How the banksters con the whole of humanity with their "loans"
Addendum #1 - 12th February 2016
This is what happened in the 2008 "bail out":
My post explains why it was possible for this to happen. It is because the money is only created when the "borrower" signs on the dotted line. It did not exist before that.
Next time it will be a "bail in". Which means that they will take money out of peoples bank accounts to "save the banks". They will take it without the account holders permission. But they have already got the permission of all governments to do this. It was signed into EU and US law last year.
I call that robbery myself.
There is a good chance it will be this year too. If not, then sometime soon, that's for sure.
And people wonder why I won't vote :-))
-----------------------------------------------------ends--------------------------------------------------
Money is a fundamentally simple subject that most people have difficulty understanding. Probably because the modern education system never teaches anyone anything useful about money at all.
What is money? How is it created? Simple enough questions one would think. Did anyone ever give you an answer when you were at school? No I thought not.
Considering that we all use money all the time, starting from a very young age, then that is a very strange omission wouldn't you say. Why is it that schools never explain to anyone about the origins of money? It's not rocket science after all.
There is a simple answer too. It is because there is a fundamental con at the heart of the world's money system. A con that our lords and masters would prefer that you don't know about. There is more than one con actually, there are in fact several cons. This post is my layman's attempt to explain one of the important cons.
This post is to explain how money is created in the first place
I promise that I will not get all technical on you. That is their tactic, to make it all sound complicated. But it is not complicated at all. It is very, very simple. So I will keep it simple and try to quickly get to the heart of the issue. This will not be a long winded post I promise you.
Firstly, the most obvious forms of money are the notes and coins in your pocket. These are usually created by governments to facilitate the exchange of goods and services in the countries economy. But cash accounts for only 1 or 2% of all the money that exists in "circulation".
So where does all the rest come from? Who creates all the other 98%?
It is created via loans by the banksters:
* Central banks like the Bank of England in the City of London and the US Federal Reserve in New York and others who "loan" money to governments charging them "interest" for the privilege. [Central banks are in fact controlled by private banks, but that is a whole other subject]
* Private banks like RBS, HSBC, N M Rothschild, J P Morgan, Bank of America etc etc etc etc. who "loan" money to corporations [companies] and individuals, again charging them "interest" for the privilege.
These loans are the "debt" that their media keep telling you about.
So 98%, or so, of all the money that exists in the world today is created by loans of one form or another. Loans to countries, loans to corporations, loans to individuals
This is getting to the heart of the money creation con now.
So how do loans create the money that banks "loan" to their customers? The money that then moves into circulation as part of the economy.
I am going to explain that by reference to a mortgage or personal loan. This is something that most of us have some experience of. If you ever bought a house, or a car, or a washing machine on credit then you will have used a mortgage or personal loan of some sort. But the same basic principles apply to loans to governments and corporations, or companies, too.
Most people assume that, when you go to a bank or building society to "borrow" money to buy a house or a car then, the bank "lend" you some money that they already have. Some money that is already in the bank that they then "lend" to you.
This is not what happens.
The money that you "borrow" is created at the time that they "lend" it to you. Think about that for a minute. You do not "borrow" any preexisting money.
The money is created at the time that you borrow it.
So what, you may say, what difference does it make? It makes all the difference in the world, this is the heart of the con, because the answer is so simple:
You create the money yourself when you sign the "loan" agreement!
The bank "loans" you your own money. The bank does not "loan" you any of it's own money.
Wtf? How can I do that? How can I create money?
Simples. What the bank, or the government, or the schools never tell you is that the "loan" agreement that you sign is not a contract between you and them.
[A contract is where one party agrees to provide goods or a service to another party, usually for a payment. There are always 2 signatures on a contract. ie. the provider of the goods or services, and the recipient who agrees to pay for the goods or services]
For your mortgage there is no commercial contract between you and the bank
Why is that ?
Because the bank does not provide anything at all
Think about that a minute. They never sign any contract because there isn't a need for one. There is no need for a contract because there is only one party to the transaction - you the "borrower". And there is only one signature - yours.
You have not signed a contract, you have in fact signed a Promissory Note.
Which is simply your promise to pay, in legal form. It's a bit like a post dated cheque.
Your promise to pay is used by the bank to create the money.
Which did not exist before you signed your promise.
There is no contract between you and the bank. There is only your Promissory Note. This is what creates the money.
Your signature, on your note, creates your money
Do you see the con now? It is so simple that most people have difficulty in understanding it.
The bank does nothing at all, other than enter your transaction in its books of account, which formalises the creation of your money.
All that the bank does is record the fact that you created your own money in its books of account.
Do you see the con now?
The con is in the cost that the bank charges you for this book keeping service
How can the bank justify charging you "interest" when it has done nothing other than a bit of book keeping? Remember that it did not use it's own money.
It simply recorded your creation of your money in its books.
Over the life of most mortgages you will pay in interest roughly twice as much as the sum "borrowed". So if you "borrow" £100k, then you pay the bank £200k in "interest", plus of course the original £100k that you "borrowed".
So you pay £200k to the bank for the privilege of using the £100k of money that your own promise to pay created!
