story because it brought to mind experiences of my own and of friends of mine who have fought for justice for themselves and others. These experiences don't match exactly Clare Swinney's, of course, but they are similar in that the weight of the State/Medical/Judicial/Police/Criminal complex has been brought down on me and my friends who are victims, supporters and/or whistle blowers. The results to varying degrees have included severe psychological stress and burnout; severe physical assaults and injuries and the loss of careers, health, money and freedom.

I mention the above experiences because I will be making some recommendations to people who are challenging the system (or may in the future) and some of these recommendations may sound risky or even dangerous. But I want to show that I am aware of the consequences of these actions and I don't recommend them lightly. They come from experience and I believe them to be, in fact, the safest way to handle “unwanted attention from the authorities”. These encounters are always scary. Don't kid yourself otherwise. But by preparing a strategy beforehand and adopting the attitude that in the immortal words of Jason Bourne, “this isn't just some story in a newspaper. This is real”, you will give yourself the best chance of maintaining the maximum level of power over your circumstances possible.

Clare Swinney repeated some of the mistakes that I have made and some that my friends have made in other situations. So I will use her story to illustrate what I am talking about. Of course, it would make it easier to follow my arguments and recommendations if you have read Clare's story beforehand. It, too, is rather long I'm afraid, so take a cut lunch with you but save a sandwich for when you get back here!

I am going to use Clare's testimony of her reactions and behaviours as examples of what not to do. There will be a few “shoulds” in my advice. I do not mean this in any way as a criticism of Clare. We all learn the hard way most of the time. I certainly have. Clare has published this account of hers, so I assume she wants others to use it and benefit. And full marks to her for doing so! This takes courage. Though this scenario deals with a psychiatric committal, the tactics and advice can be generalised to many other threatening situations. Whether you agree with my points or not, I hope you will have benefited from thinking through this situation in advance.
So on to Clare's story then:-

Two social workers lobbed on Clare's front door step unannounced and wanted her to accompany them to a psychiatric hospital for assessment. She went with them: this is her first mistake. Instead of going with them, she should have asked to see the committal order. If none is forthcoming she should have gone back inside, closed the door and called a lawyer to get his/her arse down there asap. Never go with anyone against your will unless you have been arrested.

Secondly, never let anyone into your home unless they are a friend or they have a search warrant. It doesn't matter what your neighbours might think about 'white coats' or police standing outside your door! From this point onward, it is much more important what you think of yourself rather than what the neighbours might think of you. Non co-operation would have saved the day for Clare.

If and when you get a lawyer to turn up, you do not ask for advice so much as give him/her instructions. You tell them to go out there and get rid of the cops (or social workers) by asking to see the court order authorising your arrest, should you not have asked for this already and/ or not been shown it. They either have it or they don't. If they don't have it and your lawyer wants to negotiate with whomever is harassing you, ring for another lawyer. I'm serious. Lawyers, for the most part in my experience, are incompetent or have interests opposed to yours, or both. I'll come back to lawyers later.

Clare went on to say, “ I asked if my flatmate, Brian Kennedy could come with us and attest that I was fine and most certainly not suicidal.
I picked up my bag and appropriate evidence for the meeting.”

You don't have to prove you are not suicidal. They have to show you the authority to take you into custody. If they have that authority and you go with them, then it is the 'authorities' that have to prove they are justified in their treatment of you. Taking her magazine, Clare thought this would show she is not mistaken in her assertions re 9/11, therefore not insane and therefore not suicidal (all incorrect connections there i.e. mistakeness does not equate with insanity and insanity does not equate with suicidality). This worked against her because it distracted her from the issue of whether she was suicidal or not and allowed her oppressors later to avoid it, too.

It is important to establish what the issue is and keep this foremost in your mind.

Clare in taking the magazine is focusing on defending herself rather than demanding the social workers defend what they are doing i.e. the legality of the situation. Understandable enough, of course, if you are caught totally by surprise and haven't thought this possibility through beforehand. Never-the-less, it is her second mistake. The point, again, is to not co-operate with these people. It is in their interests to surprise you and rush you through their “process”. Never co-operate no matter what they threaten you with. These people are not on your side and never will be. They are paid by the State and you have to assume they will always do what they are told. That is what they are trained to do, after all. If they are rushing you or threatening you, count on whatever they want you to do as being totally against your interests, at the very least, and most probably illegal.

