Ooooh, Dear.

Mark Braund.

allowing privately owned banks to create money at will

I may well be wrong here but I take it as a basic guide to the opinions of others that when people start complaining about fractional reserve banking that rants on the Rosicrucians and the Bilderbergers aren\’t far behind.

It\’s not quite Grey Aliens and the Lizardoids territory, milder than that, but as a rule of thumb it\’s not failed me yet.

28 comments on “Ooooh, Dear.

  1. Tim,

    Er…what’s wrong with ‘ranting’ about , or. as I prefer to say, questioning the motives of, the Bilderbergers?

    Have my writings or comments given any indication that I suffer from delusions such as believing the world is governed by grey lizards?

    If Bilderberg is unimportant, then

    1. Why do many busy people take time out their schedules for the meetings?; and
    2. Why aren’t those meetings reported?

    Sorry, Tim, just not good enough.

    Tim adds: Erm, I didn’t actually know that you do rant about the Bliderbergers. Sorry about that….but it does rather make my point.

  2. No it doesn’t.

    I’m not in the least interested in fractional reserve banking. The nature of comment in relation thereto was your point.

  3. Can I get ringside seats for the showdown, please, when the aliens and Icke’s Lizard folk and the Rothschilds and the Bilderbergers and George Bush and the Masons and the CIA and the bloke on the grassy knoll – and let’s not forget Pinky and The Brain – all slug it out for Vurld Domination?

  4. A bit behind, Tim? The Americans, or should we call them Yanks, have been doing this for quite a number of years.

    Gold standard, silver standard, copper standard waste paper standard.

    They need more money – they print it.

  5. 2. Why aren’t those meetings reported?

    Then how do you know about these meetings? Or, are they holding these meetings to make people think they are holding these meetings but they really are not holding these meetings which they hold to make people think they are holding them?

    Or is it all a “false flag” operation? Perhaps this comment is actually a “false flag” comment which appears to confuse but is actually a coded signal to those who know the secret-handshake, and have been sufficiently lashed with ginger beer, to pull all funds out of all markets prior to Monday’s plunge.

    Or does it even matter at all, 2012 is right around the corner. The Aztecs have already PROVEN that will be the end of the world. All mankind (minus the Yeti) will disappear….

  6. “How do I create money at will? I must have missed that meeting.”

    By lending it out via promissory notes, and then also spending the gold that backs the notes. Isaac Newton discovered how to do this while he was trying to deflate the currency by using the slightly-heavier 195-Au isotope of gold when he was master of the Royal Mint.

    It’s all described in the symbols under the one-eyed pyramid on the dollar bill if you know where to look.

  7. Kay Tie you were warned previously about discussing such things publicly without the proper vetting of Illuminati Sub Council-F sanctioning.

  8. I’m s’prised. Really. The guy (Mark) writing of “creating money at will” might have a very dim appreciation of many aspects of reality but he’s not so far off the mark on the matter of money-creation as to invite such ridicule. And (addressing Will Rhodes, specifically) not only the U.S. government–but all of the other governments as well–have been doing something along those lines for quite some time.

    For very many years, governments were somewhat constrained in their creation of new money by the necessity of maintaining a “conversion fund”–a reserve consisting in commodity money–to avoid the inevitable crises that must result when people lose faith in their currency. The normal reaction of people to such doubt would be to obtain and hold such commodity money in preference to the notes circulated as currency or, often, the notes of foreign issue to which less suspicion attached.
    That avenue of personal financial protection has been closed off; since 1974, there has no longer existed any connection whatever between any national currency and anything that would have previously been thought to have been qualified to be called “money.”

    I understand very well that there are people holding various conspiracy theories who may couple their particular favorite(s) with some misappreciation of the role of banks–and central banks in particular–in the expansion of circulation credit which underlies inflation and, ultimately, what is called “the business cycle.” What I don’t understand is the number of (presumably) economically-aware commenters
    here who seem to equate criticism of central-bank manipulation (and even of central banking itself) with some sort of conspiracy cult. That’s a degree of ignorance even worse than that of the kooks and cranks: it’s the river of ignorance in which the current proceeds relentlessly, sometimes slowly and at other times more swiftly, toward disaster made virtually inevitable by that very ignorance.

    The destructive potential of central banking is not a new discovery. What is new is the extent of sheer size to which populations, production, and interconnectedness have grown since 1865, when Henri Cernuschi proposed to a government banking inquiry (in France) that all banks be permitted unlimited note issue. His desire was simply that all people (at least in France) learn first-hand not to trust any banknotes whatever: it would be healthy for the individuals themselves and for the economy of the nation.

