Warring World(s) Part 4b Introduction to "The System" (cont)

Previous part Part 4a Introduction to "The System"


A friend asked me the other night what I meant when I said this current financial fiasco was deliberately engineered. I started to think about gearing and derivatives (such as I understand them) and the bundling of dodgey loans with good ones and onselling them to unsuspecting (but greedy) investors, lending policies and the “Gnomes of Zurich”. (You never hear about the Gnomes anymore. I miss them!). But I quickly realised that what was needed was a foundational understanding about what money is, what it is supposed to be and how it comes into being and by whom. It had to be short and simple explanation, too, because it really is simple and a long explanation would lose that. If you can grab the simplicity of it, you will never be bamboozled by any schtick. So I said, “let me think about it and I'll get back to you”. So on to the computer I went and hit the Google button (actually the Cuil button) to find what I was after. I didn't find it. Then I thought I need to write about the “Moneychangers” anyway, so why not set out the banking system as simply as I could in that essay. So here it is. I hope old hands at this stuff will bear with me.

In Medieval times, Christians weren't permitted to lend money at interest. This was called usury and was a sin. Jews weren't permitted to lend money at interest to fellow Jews but they could lend and charge interest to outsiders, read Christians. So, the religious law from two religions created an industry and a market and a captive one at that. (Later when Christians began to lend money at interest, usury was redefined to mean charging interest at exorbitant rates rather than any rate). This arrangement created some animosity, as you would expect. Shakespeare's “Merchant of Venice” with its depiction of the Jewish moneylender, Shylock, is a good example of it. In fact, it added a word to the lexicon, shylocking, as an alternative to the term loansharking. Jews seem to be associated in history with moneychanging and moneylending in the popular imagination and with some reason.

What makes shylocking or loansharking so insidious is not just the high rate of interest charged but the fact that the interest is compounded i.e. interest is charged on interest. The debt explodes exponentially and soon threatens to devour the hapless debtor. Where did this poisonous notion of compound interest originate? Where else but Babylon! Yes, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is credited with inventing compound interest. And it was during his reign that the Jews were in exile there. Judaism was a literate culture and so Judean slaves were sought after as administrators. It is reasonable, I think, to assume that some of the Jewish slaves worked with the system and became very familiar with it. I think it reasonable to assume also that it was the Jews who brought the concept, and indeed the practice, of usury with its compound interest from Babylon through to more modern times.

The problem with compound interest, as I said before, is that it grows exponentially and, also, that it is infinite in nature. But this is a finite world. Certainly our hapless debtor has a finite amount of time and energy to devote to paying off his debt. The finite time limitation of a debtors life has been gotten around in some countries through the practice of inheriting debts from the previous generation. It is also achieved when a government enters into debt as a government lives on from one generation to the next. There is still, though, the finite resources of people and raw materials. So, we now have an infinite variable in a finite equation. This will not lead to a happy ending.

Usury (and I use the word in its original and correct sense) is mostly the province of banks these days. In Medieval times it was largely the province of goldsmiths who were most often Jewish and who were the forerunners of our present day bankers. They started what would become known as the Fractional Reserve Banking system only in those times it would be more accurate to call it fraud. People who had gold in any sizable amount would leave it with goldsmiths for safekeeping, literally, i.e. to keep it in their safes. The goldsmiths would sometimes offer to lend the gold out at interest and charge a margin for doing so. This was fine and dandy (even if it was a sin for the gold owner and now lender). Sometimes a gold depositer would travel and to save the danger of being robbed while en route with his gold, he would avail himself of the practice that goldsmiths had evolved for themselves of dealing in gold receipts or what we might now call cheques. The goldsmiths kept accounts with each other and would settle any differences after a period of trading in these receipts (or cheques) periodically. A traveller could put his gold on deposit with one goldsmith and receive a receipt for it and “cash it in” with another goldsmith upon arrival at his destination. Pretty neat system, yes? Yes, but there's a twist and here comes the fraud.