Two police turned up hot on the heels of the social workers. Police presence always implies the threat of arrest. People naturally want to avoid that and so tend to comply with whatever else the police might want to avoid being thought of as, or being treated as, a criminal. But you've already gone past that point. Never talk to the police under any circumstances. This is nicely reinforced by this law professor's talk via Distant Ocean (thanks for the link, Winter) giving many more reasons than I had ever thought of. Be sure to watch part 2 as well.

In Australia and the US, and I would assume in New Zealand, too, you do not have to talk to the police, period. They can threaten arrest, of course. Here's where you do something different. You say, “What's the charge?” You've called them on their threat. They will either back down and then have to leave or they will arrest you at which point you do not have to talk with them, anyway. If the police arrest you, you can be sure they were going to do it all along despite whatever else they might say. They have a license to lie, and they do. Some of them wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up out of their soup. Never rely on anything the police say. Check everything if and when you can.

The story continues,-
“At Whangarei Hospital, Brian and I were transferred into Ward 7, which is a secure, locked up area, and then herded into a meeting room, where we waited for several nail-biting minutes before the middle-aged psychiatric registrar, Dr Mothafar Abass entered and introduced himself. In a rather detached fashion, he advised that he would be conducting my suicide risk assessment, and then hurried through it, as if he was pressed for time.
Mindful that this was to determine whether I was to be committed under the Mental Health Act, I found his manner disturbing to say the very least. He didn’t appear to fully understand me, nor did he give me sufficient time to explain myself to a level appropriate for this kind of evaluation, and in one instance, he even spoke over me in a rush to get to the next question.”

What's wrong here? Clare is talking again. She is co-operating with the doctor: This is the third mistake. Clare doesn't realize she is slipping the noose over her own head here. She doesn't realize that the pompous fart interviewing her can't put the noose over her head himself. He needs her to do it for him. To that end, he's rushing her and not allowing her to think- “nor did he give me sufficient time to explain myself to a level appropriate for this kind of evaluation, and in one instance, he even spoke over me in a rush to get to the next question.”

To get a committal order, you need a doctors signature. Ordinarily the doctor signing the order is the treating doctor known to the 'patient'. What is going on here is this tool is establishing himself as the treating doctor. He can't do that without her co-operation. He subsequently detained her using her own words (after twisting them) as the justification. It is clear now that the social workers arrived on Clare's doorstep without a committal order. Again, non co-operation would have saved the day for Clare.

Clare describes sending 9/11 DVDs to teevee personnel and that this brought on the unwanted attention. Well, this is what is going to happen. Not only was she appealing to the wrong people (they are on the other side's team) but she was making a highly visible target of herself. I can only assume she thought the troubles were with a few “rogue elements” in the system not the whole system in its totality. Understanding the complete corruption of the whole system is vital to your longevity if you want to fight it. Automatically trusting police, lawyers, the legal system, media, psychologists and psychiatrists has led to a lot of grief for myself and friends. Believe me, it is all connected at the top and pressure can be brought down on anyone within the system. And the system includes all government departments and organisations, all corporations, most religious organisations and many community organisations and anyone dependent on any of them. Doesn't leave a lot, does it?

Clare then goes on to describe threatening emails and the threatening presence and behaviour of someone she believed (probably correctly) to be a member of the the government's 'intelligence' agency (SIS). The thing with threats of the nature that Clare describes is that if you were of enough trouble to them, you would just wake up dead one morning! Killing people is a hassle, though, even for the SIS, and there is always risk involved. Killing people also tends to make martyrs 'for the cause,' which is a cost to the system which needs to be weighed against the benefits. Killing people also tells many others surrounding the victim that there is an alternative world going on that is very different to the one on teevee and in the newspapers and to the one they were taught in school. The PTB do not want to break this spell. Their real purpose in intimidating people is to cause panic, to stop the activist doing whatever they were doing, or to continue on but in a fearful manner and upsetting their own judgement so much that they then aid in their own downfall.