    I will state categorically, as forcefully as possible: fractional-reserve banking (and the existence of fractional-reserve banking is the only rationale whatever for central banking) is uttterly incompatible with the free market. It’s only purpose is to parasitize producers as painlessly as possible (in addition to both visible and hidden taxation) and, in so doing, to divert
    production and market behavior from that which would obtain (absent interference) and toward lines more favorable to those interfering. And, though it may so prove painless in the short term, it will not so remain for long. Furthermore, those interfering are only partially able to control the effects brought forth by their activity; the unintended consequences are regularly encountered for all to see.

    The basic outlook and political philosophy of those espousing politically-centered banking is identical with that of the socialists: some are smarter and better educated than others and, by that, should be in position to guide the activities of the rest; the difference lies only in opinions as to how visible should be the force underlying the directives (and there is no need to speculate on whether the motivations are lust for gain or power or purely beneficial intent).

  9. I am not a economic specialist – I just blog shite and hope that people read it. 🙂

    But the US has advocated worthless paper money more than most, hence you have Arab nations wanting to be paid in Euro’s rather than a worthless dollar – and who objects the loudest?

  10. MarkC,

    You left the squirrels from your list. Personally I think they are the favourites in the upcoming showdown. Pinkie and the Brain could give them a run for their money in a one to one fight, but there’s just so many of the little fluffy-tailed, twitchy-nosed buggers.

  11. I think the more interesting thing is how this has switched sides politically. In the past ranting about fractional banking was a political staple of American rural populists. It merged with people who were concerned about Jewish control of the world. As such it was not an issue touched by the Far or Soft Left. It was Pat Buchanan’s sort of issue. But with the collapse of Marxism the Left has had to make do with whatever rants it can get and so it is taken up by the Guardian.

    I have to admit that there is a distinction between the sane and less sane rants here. In the same way that there are serious regulatory issues about fractional reserve banking. The fact that nuts rant about it doesn’t change that. The Bilderbergers are an odd lot. I am not convinced that we are best served by these people meeting in secret all the time. However, I don’t rant about it. The Lizards are an issue of a completely different order.

  12. Tim

    I have no interest in aliens, lizards, or any other kind of reptiles. Hey, I’ve not even met Ken Livingstone.

    As for the Bilderbergers: Do politicians and their lackeys hold secret meetings? Well, is the Pope a Catholic? It’s no big deal.

    All this has nothing to do with fractional reserve banking, something that, in my opinion anyway, was intellectually demolished a long time ago.

    Even if I’m wrong, my analysis has paid off, for the time being anyway. My gold shares are up by (not to) 150%. I saved myself £60k by switching from the with-profits fund to the cash fund of a major UK pension provider a couple of years ago. That decision was solely based on reading the works of a few dead, Austrian economists, who explained all of what’s going on in the world’s markets a century ago.

  13. So Much for Subtlety,

    You appear the best citizen and democrat on this thread, for, unlike several others ready to patronise instead of justifying their positions, at least you acknowledge that it might not be absolutely healthy for political and financial leaders to hold quasi-secret gatherings.

    In 2006, I lodged a Freedom of Information request concerning the reported attendance of a then civil servant at the Bilderberg meetings in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I was told that no information existed. The civil servant’s name? Ed Balls.

    Oddly enough, I don’t remember any of the sub-playground bullies who posted derogatory remarks above taking a swing at the Daily Telegraph’ when it reported on 14th August 2007 that,

    “Cabinet minister Ed Balls spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money attending a private meeting of one of the world’s most powerful and secretive organisations.

    Mr Balls, widely regarded as Gordon Brown’s closest adviser, travelled to Canada for the four-day conference of the shadowy Bilderberg Group of businessmen and politicians when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

    The cost of the trip, in air fares, hotel bills and expenses is estimated at up to £5,000.

    The group’s rules insist that “all participants attend in a private and not an official capacity”.

    However, a Treasury spokesman said Mr Balls had attended “in his capacity as a minister” and confirmed that all expenses had been met from public funds”

    The Bilderberg in question was 2006. Now, just why is a Minister of the Crown attending a meeting of a private, non-governmental body, to which the UK is not bound by any treaty or protocol, in an official capacity? I hope everyone who posted a negative remark concerning the sanity of those who wish to know what Bilderberg is and does has good answers both to that question and its corollary, ‘Why do the British people have to pay for Ed Balls to attend it?’

  14. Martin,

    Why do government officials attend meetings of private, non-governmental bodies, to which the UK is not bound by any treaty or protocol*, in an official capacity? You mean like universities, businesses, labor unions, community centres/associations, etc…

    Why do we have to pay? Forget the Bilderbergers, why should we pay for travel/hotels on ANY of these junkets?

    By the way, you left out the real loon redmeat from the article quoted:

    “Also at the event with Mr Balls, now Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, were the former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, the American banker and philanthropist.”

    *Any treaty or protocol that YOU are aware of…..