After a while the goldsmiths found that not every depositor came on the same day to withdraw all his gold. In fact, they discovered that all they needed was about 10% to cover claims and most of the gold wasn't physically lent out anyway but rather the loans took the form of receipts backed by the gold on deposit. All this amounted to a golden opportunity (sorry about the pun) for the goldsmiths. They could use all the gold on deposit as the 10% cover for claims. In other words, they could lend out ten times the value of gold they actually had. So if a goldsmith had 10 million shekels worth of gold in his safe, he could make one 100 million shekels worth of loans and if he paid 3% to the depositor and charged 6% to the lenders he was in clover. 100 million at 6% is 6 million less 10 million at 3% which is 0.3 million leaves a profit of 5.7 million or 57% per annum. This really is a goldmine! Modern bankers essentially do the same thing except they don't even need gold now. So if you ever wondered how the Rothschilds, for instance, got so rich, now you know.

To explain how the modern bankers do it without gold, I will use an example involving the cheque book system. A cheque is a promisory note or simply a promise to pay. It's not the money itself. Suppose you want to buy a new car. You go to the bank and they approve a loan for you. They don't hand over a bag of cash. The give you a line of credit or the same thing by another name. What they do is allow you to overdraw your account. So you can write out a cheque for say $20k and they won't bounce it. They will honour it, in other words, with someone else's money, you think. But not so.

OK, you've selected your car and write the nice car salesman, Honest John, out the cheque for $20k and hand it over. You may think you have spent your money but you haven't yet. Nothing has changed with your account at the bank. The Honest John takes your cheque to his bank and deposits it into his account. His balance goes up by $20k and at that point the money supply i.e. the total amount of money in the nation (which is made up of all the credit balances in all the bank accounts) available to purchase goods and services has just increased by $20k. Money has been created. John's bank then sends the cheque to your bank and your account is now $20k in the red. At this moment the national debt which includes all the debit balances in all the bank accounts in the nation has just gone up $20k, too. The new money has been created by new debt and the banks' Double Entry bookeeping systems (collectively) balance and everything looks hunky-dory. Nobody's money was borrowed. The new money was created by a bookeeping entry, out of nothing, out of thin air, if you like. Isn't that neat? Bankers think it's beautiful because they get to charge interest on that money which costs them virtually nothing because the interest they pay on credit balances in chequeing accounts such as Honest John's amount to bugger all, to use the technical term. Nearly all the money of a nation is created in this manner and so it attracts interest. How would you like to issue the money supply, the currency, of a nation, all of it, and get paid interest on all of it? Now, that's really neat. And it's legal now (well, sort of). But it is still fraud.

It's fraud because the backing for the money supply (the nation's currency) that gives it value is not gold (fictitious or otherwise) in a safe somewhere any more but the GDP of the nation; the value of the production, the wealth created in any given year by the population as a whole. None of it is produced by the bankers. They didn't produce it so don't own the backing of the currency and therefore should not be paid the interest on it. The interest belongs to the producers, the people who provide the value for it, or their representative government. If governments received the interest on the Money Supply, you could probaly forget about taxes. They would be very drastically reduced, at any rate. This is an immense scam perpertrated on the public. What lengths do you think the psychopaths running this scam will go to to protect it and keep it going? If history is anything to go by, any length at all. This scam, by the way, is unconstitutional both in the US and in my country, Australia. Both countries' constitutions charge the government with the responsibility of issuing the country's currency. So it's arguably legal but only arguably. It doesn't seem to bother them, though, and you'll see why shortly if you can't see it or don't know it already.

But first there are a few more wrinkles to explain. The banks create and lend money and they also control who they lend it to. They play favourites and this is how an elite class grows up around the bankers and how they keep much of the hoi-poloi struggling. They need to do this to keep labour competing for the demeaning jobs in their overbearing corporations. The poor aren't poor because the rich are rich, by the way. The poor are poor because the rich choke down the economy to maintain scarcity for a sizable section of the community. This gives them power.

