JR: If you were a big banker, one of the few really important ones with the monopoly to create a very large part of the World’s money and had the process that confers immense power, greater than that of most nations, and that provides virtually immense and guaranteed profits. What would you do?
The first consideration, obviously, would be to keep the racket secret as long as possible and to do everything possible to deflect the claims of anyone that wakes up to it. You have access to virtually unlimited funds to hire some of the best brains in the world to advise you and also to fund chosen institutions. So you generously offer to fund Schools of Economics. What is more obvious to most people than that you should do that anyway? Having done so, you are then in a position to influence who are appointed to their Chairs, and to a considerable extent what they teach. Possibly this started when you gained the prestigious London School of Economics, founded and allowed to go bankrupt by Fabian Socialists and taken over by what were then your Big Five banks of Britain.
You have a problem, in that it is not hard to prove that you do create money, therefore you need to obscure what you can’t deny outright. You ensure that texts world-wide are standardised in their approach to this, asserting prominently the apparently reasonable statement that banks are intermediaries between lenders and borrowers. To cover your tracks, you insert a brief note that students are likely to gloss over on what you call the Multiplier Theory, ending with a dismissive statement that banks “could be said” to create money.
Then you had a brilliant idea. You financed a false version ot the Nobel Prize, confined to Economics only, where the annual prizes are recommended by your own nominees. This gives you a powerful tool to influence a whole discipline of thought.
You were disturbed when two very well-known prestigious citizens, C H Douglas and Frederick Soddy, become world-famous by criticising your actions and even had their ideas discussed in some Universities. However, many politicians can be bought, with money, honours or high-paying jobs in retirement. It is not hard to gain majority shares in world newspapers and later the electronic media. Your advisors sensibly recommended ignoring reformers as long as possible and denying them publicity wherever possible. Any breakthrough was treated with derision. Any reform was decried as “funny money” or “inflationary” and Social Credit in particular was labelled “discredited”.
The Socialist movement looked dangerous some years ago, with many monetary reformers in its ranks. But, with its strong base in the universities, it was not hard to infiltrate it with “properly-trained” economists so that it is no longer a threat to you.
Any reform politicians that look like breaking through should be opposed by all means possible. What a great job you are doing now on President Trump, just because you fear he might stumble on some of the truth!
However, a fresh wave of discontent is rising and even some rebel in the Bank of England has been “blowing the gaff”. It is time for a new approach. What is needed is a “new” school of economic thought, designed to obscure the main issues. Give it a nice modern-sounding name and, unlike serious movements, a trendy acronym that that trips off the tongue. Put a cat among the pigeons by pretending that some of the things reformers want already happen. They’ll waste immense amounts of time discussing those. Since you can no longer deny their claims that corporate banks create money, put up a strong case that it doesn’t matter and is, indeed, beneficial to the world. That’s true, but the power that went with it has been used to do harm.
Next, of course, since Social Crediters only want to take away control of the process and the right to create some of the money, while other reformers want to take it away from you completely, I’m sure you will provoke a war of words between them to focus energy on time-wasting argument that splits your opposition.
That’s if you haven’t gained sufficient control of the major nations by then to ensure that you are safe and no reform is possible. Tough luck that TPPA, the tool that would have greatly hastened your schemes, went down the drain. It must have cost you an immense amount of time and many millions of dollars to promote that.
However, ninety nine percent of the world’s population either don’t care or have been sucked in by your propaganda, so I feel you will not be long in succeeding.
Me: Nice little piece John. Very accurate as well. You’re even right about the futility of arguing forever and a day about whether you take away all of the money creation process or some of it because the most important thing to do is to continually downsize the percentage and size of the market for necessary NEW finance. And that’s precisely what the abundant dividend, high percentage retail discount and extension of the end point retail policy to the retail product of each and every business model does by thoroughly saturating the economy with monetary Gifting instead of Debt, Loan and For Production ONLY. That integrates apparently opposing economic theories like Keynesianism and Austrian economics by accomplishing what both want, greater demand (Keynes) and price deflation (Austrians).
When in doubt integrate the truths and only the truths of opposites, only their
workabilities and the highest ethical considerations of each. Those are the rules of Integration/Natural Wisdom, and not just because they’re “nice”, but because they reflect the primary realities of cutting edge science like quantum mechanics which if properly understood enables spirituality (provincial or otherwise) to be integrated into science and mathematics…which are wonderful and useful tools but only subsets of the former.