If you are an activist and you are being threatened, and if you find yourself extremely fearful as a result, but you still feel committed to carrying on, I would advise you to beat a strategic retreat instead. At least until you feel confident in your ability to handle stressful encounters and think straight. If in doubt, take a break if you can, anyway. You don't want to be your own worst enemy. It's no disgrace. It's stupid to fight when you can't win and have a lot to lose when you have the option of walking away and saving your fight for another day.

Clare said further on:-
“Although I tried to get Dr Abass to listen to me about the context my statement was made in, my hopes sunk like a submarine when his body language indicated he’d stopped listening to me and his resolve to commit me was rapidly gathering momentum. . . .

. . . Nonetheless, to my horror, at my assessment’s completion, Dr Abass told me I would be held in the secure unit under the Mental Health Act for 5 days for further assessment. And as if this news wasn’t bad enough, he told me I hadn’t been threatened, I had misinterpreted the messages and that was because I was suffering from a delusional disorder. He said he was prescribing antipsychotic medication to combat this problem and as I was depressed, he told me I should go on a course of antidepressants also.”

If Clare had not talked to the doctor nor shown him the threatening emails, how would he be able to declare her delusional? If he can't determine she is delusional, how can he prescribe anti psychotic drugs? Without the anti psychotic drugs, it is much harder to manipulate Clare, which is the whole point of the exercise, after all.

Not understanding the all pervasiveness of the corruption of the system, Clare still expected common sense to prevail: the fourth mistake. She did not understand that this was all planned and that the personnel she would be dealing with would have been worded up as to what to do in advance. It's all a piece of theatre . . . . and she played her part on cue, as anyone would without prior knowledge of what is going on. If you ever find yourself being 'railroaded', expect everybody with authority that you think might help you to be “in on the gig”. Never co-operate. Don't play your part because they need you to play your part for it to work. If it were me in this situation, I'd hope I'd be stating simply and as calmly as I could manage that I will not be co-operating as I believe I am being held illegally and I will be seeking redress. If Clare had had enough alertness to the real situation, she might have asked, “have you been threatened over your residency status here in New Zealand by anyone, doctor?”, and sat back and enjoyed the 'stunned rabbit in the headlights' look! Who knows, she might have also given him that little look that says, “the gig's up, sport. I'm gonna tan your hide and hang it on the fence!”

At a minimum, you try and look like you are in control of yourself. They rely on you not being in control your emotions and therefore not in control of your thinking.

The next phase went like this-
“As a polite way of telling the staff to “piss off and leave me alone,” shortly after arriving I stuck a notice above my bed: ‘WHILE MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE BEING COMPROMISED LIKE THIS, PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT ME TO PARTAKE IN ANY SO-CALLED “TREATMENT”.’ Of course, it didn’t work. At night-time, I was forced to take Risperidone, a mind-altering medication administered to treat schizophrenia.”

Clare made a threat she did not enforce: the fifth mistake. Never make a threat you are not prepared to, or not able to, go through with. If you don't follow through then you lose respect in others' eyes and worse, you lose respect in your own eyes. Self respect is vital for survival in situations like this. It's far better to not make any specific threats; just do it if you are going to. What Clare did was warn the medical staff so they could prepare for the encounter in advance.

If you put the pills in your mouth and swallow them, it is much harder to convince a jury later that you were forced to take them than if you were held and injected with the 'medication'. The staff will know this. If anybody makes an overt threat to you, you have to “call 'em” on it. In this case, Clare should have called their threat to inject her by not co-operating. You cannot lose. Either they will inject you forcibly or they will not. If they don't, you have had a major win. If they do you will be forcing the staff to face squarely what they are doing. One or more may crumble in the face of this. You will also be in a better position later if you are able to sue them, as I have said. Even if you don't sue in the future, you will be better off in the present because you haven't “ratted out ” on yourself. By putting the pills in your mouth, you are agreeing to their abuse. That makes you complicit in it. You are telling them that it is okay. It consequently undoes your self respect. Better to resist and keep your self respect than to not resist at all and lose your self respect. Without self respect, you are weaker and much more vulnerable.