The other thing they control is the overall level of production in the nation. They do this by varying the amount of the Money Supply, the money in circulation that we need to spend to buy things, through the amount of loans they make day to day, month to month and creating booms and busts in the process. The money is created through loans and is similarly extinguished when they are paid back so new loans have to be created of a similar amount to maintain the level of the money supply. If they are not, then the money supply shrinks over time and that means there is less money to buy the nation's production and therefore production is wound back and unemployment is created instead. This is the bust and is exactly what is being experienced around the world at the moment and for this same reason. The US government, in particular, is throwing money at the banks but they are not lending it on and thereby deliberately creating this recession, soon to become depression. They are shrinking the Money Supply even while all this money is being thrown at them. If the government lent the money directly to the public and businesses, there would not be a problem any longer. It's that simple.

Always before a bust, there is a boom. The psychopaths that run our banks periodically lend money seemingly without restraint but always covered by mortgages or titles over assets. Everybody gets busy building products and businesses and lots of wealth is created inspite of the interest that is charged on the money that enables all the exchanging going on. This extra interest is, of course, a boon to the bankers. When everybody is loaded to the maximum with debt, the banks start shrinking the new loans rate and often raising the interest rate as well. Though, not this time. Money gets “tight”, literally. It's one big game of musical chairs now as people scramble to get increasingly scarce cash to make their payments. Some lose out and lose their homes and businesses. The bankers and their surrounding clique get to buy up some cheap assets now. So, through boom AND bust, they win.

It's like a big economic suction pump. When the loans are freely flowing it is like the upstroke of the pump. It is being primed with the wealth from the toil of the public and the interest from the wealth goes to the bankers. When the loans and therefore the Money Supply shrink, it is like the down stroke of the pump and a goodly proportion of that wealth itself is squeezed up to the bankers and their surrounding elite who have done nothing except provide a bookeeping service. This is psychopathic behaviour.

There is one last nasty direct consequence of this system. When a loan is issued, the money comes into being and so the loan principal can be paid back in full. However, the loan attracts interest and must be paid with money but the money to pay the interest has not been created through a loan and so doesn't exist. The debt now is larger than the amount of money in existence and so cannot be paid unless a further loan to cover the interest is made. But this is just putting off the inevitable day and, in fact, making it worse because now there is interest due on the interest! This is the reason why any nation's national debt is far, far larger than it's Money Supply. If all the money was used to pay off bank debts, there would still be debts owing. It is not a sustainable system, to say the least.

I mentioned before that this activity of creating the nation's Money Supply is illegal, or at least unconstitutional, and yet they don't seem to worry about it. Here's why. This corrupt process delivers massive wealth into the hands of these psychopaths and they use it to corrupt the whole system of society. They buy off the politicians and the judiciary to pass and interpret the laws that cover the unconstitutionality of their practice. They buy the lawyers and the media to be their mouthpieces and give them respectability. They buy the police and the security agencies both directly and through the government to harrass and otherwise deal with any credible threats to their position. They buy the government and create bogus oversight commissions. They buy and sell anything and anybody. Welcome to the machine!

Of course, changing the form of government to a totalitarian one would remove any potential to correct this questionable legality and unquestionable immorality. Welcome to the future (if they can pull it off which is by no means certain).

Here endeth Part 4, the description of the three pillars of our all pervasive “System”; Religion, the Law and the Banks and the two mechanisms which facilitate it, the hierarchy and debt money with compound interest, ironically brought to us by the two religions of our culture. Needless to say, all three pillars dominate through employing fear and deceit. But with knowledge, deceit is dispelled and fear also. At least, the fear that is programmed in. They still have fear that can be induced by violence but that will not be enough to save them. They tell us that through their behaviour because if violence was enough they wouldn't invest all this effort to deceive and programme us. Now there's a somewhat happy thought to end this Part with!

