 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
In the old days there was no paper money. The accepted token of
exchange was precious metal minted into coins by the Church and the
Crown. Because there was only a limited amount of gold and silver
available, the economic life of the nation had a certain regularity.
An even greater restriction existed throughout Christendom. This was
the prohibition against usury, or charging interest. The Church held it
to be a grave sin and the code was upheld by the civil powers. There
were harsh penalties for those who broke the law.
The regulation of usury was to prevent the separation of money from
reality. Money is not a good, it is a measure. It is fraud to pretend
otherwise, and constitutes theft. Usury is making money from lending
money; it is making money from nothing. This is exactly what is
happening today on a colossal scale.
Several important things arose from the prohibition of usury in
medieval Christendom. Firstly Jews, who had taken to wandering around
Europe in the Middle Ages, began to specialise in money-lending and
other practices which were forbidden to Christians. Exploited
Christians, from peasants to aristocrats, found themselves being bled
dry by usurers, which is why there were sporadic uprisings,
imprisonments and expulsions of Jews throughout Europe. It is one
reason why King Edward I expelled them from England in 1290. Oliver
Cromwell allowed them back when the moral authority of the Church was
undermined and the King was beheaded in 1649.
Secondly, gold coins, jewels and other valuables were deposited with
people who held strongboxes. This was usually with goldsmiths and
money-lenders who, more often than not, were one and the same. These
loan-sharks and scriveners realised that, without much chance of being
found out, they could charge people for looking after their deposits
and then use those deposits - which did not belong to them - to make
loans to other people at interest. They soon became rich and powerful.
Gold coins are heavy and awkward to carry around so the custom arose
whereby the money-lenders would issue credit notes to depositors who
began to trade those notes between themselves in commercial
transactions. Paper money had come into existence.
A new form of usury developed as the swindling money-lenders realised
the immoral benefits that could be obtained from such a situation. It
became apparent to these thieves that they could go one step further
than dishonestly using other people's money for financial advantage at
no cost to themselves. They could invent money from absolutely nothing.
They could issue credit notes with nothing to back them up and put them
into circulation as interest-bearing debts. No-one would be any the
wiser. They calculated that they could safely issue notes for up to 10
times more than the gold deposits they held, because the depositors
would never ask for their money back all at the same time.
The principle of modern banking was thus established: invent money from
nothing, put it into circulation as "running cash notes" that have to
be paid back with real wealth that is produced from our labour, sit
back and become unbelievably wealthy and powerful men: hidden rulers of
nations. In England this deceitful system was officially sanctioned in
1694. The usurper of the throne, William of Orange, had overthrown the
legitimate King James II with the financial backing and plotting of
powerful Jewish financiers in Amsterdam. In return he gave the
sovereignty of England to a group of financiers by means of a Charter
allowing them to call themselves the Bank of England. The Charter made
no mention of issuing the nation's money, but within minutes of signing
the new Bank officials were gleefully discussing the form of their
"running cash notes." The same system was adopted in every country by a
process of Masonic revolution and manipulation.
Nowadays banking has become extremely sophisticated but the hidden and
usurious principles behind it remain the same. The British Treasury, in
conjunction with the Bank of England's advisers to the Government,
determine how much money will be issued each year. This has to accord
with the wealth of the nation for that year. But because cash only
accounts for a tiny proportion of financial transactions, it makes no
difference to the bankers at all. Most financial transactions are
carried out with abstract figures on a computer screen that have no
relationship to real wealth. Everything has to be paid for at interest
though - even when it doesn't exist!
The Government still has to pay interest on old and new loans from the
Bank. Only a few years ago it was announced that the interest debt on a
loan taken during the Napoleonic War had just been paid off! This is
where much of our tax money goes.
<big snip>
Interesting - thanks for that !
In message <1...@4...googlegroups.co
m>,
"5,999,999" <n...@y...com> writes
>
>The Government still has to pay interest on old and new loans from the
>Bank. Only a few years ago it was announced that the interest debt on a
>loan taken during the Napoleonic War had just been paid off! This is
>where much of our tax money goes.
>
No. The second world war debt has just been paid off. It was an old (if
accurate) joke that the only thing the yanks charged in WW2 was the
interest on the money they loaned us :-)
There is talk of billions owed from WW1. But as the yanks (once again)
turned up late, I think we should call it a gift and forget about it.
Not that accuracy should get in the way of a good yarn....
--
Edward Cowling London UK
Edward Cowling London UK wrote:
> In message <1...@4...googlegroups.co
m>,
> "5,999,999" <n...@y...com> writes
> >
> >The Government still has to pay interest on old and new loans from the
> >Bank. Only a few years ago it was announced that the interest debt on a
> >loan taken during the Napoleonic War had just been paid off! This is
> >where much of our tax money goes.
> >
>
> No. The second world war debt has just been paid off. It was an old (if
> accurate) joke that the only thing the yanks charged in WW2 was the
> interest on the money they loaned us :-)
>
> There is talk of billions owed from WW1. But as the yanks (once again)
> turned up late, I think we should call it a gift and forget about it.
