Category Archives: Money Supply

Hitler was financed by @FederalReserve and @BankofEngland

16 05 27 HitlerIt takes long-term thinking to understand geo-political processes.

It takes a ‘niche interest’ to want to study how the world has been duped and deceived into what’s so dishonest about our money system. 

And it takes a historian who wants to know the truth:

Yuri Rubtsov is a doctor of historical sciences, academician of the Academy of military sciences, and member of  the International Association of historians of world war II.

The result is this article:

An excellent time line of four roughly 5-year stages, starting 1919, and an important account of the key players in finance and in industry.

 

 

Advertisements

@MonetaryReform News from the LONDON GLOBAL TABLE February 3rd 2016 12-2 pm

16 02 02 Global TableThis newsletter is one of Canon Peter Challen’s regular email – long standing monetary reformer and organiser of the London Global Table – in the spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies:

MATTERS IN THE AIR: February 3rd 2016: in which all may share as our networking prospers the cause of inclusive justice… visit the website to view the evolving agenda for the next meeting: http://www.globaltable.org.uk.

DISCUSS MOMENTUM  and other introductions to rethinking our voting systems and their potential

FORTHCOMING EVENTS: See http://globaltable.org.uk/wp/forthcoming-events

ELLEN BROWN : our associate is the Speaker at the RSA on Wednesday 17 February 2016 – Why We Should Own the Banks – 1.00pm – 2.00pm – RSA, 8 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6EZ – https://www.thersa.org/events/2016/02/why-we-should-own-the-banks/. Continue reading

OVER 30 MPs debate #MoneyCreation and Society – #Cash vs #Credit – Governments vs #Banks

UK Parliament debated Money Creation and Society for first time in 170 years.  Here’s what they said – on this video – starting at 11:18:

London, 21st November 2014

On Thursday 20th November 2014 over 30 MPs took part in a debate in the House of Commons on money creation and society. This was the first time in 170 years, since the Bank Charter Act in 1844, that the topic has been fully debated.

 

Money creation affects almost every aspect of our lives, and is directly connected to almost all public policy, including public and private debt levels, house prices, and rising inequality, but it’s very poorly understood. A recent poll found that 7 out of 10 MPs believed that only the government can create money[1], when in fact 97% of money is created by banks as they make loans, as recently confirmed by the Bank of England[2]

 

MPs acknowledged the problem of their own lack of understanding of money creation [1]:

 

Peter Lilley MP stated that “A lot has been made of the ignorance of Members of Parliament of how money is created. I suspect that that ignorance…… explains many things, not least why we entered the financial crisis with a regulatory system that was so unprepared for a banking crisis.”

 

Zac Goldsmith MP was the first to admit at the debate that he does not fully understand the system, stating, “I suspect that most people here would be humble enough to recognise that the banking wizardry we are discussing is such a complex issue that very few people properly understand it.” Continue reading

#MoneyCreation debated by MPs 320 years after the #BoEAct1694

English: The expansion of $100 through fractio...

English: The expansion of $100 through fractional-reserve lending at varying rates. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The writers of the Bank of England Act 1694 had the intention

to avoid the serious oppression of Their Majesties’ subjects.

Hence they didn’t allow the Corporation to trade. Should it trade after all, it would have to pay as punishment:

treble the value of the trade.

In theory, this means that the BoE would have to pay the Treasury treble the value of all national and public debt bonds!

Will MPs appreciate this when they debate ‘money creation and society’ this Thursday as part of Backbench Business?

See   Parliament Debate, including the link to watching the debate live .

Further info on Facebook and  these Google results.

TOWARDS the 100th Anniversary of the Bradbury Pound – our 13th Early Day Motion!

English: HM Treasury Crest

English: HM Treasury Crest (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This Early Day Motion is the 13th in our close to annual attempts of reminding Parliament that ‘treasury money‘ is the better way than accepting the slavery imposed by ‘bank money‘.

The text reads:

That this House notes that the hundredth anniversary of the Bradbury Pound on 7 August 2014 is a welcome reminder of the historic precedent for public credit as the sound basis for debt-and interest-free Treasury money and therefore the sound alternative to the national debt and interest-bearing bank money; congratulates the Forum for Stable Currencies for having promoted the public credit since 2002; and urges HM Treasury to follow John Bradbury’s model and address social, economic and political issues across party lines in one fell swoop and avoid wholly unnecessary austerity cuts.

Given the scandal about the falsification of crime statistics by the Police and the three court hearings that illustrate how our ‘child protection’ system is an international scandal, I’d like to add:

The 100th Anniversary of the Bradbury Pound coincides with the centenary of World War I. Re-visiting history will be enlightening on many levels!

The list of EDMs since 2002 is on http://www.forumforstablecurrencies.org.uk/

BACK TO the Future: from 1914 (WWI) to 2014 (Bradbury Pound)

13 10 09 Money Matters

13 10 03 ERC BradburyThis 48-page booklet (1981) and this 200-page book (1986) are as fundamental as The Money Bomb (1983) – and as true and relevant today as there and then – if you want to understand how ‘money’ has changed from being a ‘medium of exchange’ to being used as a ‘tool for control’!

The title says it all: Government Debt and Credit Creation! 

WHICH SIDE are You On: Rothschild (City) or Treasury (Westminster)?

13 07 03 Bradbury Logo

I shouldn’t be asking the question: which side are you on: Rothschild (City) or Treasury (Westminster)? For the current Treasurer trained in Rothschild banks, as I once read, but can’t find any reference any more…

A lot of us believe that it would be nice if Parliament became an ethical outfit in 2015 and knew what the real issues are:

This is therefore an important email from Justin Walker (jrgwalker@aol.com), the Coordinator for the Restore the Bradbury Pound Campaign:

Hello everyone,

Sorry, but I’ve been doing a lot of quiet thinking/research in the last couple of weeks.   Dangerous I know!  But I would be grateful if you could spread this email out far and wide to get this very important information out, especially as the world will be looking in detail at this period of history next year.

Now I have one big question-mark about the actual 1914 story of the debt-free, HM Treasury-issued Bradbury Pound which has been nagging at me ever since I was first alerted to this little known episode in our country’s history.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept and the principle of a sovereign nation issuing its own debt-free currency based on that nation’s credit.  We all know that the restoration of the Bradbury Pound is our lifeline and trump card to a more sane and prosperous future free from the criminal bankers.

No, the question which is bothering me is WHY did Lloyd George cave in so easily to the bankers by phasing out the issuance of debt-free treasury money in favour of going back to agreeing to debt-creating loans from the private bankers?  What did they have on him which made him cave in so easily to their demands?  Was he frightened?  Possibly.  Was he being blackmailed for his well known penchant and weakness for young women?  Again possibly.  Or was he a part of the game and a ‘sleeper’ for the Rothschild Zionist ambitions for a Jewish ‘homeland’ state in Palestine along with the whole ‘Illuminati‘ satanic globalist approach and agenda to international affairs?  Well, in my opinion, it’s a very real possibility.   In Lloyd George’s war memoirs concerning his actions as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he emphasises that he had an historic disagreement with Lord Rothschild.  On page 104 he writes: Continue reading