Next Part - Part 5a. On Becoming a Formidable Foe


newjesustimes's picture

Thanks James

Looking forward to the part where you "focus on where we might start to undo this situation without running the risk of exacerbating it through further violence."
I just saw this article http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/661
So you may be just in time or maybe there's no way around it. Someone ought to lock those 2 up for the sake of civil order.

McJ's picture

Out of Control

Glen Beck is out of control. Did you catch this post by Glenn Greenwald on Beck's war games show. They actually talk about 'bubba brigades' aka rednecks with guns. This fomenting of violence among the masses is all part of the plan to bring about totalitarianism imo. The PTB's engineer an economic collapse, which is followed by an armed revolution (which they have been busy stoking) and then they take control.

Can you imagine if these were Muslim Americans talking about organizing in small cells to discuss how to 'stand up and fight' the government? They would be cooling their heals in Gitmo or some other gulag.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

McJ's picture

Great Job James

Two more great posts James. You have done a really good job of synthesizing a lot of info into a coherent and very readable whole. I think you may have a book in you - just wanting to get out smiling
I particularly liked the idea that addicts and psychopaths share the same pathology. Having dealt with both during my life it makes sense to me.

"Jesus paid out bigtime on three groups, the priests, the scribes (lawyers) and the moneychangers. These three groups conspired together in Judean society to exploit most of the people. Nothing has changed!"

This is interesting and amazing when you think of how long these groups have ruled us. I was thinking about Jesus and the moneychangers when we were having our discussion about violence. I was wondering how you would characterize his actions toward them (the moneychangers).

btw and in a response to one of your earlier comments - your never come across as arrogant or pompous to me - I would say kind and patient - good qualities if you are trying to impart information and understandings to others.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Shuffle up

I'll look at shuffling the solutions/suggestions up the order a bit, NJT. I'd rather write about them anyway!

Thanks for your kind words and feedback, McJ. I always wonder how the essays are coming across. I'm a bit surprised no one has challenged me on anything I have written.

I don't know Glen Beck but if he is working in the mainstream media, he is part of the "show" for the punters. I think Norris is confusing life and art (if you can call his work art). These blowhards will only attract other blowhards who have a similar need to sound tough, which tells you all you need to know. They will never confront an equal or superior "enemy". These type only pick on relatively defenceless people. They wouldn't know what courage was if it jumped up out of their soup. They could learn a lot from Scottish pipers (then again, maybe not).
See you in the soup!

McJ's picture

Not disagreeing...

"I'm a bit surprised no one has challenged me on anything I have written."
I can't say that I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying in these essays. I think you will have a challenge from Anon if he is around smiling . Hopefully, Winter is feeling better soon because I know he has good thoughts on this subject.

I have gradually come to see this as an 'us vs them' problem ie. 'normal people vs psychopaths' although I don't believe that all those exercising power over us are psychopaths. This was not an easy understanding for me to come to because my natural inclination was always to believe every one wants to 'do good'. That's why I liked your idea of psychopaths having the same pathology as addicts. Presumably, like addicts, there would be degrees and stages of 'the disease' so that not all of 'them' are necessarily psychopaths but each would have some impaired awareness of their self and the environment around them. What opened my eyes was personal experience - having been in the way of something a pyschopath wanted - otherwise I am not sure I would have believed any of this.

Now, I'm interested in the Scottish pipers having a Scottish heritage and all...

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Yea, that's a fair enough

Yea, that's a fair enough comment from Anon and deserves a considered reply. (One of us must be psychic!)
Seeing psychopaths as addicts certainly turned on lots of lights for me, too. I think the biggest thing was helping me accept that this is a real affliction which means it's not my faulty perception or a passing mood for them. This, in turn, helped me deal effectively with them. It helped me understand totally that the treatment I had suffered under their hands as a child was nothing to do with me. It was all to do with them and their pathology. I could, now, also take the lessons learnt from them and immediately apply them to the next psychopath to come along and that, at base, is what I'm trying to do for others with these essays. To shine a light on these bastards, describe their thinking, show how to spot them and finally how to deal with them. I think I'm about half way through this!