This whole scenario is about dominating your mind. Don't co-operate in it. State again as firmly but as calmly as you can that you do not agree with the treatment and you believe it is illegal and you will be seeking redress. (Don't say how. Though this is a threat, it is non specific. Leave it open and don't be drawn into discussing it. It's purpose is to sow doubt. Being non specific, it will better play on the fears of those not committed to the system. These will be the lowest ranks and if anybody is going to help you it will be the lower ranks, not the supervisors who have more to lose by bucking the orders from on high. It may be humiliating to be held down and injected but it won't be as humiliating as taking the pills yourself (voluntarily) and then looking back later and seeing how you caved in mentally.
The more Clare co-operates the more control she loses.

The next day, Clare is talking to the head psychiatrist, the medication is having its desired (by the doctors and those behind them) effect-
“In a beleaguered manner, as the Risperidone was making me drowsy, I tried to describe my frightening ordeal and show him my e-mails and my article, Why Does TVNZ Lie to Us About 9/11? but he wouldn’t even spare 10 seconds to lean over and look at them. He said he didn’t want to hear about them and told me I was “delusional” because I believed 9/11 was an inside job."

Because Clare had started out defending herself instead of demanding her assailants defend their actions, she is off on the wrong foot in tackling the psychiatrist. The issue is about her suicidality not delusional thinking. She has let him control the discourse. This is a repeat of the third mistake; co-operating with the doctor and his narrative/agenda. She is reacting all the time and on the backfoot. You can't win from there. If you let your opponent control the narrative, you lose. By not co-operating, by not talking except to say you are being held illegally, you control the narrative and the interaction, though it may not seem like it at first. Again, she would have been much better off simply stating that she believes she has been detained illegally and that she will be seeking redress. And that's it.

You get what you want by posing the possibility that it will be more painful for them to continue to hold you than to release you. Raising the illegality issue puts him on notice. You have to assume that all 'authorities' in this situation have been leaned on, i.e. there will be penalties for them if they don't work against your interests. Appealing to their supposed good natures is not a winning strategy. Appealing to their sense of self preservation is.

All the apparatchiks in these hierarchies know that if the shit hits the fan people like them will be the first to be fed into this same fan if it all gets too hard to protect the higher ups. It's worth remembering that what they are doing is illegal and they know it. You don't have to get their agreement to anything you say. Don't get into a conversation. You just need to put it out there. You just need to hear yourself say it. You just need him to hear it. You are asserting the truth of the situation, your own mental strength and sanity. After this point, the less you say the better and by doing so the more you are in charge of not only yourself but anyone who tries to interact with you.

The story then progresses to a legal hearing. It is notable that the issue for the doctors at the hearing (and unfortunately for Clare, her own father, too) is delusional thinking and only towards the end does Clare introduce the fact that the issue is suicidality. What she finds out later (and not from her lawyer) is that she was, indeed, being held illegally.

Also notable is that the junior doctor reneged on his support for Clare when it was show time. And so did her own lawyer. This is worth repeating – and so did her own lawyer! This is not uncommon. People forget that even though you pay your lawyer, you, as a client, will be gone very soon but the lawyer needs to live on within the system for years to come. This is the sixth mistake. Many (if not most) lawyers will defer to the system and those in charge rather than do what they are payed for – defend you and your interests to the bitter end. There's also straight out incompetence, of course. Lawyers know that most clients haven't a clue what their lawyer should be doing for them and therefore have no way to assess their performance except for reflecting back on that sickening feeling the client gets walking out of the hearing or the court afterwards of, “WTF happened in there!!"

So, to sum up:-
Don't let anyone other than friends into your house without a warrant.
Never talk to the police or anybody attempting to function with that power under any circumstances.
Never go with anybody against your will unless you have been arrested
and then-
Never co-operate in your own hanging. Force them to use force.
Always call them on their threats towards you.
Never make threats in return unless they are vague, lawful and down the line time wise.
Save everything you have till you get to court. Assume that is where you are going.
If you are reasonably intelligent and articulate, defend yourself. Pay lawyers for advice (and check it) but never let them talk for you at a hearing or in court.

Oh, and never sign anything!

Your greatest ally in circumstances like Clare Swinney's is your own sense of worth. You preserve it best by resisting their mental domination. And the best and ultimately safest way to do that is through non co-operation with your oppressors and making sure some sensible ally of yours knows of your situation.

Or the Readers Digest version, - KKK:-
Keep breathing,
Keep thinking and
Keep your mouth shut!