>
> Not that accuracy should get in the way of a good yarn....
>
> --
> Edward Cowling London UK
Or that banking as a construct that predates coinage is so old that
it's obscure and dates as far back as Hammurabi. Though not without
mention as an expression and provision for conflicts or a debt
concerned with blood feuds. In this section, The Royal Monopoly of
Minting, is an interesting read that suggests an entirely different
motive Royalists (hope that's in proper context) realized apart from
any greater influence as a intangible asset relating to either Church
or cultural lineages. As for what banks presently have electronically
in store, the link to Democracy (within the same paper) provides a much
stronger tie to conceeding factors impressed upon the Bank of England
and Parliament. Pages 649-650;281, Davies, Glyn. A history of money
from ancient times to the present day, 3rd ed. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press, 2002. 720 pages. Paperback: ISBN 0 7083 1717 0. Hardback:
ISBN 0 7083 1773 1.*
* http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/origins.html
"Edward Cowling London UK" <e...@g...demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PgXN5RPVmGmFFw9h@genghis0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1...@4...googlegroups.co
m>,
> "5,999,999" <n...@y...com> writes
> >
> >The Government still has to pay interest on old and new loans from the
> >Bank. Only a few years ago it was announced that the interest debt on a
> >loan taken during the Napoleonic War had just been paid off! This is
> >where much of our tax money goes.
> >
>
> No. The second world war debt has just been paid off. It was an old (if
> accurate) joke that the only thing the yanks charged in WW2 was the
> interest on the money they loaned us :-)
>
> There is talk of billions owed from WW1. But as the yanks (once again)
> turned up late, I think we should call it a gift and forget about it.
>
> Not that accuracy should get in the way of a good yarn....
actually the amount owed to the british from world war one is ten times the
amount the british owe everyone else. for WW1 they were the main banker. if
you're labouring under the misapprehension we owe the americans a fortune
for that war, we don't. the rest of the world owes us, and frankly we should
demand it back :)
cheers
james
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money
"Flasherly" wrote
> Or that banking as a construct that predates coinage is so old that
> it's obscure and dates as far back as Hammurabi. Though not without
> mention as an expression and provision for conflicts or a debt
> concerned with blood feuds. In this section, The Royal Monopoly of
> Minting, is an interesting read that suggests an entirely different
> motive Royalists (hope that's in proper context) realized apart from
> any greater influence as a intangible asset relating to either Church
> or cultural lineages. As for what banks presently have electronically
> in store, the link to Democracy (within the same paper) provides a much
> stronger tie to conceeding factors impressed upon the Bank of England
> and Parliament. Pages 649-650;281, Davies, Glyn. A history of money
> from ancient times to the present day, 3rd ed. Cardiff: University of
> Wales Press, 2002. 720 pages. Paperback: ISBN 0 7083 1717 0. Hardback:
> ISBN 0 7083 1773 1.*
>
> * http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/origins.html
Any chance you could repeat that in english?
:-(
Tim wrote:
> Any chance you could repeat that in english?
> :-(
Did your mouse quit working?
Flasherly wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
> > Any chance you could repeat that in english?
> > :-(
>
> Did your mouse quit working?
What do you mean? It's more interesting when you can't understand it.
The history of banking is right up there with the history of Canadian
plywood in the tedium stakes. Yawn.
David wrote:
> Flasherly wrote:
> > Tim wrote:
> >
> > > Any chance you could repeat that in english?
> > > :-(
> >
> > Did your mouse quit working?
>
> What do you mean? It's more interesting when you can't understand it.
> The history of banking is right up there with the history of Canadian
> plywood in the tedium stakes. Yawn.
Draw your own inferences, or don't bother if the link is too tedious to
be anything but preferable. Appears to me an astute source for a
meander abound. Hope so. Or an easy 600 page read if anyone really
wanted the book;- the opportunity to promote select passages of course
are free. Were you expecting fire and brimstone from just a scant
paragraph. . . a complete rebuttal to the 'money lenders, loan sharks
and British-Jewish Amsterdam pact,' much less a final solution? Won't
be from me. Interesting selections, nevertheless. What I especially
enjoyed is how royalty recalled coinage to remint at interest bearing
profits. Whereas under the link democracy, I found what I wanted to
know about what influences pertain to decisions in a global province of
competitive lending practises. Real wealth, come on, want to give it a
go?
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Let Me Show You How Easy To Build Your AVON, SeaAloe, Or ANY Online Business
SOME BASTARDS DO NOT SEEM TO LIKE THEIR MINING PIONEERS VERY MUCH ! Let's Pray then !!!
Re: Latest RSS Satellite Data Show Continued Warming.
Global Cooling News: Record Cold In Saskatoon
Re: Big is back: As pump prices plunge, SUV sales surge
Private sale Island blocks Queensalnd. With building permit.
ROBERT MOREIN - NUTCASE, CRACKPOT, DANGEROUS NET TERRORIST & CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER
History of Brian L. McCarty 12/21/06
Up