But you're right. You really need the first hand experience to really understand its reality. Or should I say, their reality. But it's an experience I wouldn't wish on anybody. But I guess there wouldn't be too many people who haven't been done over by one in their life. It might be that it isn't seen for what it was or is.

My piper comment was a last second (unconscious?) throw away. But I'll come back to it. I think it's probably valuable. It has happy associations for me of an old friend - Scottish, of course!

The Piper

Many years ago I had a very good friend, Alex, who was a Scot. He was also an ex British Paratrooper and knew a little bit about fighting. One day he said to me, "James, the only difference between the Scots and the Irish (I am of Irish stock) is that the Irish enjoy their fighting. It's serious business to the Scots". Certainly, some Irish enjoy fighting a lot of the time (current headlines notwithstanding - though it's probably the bloody British MI6 spooks .... again!). I'm reminded of the story of the Irishman in the pub tapping one of the brawling patrons on the shoulder and enquiring, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?" Alex related stories of visiting unfamiliar pubs and taking the precaution of taking an iron bar wrapped in a newspaper tucked under his arm which conveyed to me a little more serious attitude.

So much for my reminising and now to the point. He told me about the position of the piper in clan warfare. The chief piper was held in the highest esteem in the clan because he was considered the bravest of the brave. He would lead the clan into battle unarmed and playing his bagpipe. It was a display of courage to inspire his fellow fighters and freak out the opposition. So the sound of the pipes was much more than music to Alex. It was the sound of the piper, the sound of courage, the piper's courage, and the sound of the dominance of fear through his will and his love for his clan.


I should add something here lest it be thought I am glorifying war, which is the last thing I want to do. To me, the story conveys the idea that courage is not about having no fear or beating up or killing others, but rather, being able to go forward inspite of fear, being prepared to be vulnerable both for your own sake and for others.
Beck et. al. just don't cut the mustard in this type of scenario. Instead they would cut and run the moment they perceive the winning advantage slipping away from them. Just like the IDF ground forces did in Lebanon in 2006. You can pick the cowards by their swagger.

McJ's picture

Re: Appendum I knew what you

Re: Appendum
I knew what you meant.

I love the pipes! I've always been attracted to them. I'm not sure why because a lot of people find the sound very annoying. I've decided it is some kind of DNA memory thing that comes with the genes. (Just my own private theory - nothing remotely scientific you understand wink )

You are right about the pipers and the history is very interesting. Pipes are believed to have originated in Asia but the bagpipes we know today were developed by the Scots. Until they were forced to give them up, they refused to go to battle without them. After the Jacobite uprisings in the first half of the 16th century, (which culminated in a massacre of the highland Scots at Culloden), William the Conqueror outlawed the pipes calling them an 'instrument of war'. At this time he also outlawed their traditional dress. Additionally, they were obliged by law to have their children learn English which eventually led to the end of the Gaelic language being spoken in Scotland. More disastrously the British outlawed the clan system and instituted the feudal system giving the clans' land to British lords or in some cases to the (mostly) Lowland Scottish Chiefs that had supported them. This was a devastating blow to the Highland Scots who had the distinction of being the only people on Rome's march through Europe into Britain who the Roman army was unable to conquer. Until 'the 45', the land belonged to the clan and chiefs were patriarchs who looked after and protected the community. There were no written contracts - it was an honour system. What this meant was the bulk of the highlanders were now obliged to pay rent to the feudal lords and were at their mercy (which they didn't receive). The lords soon discovered that raising sheep on their newly stolen land was much more profitable then looking after the people so many were driven to the coastal areas to eek out livings as fishermen or harvesting kelp. It was during this time that large numbers of the highlanders began to emigrate to North America (also Australia). These immigrants kept the traditions of the pipes and their dress alive in their new lands while the British spent many years ravishing their old homeland.