There's a couple of counter intuitive statements in the foregoing I know and I haven't explained everything because of space, so questions are welcome.

In the meantime, . . .

there's this great article up on ZNet called "World Can't Be Changed Without Fighting Western Propaganda" By Andre Vltchek. (I came across it via Palestinian Think Tank).

"In a way, control of information is now much more complete in the United States or UK or Australia than it was in the 1980s in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland. There is no "hunger for truth"".. . . .

"In the meantime, while our intellectuals are collaborating with power and getting rewarded for their efforts, great parts of the world are bathed in blood, starving, or both. Collaboration and the silence of those who know or should know is partially to blame for the present state of the world.' . . . .

"I think about all successful revolutions of the past - they all have one common pre-condition: education and information. In order to change things, people have to know the truth. They have to know their past." . . . .

The comments are interesting, too. They get sidetracked into discusing Orwell's attitudes until Keith Harmon Snow brings things back to the topic and reality with a thump in his comment entitled, "Consuming Propaganda, Creating Mental Illness".
From his comment-
"What is most stunning is the extent to which people who otherwise should or could know better are influenced by propaganda and, therefore, lost, but who believe falsely that they are not influenced, and found. This can be equated with imperialism but more precisely with white supremacy."

Both the article's author, Andre Vltchek and Keith Harmon Snow touch on the insidious nature of propoganda in its ability to infect our thinking without our becoming aware of it.
I have read of studies that have shown that even after victims of mind control have become aware of the exact nature of the abusive treatment they have undergone, often still think the implanted thoughts are their own. (I have found this to be true in my own experience.)

A common example of this can be had when listening to people regurgitate the nightly news as if they understood the history, facts and logic that led to the 'headline' or 'bottom line' that they saw and heard last night. They just repeat what they heard and never giving a thought to the fact that they have never given a thought to what they heard or what they are now saying.

Robotic thinking. Mind control is an everyday experience.

Ummm . . . ah, have I ever mentioned that throwing out the teevee would be good for your mental health? smiling

Pot, meet Kettle

Anti-Semitism is a furphy, of course. Its purposes are not only to intimidate the opponents to Zionism and to win further concessions from their supporters but also, and perhaps most importantly, to distract peoples' attention from the fundamental issue (perhaps 'outrage' would be a better word). It's about what doesn't get talked about.

I am referring to the issue of Zionist racism that is the foundation of all that's wrong in Palestine and a good deal of what is wrong in the rest of the world, particularly the war zones. Underpinning the Zionist racism is the "exclusiveness" that is fundamental to the ethos of the "Chosen People" in the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud.

Exclusivism cannot work in its own isolation, though (which, of course, presents the cure for it). So it inevitably sets up various versions of economic and political 'one-way valves' whereby assistance and resources are sought from 'the outside' but nothing is given back. This becomes exploitation and is destructive to all involved. In the end, it can only be sustained through violence, threats of violence and deception as to what is really happening. A life of lies inevitably leads to a life of insanity. But eventually the deception must be seen through and then the end comes, albeit, often violently.

The concluding paragraphs from the above linked (Via Nobody) article read:-

"Although overly lengthy for a standard internet article the import of Dave Kirsting’s message is vital to gaining the required insight necessary for a full understanding of both the gravity of what has been occurring in Palestine over the past six decades and the reason why it has prevailed for such a disastrously and unacceptably long period.
Dave’s thesis gives both form and substance to the undeniable fact that in order to fully comprehend the dynamics of political Zionism’s imminent and deadly danger to the world at large we must frame it within its legitimate context – that being the crucial recognition that political Zionism is, first and foremost, a racist ideology and a mindset or paradigm which can never peacefully co-exist with any other multi-ethnic, pluralistic society anywhere upon the face of the planet. As such it cannot be allowed to continue in present form. This demands the dismantling of its fundamental ideological infrastructure for the good of the rest of humanity. If such actions do not occur within a reasonable amount of time the result may be a terminal state of chaos and destruction well beyond the already unacceptable levels we’re now witnessing in war-ravaged Gaza."