Ever feel that you've been had? I know that I did when I realised how I had been royally conned. I only realised after I had paid off my mortgage too.
Think about it. Then think some more. And then some more. Is what happened reasonable? Why does it cost you so much? What risk did the bank take? How can it justify charging you such a large amount?
As far as justification is concerned then there is none. What did they do for their £200k other than a bit of book keeping? Nothing much in truth. The bank could justify an administration fee I suppose, maybe a few thousand £ at most.
As far as risk then there is hardly any for the bank. If you fail to honour your promise then the bank will seize your asset and will have lost nothing. This is particularly true given that you almost certainly paid them a large deposit of your hard earned which they will then keep, as well as your house, or car.
The bank risked nothing. It never used any of its own money. If you fail to pay then the bank takes you to court and seizes your asset. So it now owns your house, your car, whatever.
There are much better, and fairer, alternatives to the fascist globalist scumbags banksters system of money created by loans. Alternatives that do not require you to pay their "interest", which is at the heart of their con. "Interest" which increases the cost of everything that you buy by about 40%. Yes I do mean everything. It is effectively a hidden tax that we all pay to the fascist globalist scumbags. Why do governments allow such privilege to privately owned banks?
The explanation of why governments allow the banksters such privilege, and the explanation of the fairer alternatives that are available, will have to wait for another time. I promised that I would be simple and brief in this post.
Postscript 1: The legal con that the banksters use if you don't pay them
Even that court process where they seize your asset is a con. Because there is no contract then there is no enforceable contract in a court of law. Only your Promissory Note which only you signed. So the banks have no legal claim. And the courts know this but, when your strawman is summoned to court for "arrears" on the mortgage, they always hide from you the fact that there is no contract.
It is exactly the same if bailiffs call to repossess your house or car. They know that there is no contract too, but they always hide that fact from you too.
Do you find that hard to believe? Do you think that the courts would never do something so underhand? Well wake up and smell the coffee then. This is how the scumbag elites system works. The courts are their courts after all.
I already explained that the legal system is based in the City of London, in my Legalism post:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/legalism-your-strawman-and-you.html
The courts are most definitely not the peoples courts.
They are the scumbag elites courts.
The courts do not work for you, they work for the scumbag elites. Their courts are "Crown Courts" based at the Crown Temple in the City of London. Nothing to do with sweaty Betty and her German crew then? No, not in the way that they want you to think.
Their legal system is run from the Crown Temple and uses your "strawman". An earlier con that they ran on you, just after you were born.
And you surely must realise that the banks are all based in the same place too, the City of London. And who owns all the banks? No prizes for those that have been reading my posts.
The fascist globalist scumbag elites
I told you about them here:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-wizard-of-oz.html
and here:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/how-big-oil-conquered-world.html
and here:
http://petefairhurst.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/a-view-from-bottom-of-rabbit-hole.html
The City of London is their private fiefdom, not part of the UK at all. It is the nerve center of all of their cons on us all. On the whole of humanity in actual fact, because the worlds "legal" system, and lots of the worlds banks, are based there.
It is all hidden in plain sight as ever.
Whenever people tell me that there is no conspiracy, then my eyes roll up to the heavens.
Of course there is. And it's not a fuckin "theory" either. It's a fact. And it's "built-in" to their money and legal systems. It's a bigger conspiracy than you could possibly imagine.
Postscript 2: The Labour Party
The Labour Party is chock full of lawyers isn't it. Some of them even work directly for the banksters. Witness Tony Blair who joined J P Morgan, one of the biggies, as soon as he left office. He is still in the Labour Party. There is a current cabal that are even called Blairites. Like Hilary Benn and a few others.
So do you really think that the Labour Party don't know about all of the above? Do me a favour. Of course they do.
Who bailed out the banksters in 2008? It was the Labour Party who were in government. Gordo Brown was the PM. So it was the Labour Party that bailed them out. It was the Labour Party that "saved" this stinking, rotten, corrupt banksters system of money for the fascist globalist scumbag elites. The Labour Party ffs. The so called peoples party.
If they had any intention of living up to their "principles" then they would have seized the opportunity for reform of the money system. There are much fairer systems than this corrupt elites, loan and interest based, money system for sure. But what did they actually do in practice? They used future tax revenues, that we will all pay in due course, to pay directly to the banksters to save their rotten stinking corpse of a money system. And yet people still vote for them as if they are progressive! You really couldn't make this shit up.
A quick glance at Labour history tells you that they know everything there is to know about the elites money systems, banksters and lawyers.
Blair is a Fabian socialist. Corbyn too. The Fabians early logo was a wolf in sheeps clothing. What does that tell you? It was switched to a turtle later on. The Fabians are elitists par excellence. There is no doubt about that.
Here are some quotations from a famous Fabian philosopher, Bertrand Russell to illustrate my point. From his 1952 book, "The Impact of Science on Society":
"Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."
And
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so. A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind."
And finally this stunning observation
"War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's."
Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Science_on_Society
How much more oligarchical elitist could he be? He obviously did not write his book for proles to read. There is no doubt whose side that he was on. And it wasn't yours or mine. How many of the other Fabians thought the same thing?
So even more evidence of whose side that Labour are really on in practice. Just like Miles W Mathis says.