Although I know this has been OT, I have to note here the pattern of the PTB's in fomenting revolution by collapsing a society (economically or otherwise) which is then followed by the institution of tyrannical laws and the theft of the people's land and means of production. This is basically what happened to the Highland Scots (and a little earlier to the Irish I believe.) It is all one big gigantic theft and we see this happen over and over. I also have to note that there was a lot of really rotten stuff happening in the 1700's.

On another note, you may find it interesting that the Latin word for someone who lived in Ireland was Scotti and this is where the Scots got their name.
(That's a lot of notes I know, but then we are talking about pipes. smiling )

And now for some entertaining notes after this long off topic comment - rock meets the pipes with the Red Hot Chilli Pipers and their rendition of Coldplay's Clocks. smiling

And oh...what the hell... not the best quality but if you are really brave here's We Will Rock You - the crowd loves it.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

I knew you would understand.

I knew you would understand. My apologies. It was meant for other readers who may come along after but I realise I didn't make that clear.
I think you're right about the DNA thing - it's the Uilleann pipes for me smiling

Actually, I don't think it is off topic at all. What you say about destroying the culture is very much on topic. It's just another way to mess with people's minds trying to convince them they are a defeated people. Ultimately, it is a psychological war.

McJ's picture

Well, I have a real thing

Well, I have a real thing for Celtic music in general. I can't even listen to Danny Boy without tearing up and I'm not even Irish!

Regarding the pipes thing - I suspect it has something to do with the vibration. The female Celtic singers also hit many really high notes and interestingly a lot of people don't like that sound. H'm'm'm

When I get a bit more time (hahaha) I'm going to do some more snooping around for events that happened in the 1700's because I find it interesting in light of the fact that the Rothchild's began their rise to infamy during that time and there was also an alleged 'infiltration' of the Masonic lodges both which appear to correspond with writing of the Protocols.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Nesta Webster

Here's a start-

I mean, seeing you're not sleeping anyway!

McJ's picture

psychic much ???!!

Damn, I just read that book last week!
Psychic much??!!

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

That's getting a bit weird

That's getting a bit weird smiling

McJ's picture

We seem to be following the

We seem to be following the same piper! laughing out loud

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson
McJ's picture

always the British

"(current headlines notwithstanding - though it's probably the bloody British MI6 spooks .... again!)"

Well it's always the British ain't it? wink
Funny story about the Irish laughing out loud

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

James. Thanks for saving me


Thanks for saving me from reading piles of dreary books.

"It's one big game of musical chairs now as people scramble to get increasingly scarce cash to make their payments. Some lose out and lose their homes and businesses. The bankers and their surrounding clique get to buy up some cheap assets now."


I think I'll start my own church and not forgive them. And this will be my ICCreed to overcome their Nicene Creed:

Lord, rip their nuts off
That their hearts shall see
Lord, blast their papers
To itty-bitty shreds

I'm hoping that will do it.

Our Very Own Church!

I'm in! When do we start? Can we have lots of Gods? I want some Goddesses, too, of course. I vote for Araldite, the Goddess of sticky situations. We'll need some help, I think. Any more suggestions out there?

I see I've misspelt Nicene. I'll have to go back and correct it, now! I seem to be forever editing out typos and straight out mistakes

"Lord, rip their nuts off
That their hearts shall see
Lord, blast their papers
To itty-bitty shreds

I'm hoping that will do it."

There's every chance, I'd say. You've certainly given it a good shot. But if that doesn't do the trick, you could look in the Psalms for inspiration. There's plenty of explosive materiel in there to work with.

"Thanks for saving me from reading piles of dreary books."
In that case, I've done well then. It can get pretty tedious searching for the pearls, can't it?.

McJ's picture


I vote for including Dionysus because if we do this I'm going to need wine. smiling

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer travelling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Great article on Money & Banking

This article os the best I have read in a long time on what's wrong with the banking system and what should happen-

Reforming the Global Financial System
Flushing the Parasites

By Nikki Alexander

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.