I commend this article to you. It is long as mentioned and takes a little while to get into its stride but gets better as you read on. It also contains a valuable discussion on how peace activism is manipulated. Though it is not discussed directly, you will see how peace activism is cynically used to isolate the general Jewish population and drive them into the arms of the Zionists.
The link again-

Banking, Basel, Marks and Markets

Banking, Basel, Marks and Markets

Both the “mark to market” valuations for businesses set by FAS157 and the same effectivley for banks through Basel 11 which built on the original Basel accord, have set in place mechanisms which are prone to, and I believe designed to, the cascading effect. Looking at the effects of this or that regulation is a bit like trying to piece together what happened after a nuclear explosion by focusing on the cascading atomic reaction rather than on who designed and built this bloody bomb and who triggered it. In our case it is the bankers and their various regulatory bodies such as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

Here we have the industry looking at the cascading effect:-

“ In short, the rules are seen as being pro-cyclical.
"There's a fundamental weakness in the regulatory framework because it puts no constraints on banks' rate of growth when things are going well then bites deeply later on, which could mean each boom is followed by a credit crunch - when what you really want is to moderate the boom in advance," says the LSE's [London School of Economics] Goodhart.”

Yeah well, Goodhart may well say, “what YOU (that's us, folks) really want...” but he could have added, “What WE really want (speaking for the bankers) is ever wilder cycles up and down.”

Cycles of boom and bust suit bankers. This can be determined rather simply because bankers are the ones who create this yo-yo cycle and it takes deliberate decisions on their part to do it. And they are the ones who profit from it every time. They do it by pumping the money supply up with lotsa loans and then deflating it and collecting lotsa cheap assets. This is the same mechanism behind the mysterious "business cycle". That some banks are going bust now does not mean that the bankers at the centre of control (BIS) are suffering. They're thinning out the competition.

When the Basel Accord was adopted by various governments, it took away control of banks by the host governments. Bank lending was no longer constrained by the government. The government in Australia, for instance, previously could regulate the lending of banks, in theory at least, (but in practice, the banks told the government what to do) independent of the market through Statutory Reserve Deposits i.e. it could go against the Market to damp it down. But now the banks would be regulated BY the market i.e go with it with no restraint now. “The Market” reigns supreme now but the market is and always has been subject to manipulation. And guess who is in the best position to manipulate it? Yes, our old friends the international bankers who own and control the major central banks of the world and their co-ordinating body, the BIS.

The Basel accord imposed on banks an overall set ratio of 8% capital to loans to non government bodies. But the ratio varied between loans for real estate (favoured), for instance, and commercial loans to industry (penalised by a higher ratio). The first thing that happened was that productive industry suffered and speculation in real estate and securities took off. Then these more speculative loans were onsold for a profit and this took them off their balance sheets which allowed the banks to lend more and more while still remaining within their capital ratio.

Meanwhile, they are making more and more profits from these activities plus, they are now price gouging through the imposition of all sorts of fees. This meant massive profits which then increased their capital which meant they could loan evermore money into the speculative sector. Banks were competing with each other for this largesse. Truly pigs at the trough. This self feeding cascading effect facilitated the long boom through the nineties till now, while all the while, industry is suffering and shrinking. The parasite is killing the host. But this situation can't keep going forever and eventually must slow and then the freefall starts. The system reverses itself. There's no mystery here. It was all predictable and therefore must be seen as deliberate on the part of the regulators who designed and brought this system in; the Bank for International Settlements and all the government officials who obliged in adopting it. Now the arguments start.

But arguing with bankers or investment people over regulations is a bit like arguing with a bunch of alcoholics, who have been left in charge of the liquor store, over the trading hours. The whole thing is nuts. One just should not be in this situation.

When I rule the world, these are the laws I will impose smiling !

1 The only body that will issue currency i.e. the money supply, is a government central bank.

2 Governments will only borrow from their own bank.

3 Private banks will be reduced to the status of Credit Co-ops or S&Ls in that they can only lend out funds what they have previously taken in as deposits.

4 No one will be able to on-sell a loan without incurring penalties (to discourage speculation) and with the specific permision of the borrower.

5 Short selling will be illegal in all markets, period. It is fraud to sell something you don't have or own. Future positions can be covered by put and call options or common insurance.

