|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Mar 05, 2010 12:49 am |
|
re: Economic Capture - Money Power in the World |
James Booth
| |
.
Something has been abridged here, but we carry on ...
... like survivors in Chile or Haiti: we are where we are.
My apologies for not being able to keep up with the pace here.
_
"It's not clear to me what you're getting at."
> My post was in direct response to more than just one post which appears no longer to be on display.
_
"I'm particularly curious as to what the term "Money Power" encompasses."
> *Money Power* as I am using the term here is a force "above and beyond" what we think of as "government" but a power which largely usurps legitimate government through corruption of "elected" (selected) officials and of the very *election* process itself, then continues to have its way through the "obligation" of those same corrupted officials it has brought to power, and whom it maintains in office to maintain its own power, a power which is never equal to or greater than the *Will of The People* except that the "promise to pay" at every instant offered by Money Power is an enticement which keeps The People "in line" while suffering illusions put forth by that same *private* "power" which in most modern states *creates and emits* what we today accept as our "money".
_
" 'Money' is a very slippery concept. It is both very simple but
yet complicated, depending on what aspect you are talking about."
> Yes - agreed.
I grew up in a country which, as I was "educated" to believe, issued its own money, as according to the Constitution of the United States of America, and while I have continued to live in, and be citizen of, that same country now for 65 years, I have learned I live in - learned TO live in - a country very different from the one described to me in school.
As regards *money*: there were a couple times in U. S. history when the United States government; ie. The People, DID create and issue their own money, as in ancient times, but that has not been our *reality* since 1913.
Among other things we were taught in school was at least a "mild hatred" of "kingly rule" which is most often portrayed as tyrannical, and which it often has been during most of the past 5,000 years or so, with some exceptions
... but there was a time before that period.
A quote from Demosthenes seems as appropriate to our current situation as to those he spoke to then:
"In ancient days everything that belonged to the state was costly and splendid, and no
individual distinguished himself from the multitude; and the proof of it is, that if any of
you know the houses of Themistocles and Miltiades, and the famous men of that time,
he will see that they are not more magnificent than those of other people; but the
buildings and construction of the State were of such size and number, that it is not in
the power of succeeding generations to surpass them - the Propylaea, the Docks, the
Porticoes, the Piraeus, and other works with which you see the city adorned! But now
all who are concerned in the management of public affairs have a superfluity of riches,
that some have built private houses more magnificent than many public edifices and
some of them have purchased more land than all of you who are sitting in the court are
together possessed of; but your public buildings and works, it is disgraceful to tell how
scanty and contemptible they are. What indeed can be said of your works? What of
the parapets we throw up? - of the roads we construct and the fountains and trifles at
which we labour? ... Thus speaks the ardent enthusiast for the happiness and fame of
his country; his speeches of admonition might with a few alterations be adapted to the
present age, in which such vast sums have been squandered away without producing
anything useful or durable."
Therein lies a description of the State (any state) burdened with - whose people are burdened with - *money as debt* or a *debt based economy* such as we have in many countries of our world today.
Yes indeed - money is a much more "slippery concept" when it is such as we use today, money which is backed by nothing but the creation of debt.
The country in which I was led to believe I was growing up in, as I understood what was given to me as part of my "education" in those days, was a country in which money, yours or mine, represented an accumulation of our efforts, of our "blood, sweat and tears" that is, upon which we might, if we worked hard and saved our "money" as good citizens, one day "retire" to enjoy those "fruits of our labours" or perhaps pass on some portion of those "fruits" to help a next generation or two following us to more easily achieve whatever their individual goals we choose to further.
Money Power is in no way *beneficent* to any people anywhere except when a particular group, for as long as it does, acts to benefit, however temporarily, Money Power interests, and its continuation.
Prior to the clever tactics of some caravaneers whose travels associated them with Habiru (apparently a social designation rather than one ethnic or tribal) and earlier Hurrians, rulers were most often accepted by their people as a "wise parent" who measured "authority" for the welfare of "family" who could from "within" depose a tyrannical ruler at any time before the age of exterior forces - early Money Power - which subverted natural rule along with the entire natural order and relationship between any people and their (formerly) self-selected ruler.
_
"Is this your own formulation, or is this based on some external
analysis or book? If so, who is the author or what is the book?"
> The term *Money Power* I have found used by a variety of authors, and is also a term used by Abraham Lincoln to describe the "force" which was ultimately his demise.
Where some folks want to talk about "elites" of some sort, or blame certain individuals or an ethnic group, I am not interested in "blame" but instead am focused on understanding the *mechanics* of our enslavement through what we call "money" today, which is NOT the sort of money which represents the product of our Life Force, but which is in fact a tool used to drain the wealth of any people, or any group or nation, who are constantly pitted against some "other" group - both of which find themselves instigated to yet another war, all "sides" of which are *financed* by Money Power which cares not a whit who "wins" or lives or dies as long as it is paid in full measure.
This might help you to understand why a small group of New York "capitalists" financed the Russian Revolution which replaced the Tsar with Communism, and thus give you further insight to the subsequent "conflict" borne of that "union".
Those International Bankers (not to be confused with your hometown banker or bank manager) did not *give* the Bolsheviks any "money" or anything of actual substance, but extended them *credit* with which their purchases might be satisfactorily transacted.
On careful inspection, you will find those "purchases" - - for materials and weapons, etc. generally profited those same "extenders of credit" more than anyone else.
Repayment came to the New York bankers - in part - as actual substance: 60 million rubles of gold.
To which there is always some fool who will quickly say something such as, "That was the Tsar's money. He deserved to lose it!"
That 60 million rubles in gold was taken from the Russian people, NOT from the Tsar.
The *conqueror* (whoever that may be) shares the "spoils" of conquest with the Money Power which made it possible for the "conqueror" to succeed at all, and if it is soon to the benefit of the Money Power for that "conqueror" to "succumb" or be replaced, so be it: Money Power stands to profit the more there is disruption and upheaval.
That is how the system has worked for 5,000 years and continues today, as you realize when, say, you want to buy a "home" for which you are not able to pay "cash".
Your signature on the loan document does NOT result in your hands being filled with cash - NO!
All you get is a piece of paper which represents a "promise to pay" - a promise that the lender will satisfy the seller, and your promise to pay the lender an amount which will far exceed the *price* of the home (in our lifetimes we have seen interest on a 30-year home mortgage as much as two-and-a-half times the purchase price of the home).
The "money" which satisfies the seller did not exist until you "created" it with your signature on the loan document, after which that "money" exists as "debt" (what is owed the lender), not as actual "wealth".
One critical problem with this system, which, for those whose every breath is quoting from the Bible (worthy of respect as that is), IS *slavery* (Proverbs 22:7), is that the *money* which must pay the "rent" (interest) on the principal you have "guaranteed" (with your signature) to pay the lender, who, recall, gives you only a piece of paper which represents "legal possession" of something you do not own, and never will (there is no allodial title today), DOES NOT EXIST !
Nonetheless, that "interest" money has to be paid, and it has to come from somewhere - the only place it can be derived is from some other "authorization of debt money" which is why, when the "music stops" in a debt-based economy, someone always comes up "short" (without a chair to sit on).
Bankrupt, as is the entire system itself ultimately.
More than you wanted to know, I realize ...
JB
Private Reply to James Booth (new win) |
|
| |
|