  15. Martin,

    “It astonishes me that the only possible retort you can conjure is to crib about having to pay hotel bills. That is not a strong defence of your position.”

    I was only answering your very own corollary.

    Actually I think you are right. The secret protocols and treaties are with the members of the Bohemian Grove NOT the Bilderbergers…..Then again, am I just saying that to throw you off??

  16. Martin,

    You seem to think all machinations (commercial, military, diplomatique) taking place in the world are under the control and orchestration of a secret society called the Bilderbergers.

    From someone who actually lives, works, and does in the real-world I can tell you that beliefs in world domination by a secret society (Bilderbergers, et al) is pure fantasy.

  17. Nozzy,

    You write,

    “Why do government officials attend meetings of private, non-governmental bodies, to which the UK is not bound by any treaty or protocol*, in an official capacity? You mean like universities, businesses, labor unions, community centres/associations, etc…”

    I would answer, as respectfully as I can in a mood not likely to be improved by the qusetioning of my sanity, that there is a significant difference in degree between Ed Balls opening a playgroup in his constituency and Ed Balls attending quasi-secret and consistently unreported meetings with members of other governments and leaders of international business.

    It astonishes me that the only possible retort you can conjure is to crib about having to pay hotel bills. That is not a strong defence of your position.

    I would have thought that all us bloggers, who only do what we do because of we have the good taste to temper our narcissism with a desire to occasionally speak truth to power, would be wanting to know just why our representatives, people who are nothing without our votes, take off into dark corners with members of other governments and business people. They could be playing dominoes for all I care; but for long as I pay his wages I want what Balls is doing there.

    Incidentally, if you are aware of any law, treaty, staute or protocol by which the United Kingdom is bound to the Bilderberg Group in any way, I’d be more than delighted for you to produce it; for you even to speculate about the existence of such a commitment places you on the wilder shores of conspiracy theory.

  18. Nozzy,

    You write,

    “am I just saying that to throw you off??”

    No, I don’t think so; however, I do think you’re combining a tedious infantilism with an arrogance borne of not liking to lose.

    I’m going to ask you a question, and a polite and reasoned answer would be appreciated; on this thread, have I made any argument, or put forward any proposition, that would make an average reader think that I am delusional? If not, I would be very grateful if you could explain to me why you seem so incredibly hostile to discussion of perfectly reasonable concerns regarding precisely how the government of the United Kingdom is conducted.

  19. Nozzy,

    You write,

    “You seem to think all machinations (commercial, military, diplomatique) taking place in the world are under the control and orchestration of a secret society called the Bilderbergers.”

    Pace the precise terms of the question I posed to you earlier, I do not think I have written anything that could have given any reasonable person the impression that what you state my beliefs to be are in fact my beliefs. You continue,

    “From someone who actually lives, works, and does in the real-world I can tell you that beliefs in world domination by a secret society (Bilderbergers, et al) is pure fantasy.”

    Have I given any impression that I neither live, nor work, nor ‘do’ (do what?) in that place called ‘the real world’? I can assure you I do – and I am relieved to learn that you don’t think it’s run by the Bilderbergers; for I don’t think I’ve given any indication that I think that either.

    If my experience of debating in ‘the real world’ is anything to go by, it’s round about this point you declare victory and leave.

  20. Quite right.

    However, I will leave the diagnosis of paranoia draped nicely across your shoulders.

    Don’t forget to check for micro-chip implant signs whilst doing the daily washing…

  21. “How could I ever win? You have eternal strength, via your belief in the Tooth Fairy, on your side….”

    Thank you for re-affirming my earlier diagnosis of infantilism and arrogance.

  22. You just don’t know when to quit, do you?

    OK, Nozzy, if it is so important to you, you can have the last word. Crippled and nearing 40, I have better things to do with my time than listen to abuse.

    Time for Tubby Bye-Byes.

  23. Nozzy, I don’t believe much is orchestrated by any secret societies. I don’t much mind if the world’s Good and Great are meeting because their interests are probably our interests. Certainly during the Cold War it was a good idea.

    However is that as true now as it was then? Will it remain true into the future? I think not myself. For instance, who can deny that the Great and the Good got together to orchestrate a campaign to vote Yes to membership of the European community? Who thinks that the Bilderbergers are not staunch Euro-philes if not Federalists? Is it such a good idea for the people we elect to be secretly lobbied on this issue without actually mentioning it to us all?

    Do I think these people run the world? No. I think most of them couldn’t run a bath. But should politics be a matter for the people or a matter for powerful people meeting in secret?

    Now if that is paranoia that puts me on the same level of David Ickes, well slap a tail on me and call me a baby eating reptilian humanoid.

    By the way, anyone else read the fatuous Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s wailing over the fact that the vile John Pilger thinks she is part of the Vast International Zionist Conspiracy? The woman is a living justification for ending Affirmative Action.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.