6 Foreign exchange can be handled internally via a government run market in which exporters are able to sell their well earned foreign currency to importers (who have to produce trade contracts to validate their need for it) and the price is set by normal market supply and demand. No foreign debt can be accululated in this fashion and foreign trade does not imbalance the domestic market; it's self regulating. This system was first proposed by John Iggulden of Australia some years ago. He called it Impex. And it's nothing short of brilliant in it's simplicity and elegance.

7 All financial markets will be subjected to a turnover tax to raise taxes from those that can afford them and to discourage speculation. Currently, close to 98% of turnover in foreign exchange markets is speculation and has nothing to do with foreign trade. Our economies are being run by gamblers. And addicted gamblers, at that.

8 The money earned from financial market turnover and interest gained from creating the money supply would go a long way, if not all the way, to providing the government's revenue requirements.

All pretty simple.

The whole financial industry as it is, this bloated, blind and toxic parasite, should be as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool in any decent, just and well run society.

On Some Basics of Economics

On Some Basics of Economics

McJ asked some very thoughtful questions in the comments section and I started to answer them but “it just growed” like Topsy did and on rereading my answer and thinking it might interest others with the same questions, I have put it up here on the main page. So, to the answer:-

These are good questions, McJ. There's a lot to them and I'll answer in installments if I may.
To start with your last point first re Uni economics and this so called “high finance” being over your head, I'll say you are probably better off not knowing or remembering much about it from those uni days. This comment at the end of your questions was probably more of a quip but I think it goes to the heart of much of this. I have had better luck explaining the reality of money/banking/economics to complete neophytes than to those educated to the “dismall science”. The reason is that this “education” amounts to indoctrination and, like all indoctrination, it is based on false information and for reasons of an hidden agenda i.e. exploitation. One example of this is Milton Friedman (who can't be dead enough nor buried deep enough – to borrow a phrase from Professor As'ad AbuKhalil aka Angry Arab) and the so called “Chicago School” of economics. Friedman was responsible for providing the academic cover for “Thatcherism” and “Reagonomics” of the eighties which rapidly accelerated the shift in wealth from the general populace, including the sale of publicly owned utilities, to the already very wealthy.

The Chicago School was, in fact, the economics department at the University of Chicago which Friedman headed. Now here's the sting - the University of Chicago was established with Rockefeller money and, by all things observable, still controls it. Another example is that “The Economist” magazine in England is largely owned and controlled by the Rothschilds. These people have interests diametrically opposed to the rest of us. It is vital to their interests that they control economics education so as to distort it to justify their position as essential to society and generally mislead everybody.

So if you will indulge me in a little rant here, I'll try to demystify a couple of things. Economics justifies itself by reciting the following Mission Statement that “it accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest number with the scarce resources available”. It then immediately goes on to teach (if you were studying it) that the first law of economics is the Law of Supply and Demand. This says that supply follows demand i.e. that production will respond to those with a demand (and you are left to think, need) willing to purchase this same production. The trouble is that those with needs but no money are not catered for in this scenario and therefore this gives the lie to the initial justification, the “Mission Statement”, of doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

What happens in practice is that the whims of the wealthy, those with money, are met at the expense of the needs of the poor. An extreme, but by no means isolated, example is the case of strawberries being grown and exported to the West from Ethiopia some years ago at the time it was suffering from a severe famine!

The other half of the “Mission Statement” mentions the scarce resources as if this were a fact. Often it is not. Finite limits does not necessarily mean scarcity. Though, resources are often made apparently scarce by tying their supply to scarce money either in the community as a whole (as in Depressions and is happening now) or in the pockets of a section of the community (such as through class exploitation – also happening now). These scarcities are facilitated by government action responding to banks and bankers interests which are always directly counter to everyone else's.

But this is never explained to the student. Money enters the scene when the mechanics of “production” are taught. Production is said to be the result of bringing together three elements or “factors”; Labor (workers/you and I), Resources (oil, timber etc) and Capital (Capitalists/Bankers and their money or Capital). Firstly, note the division of people into Labor (Workers) and Capital (Capitalists/nonworkers). Secondly, this formula is bullshit. You don't, in fact, need Capital or Capitalists to make something. If Labor co-operates and has access to Resources, then it actually doesn't need money. Therefore, Capital is not an essential element or factor of production or wealth creation. Yet, bankers have inserted themselves into every facet of society telling everybody how essential they are to everybody's wellbeing. For sure, having a money system facilitates production once we get much past the tribal level of complexity but it is nothing more than an abstract measuring and scoring system that we (Labor) can provide for ourselves at negligible cost.

Money is not a resource in the sense of being something physical or even resident in this world. I like to say that money is the only thing in this world that God didn't make and that is so because money doesn't actually exist in this world! Money exists only in the minds of people suitably indoctrinated to the notion. And that is all it is; a notion; an abstract mental notion. That notion is recorded in this world as a scoring system through various “double entry” bookeeping systems (banks) and as a measurement system through goods and services being given a price. But it is all arbitrary and captive to the whim of those owners of the bookeeping systems (bankers).

How we all view or conceive of money is crucial to the control the bankers have over maintaining their position of domination over us all. Money is taught as if it is a physical commodity with a finite existence and this is reinforced in the media and in conversation everyday. It is one hell of a mind job! It has been able to get this foothold in our minds because historically money (coins) had some intrinsic worth or demand for it as a commodity in itself such as a gold content or rum in the case of early White society in Australia! From there it went to a paper Banknote which was an IOU that could be exchanged for gold. Then the exchange was taken away. The remaining paper has no intrinsic value. It would take an awful lot of it to keep you warm on a cold night, for instance. What gives it value is our willingness to exchange goods for it instead of the bankers exchanging gold for it. WE provide its value! Now we have digital money, the ultimate in abstract. We have an instructive word in our language to describe the digital world, virtual i.e. something that has no existence but looks like it has. There is nothing more "Matrix" like in the world than money and understanding this is the key to freedom from this invisible oppression all around us. (Update, I just found this very pertinent blog entry from Suraci called Who Is The Lender? to which he could equally add the question, Where do the loan funds come from?)

It takes consistent effort to de-programme yourself from this notion of the existence of money. Keep contemplating it. Once fully grasped, it makes obvious the nonsense talked about in the name of economics and politics (often the same thing). As I said, in an earlier response, it took me months to finally “get it” (though I was referring to the mechanics of credit/money creation but it all fuses together). So don't be despondent if after reading this you feel you still don't “get it”. It's a process. Of course, if you do see it all, that's great. Tell someone about it! Doing so will reinforce it in your mind and/or point up gaps in your understanding.

An excellent book I can recommend is “The Truth In Money Book” by Theodore and Margaret Thoren and Richard Warner. It is out of print, unfortunately, but you might find a copy somewhere. It also describes the Fractional Reserve system in place in the US but now replaced in Canada and Australia, at least, with the “Mark to Market” system of bank control and credit (money) creation. More on the later system (and in answer to your question) in a following response.
Two other books that I haven't read but which have very good reviews are “The Creature From Jeckyl Island” by G. Edward Griffin and “The Web of Debt” by Ellen Brown whom we have talked of. None of these authors are economists, which is telling! The best books I have read have been by engineers. I like to think it is because they are trained in cause and effect and have to be rigorous in their thinking. They can't bullshit their way out of a collapsed bridge saying it isn't collapsed at all, or, “it's a temporary adjustment”!
What I am trying to get across is that economists are largely ignorant of the basic orientation (motivation) of their field of study together with an ignorance of its fundamental contradictions as a result of their “education” or more correctly, indoctrination or even mind control. Once people have accepted nonsense and their livelihood or psychological stability now depends on it, they will defend it vehemently to their own and others' cost. Those practitioners that can sophisticate it and obscure the simple truth are rewarded with advancement and are VERY unlikely to expose the nonsense. Though, there are always exceptions and I can point to one I have read, though, not extensively so the recommendation is tentative. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Professor Michael Hudson

Next up, credit creation or where money comes from which will include “Mark to Market” as it applies to banks (to the extent that I understand it, anyway). Right now I need a cup of tea and a little lie down! I find this stuff wearing to think and write about. So be encouraged, gentle reader, it's not just you! It's worth perservering with, though, for your own freedom and for the next generation's. One thing that is helpful to bear in mind is that if you have a measure of discernment and intelligence (and you must have to be reading this! wink), and you don't understand something after giving it your attention, then it is almost always because you are being presented with false information or information is being withheld or both. Keep digging because truth is freedom and freedom doesn't exist in the absence of truth!

Syndicate content