Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 23:27:43 -0400 From: Ardeshir Mehta

ardeshir@sympatico.ca

Hi Peter,

On 5/4/03 9:41 PM, you wrote:

Ardeshir,

Geoffrey Gardiner did not reply to your item on how to issue money

without borrowing it into existence.

That indicates that your book-keeping method was correct.

Congratulations.

Heh-heh!

You might also enjoy this 3-email exchange I had with Henry Lindner

hhlindner@earthlink.net:

1.

Hi Henry,

Ardeshir,

I appreciated your taking the time to skewer Gardiner.

Thank you!

I thought about it but didn't bother. How simple must someone be to

fail to understand the benefits of a government printing and spending money

into circulation instead of allowing private bankers to print it and charge

the government interest?Interest that taxpayers must work to pay?

Well, frankly it didn't seem all that simple to me - I myself did not

know about it till I read Boyle's article. (I must be such an

ignoramus!) But when I read his article it made *sense*: which is what I

was defending.

As you know, Thomas Jefferson and others warned vehemently against

allowing private bankers to usurp the benefits of seignorage.The bankers

eventually won in 1913 in a Jewish-led coup--and they have owned the USA and the,

through the IMF, the world ever since.

Yes.

Well, not all the winners are Jewish-led banks. It's the Swiss banks, in

my opinion, who control the majority of the world's money, not the

Jewish ones.

You see, the Swiss could easily put their foot down and refuse to back

the Jewish-owned banks. But they *don't* put their foot down, because

when the Jewish-owned banks make money, so do the Swiss ones.

In that sense I put the blame more on the Swiss banks than on the Jewish

ones - just as in the matter of media I put the blame more on the Goyim

who pay for the Jewish owned papers and TV channels than on the Jews who

publish and/or own them. If the Jewish-owned media were totally

boycotted by the Goyim, the former would change their tune right away,

because they are, after all, out to make money.

However it would not be easy to boycott the Jewish-owned *banks*,

because even small non-Jewish banks are beholden to the larger

Jewish-owned ones. But the Jewish-owned ones are in the final analysis

beholden to the Swiss-owned ones, and THAT'S where the power lies.

There's a great new book out:"The Lost Science of Money" by Stephen

Zarlenga.I bought a copy.He documents the true nature of money (it's

not gold/silver) and why governments should print their own.

I'll take a look in the bookstore.

But as you know, I have lost my taste for reading books. Most of them

take 300 pages to tell you stuff which you can grasp in three. Besides,

when I buy a book I am paying 90% of the price of a book for the paper,

printing, marketing etc., with only 10% - or even less - going to the

author.

My present taste is towards interactive *discussions* with people who

can think and write well themselves. I write articles, but it doesn't

seem to be doing much good. Well, there are people like you who can both

read and appreciate what I write, but most people don't. Heck, I'm

losing my respect for most people's *thinking* ability too! It's lower

than even that of my sons, aged a mere 14 and 16 years. It's getting to

be awfully depressing.

HENRY: I just don't know enough about the banks to understand who owns

and controls what.If the Swiss are truly in control, well that would

explain why the world has avoided complete destruction so far!

ARDESHIR: As I understand it - and tell me if this makes sense! - there

is initially only barter. Then some gold and silver is found in the

world, which begins to be used as a medium of exchange; and this metal

over time quite naturally accumulates in a few hands (because even if it

were initially spread out totally equally, it will, over time, get

spent, but a few people won't need to spend theirs, so they can lend it

out instead ... with interest, when they cotton on to the idea of

interest, like the Medici did in Florence.)

As a result, of course, a whole lot of IOUs - notes of paper, promising

to pay back the gold or silver as the case may be - get created. It soon

dawns on people that IOUs can themselves be used as a medium of exchange

instead of gold or silver, so they simply write more IOUs than there is

gold and silver to cover them at any one time. It doesn't matter,

because not all the IOUs are going to be cashed in at any one time!

If the IOUs are printed on fancy paper with the government's seal on

them or the King's picture, then they are called banknotes. The

government or the King - as the case may be - realise that this is one

way he/they can get very rich, and start/s doing just that.

Now come the banks. They don't use banknotes at all, they just use IOUs.

Written on ordinary paper. Just add zeroes, and you can create as much

money as you want. Only make sure you have enough banknotes in the vault

ready to pay for the IOUs being cashed in on any given day!

The government can, of course, make money by printing more banknotes,

but they are also constrained by public pressure to do something about

(a) inflation, so they can't print too many banknotes, and (b) prevent a

run on the banks: a scenario in which people lose faith in the banks and

want all their IOUs converted into gold or silver on the same day or

week. So the government back up the banks with all sorts of promises:

like they promise to print more banknotes only when there is a run on

the banks, so that the banks can cover their IOUs at any given moment -

but not on other occasions. The governments set up Central Banks to do

the needful.

As a result of these promises the government makes to the banks, when

the government needs more money, they can do it in only two ways: (1)

taxation (can you say "unpopular"?) or (2) borrowing from the banks (can

you say "stupid"?). I knew you could!

It's all these promises the government has made to the banks that

prevents Boyle's idea from being implemented. If the government breaks

the promises now, the banks will demand all their loaned money back

right away, which will topple the government: and the government can't

afford that.

Now the Swiss, because of a geographical and social peculiarity (they

live in the mountains, are very honest among themselves, and are also

very militant, ready to defend their mountain stronghold against

non-Swiss at all costs) see in their location and history a huge

advantage. They claim that their vaults are impregnable - which they

are! - and invite all and sundry to deposit their money with them,

promising not to divulge even the names of the depositors, let alone any

other details. This promise is believable, because the formidable Swiss

Army, which was a deterrent even to Hitler, can back it up. No

government in the world can force the Swiss banks to breach the promised

confidentiality. So all the dirty money in the world gravitates to

Switzerland, and lots of clean money too, because people in every

country feel that their money is safe in Switzerland - safer, in many

cases, than at home. This gives the Swiss so much money in the form of

deposits that they can afford even to back other governments, just like

the governments themselves back the banks in their own country. The Bank

of International Settlements in Basle becomes, as Chomsky calls it, "The

Central Bank of Central Bankers".

You take it from here. Connecting the dots is simple.

ARDESHIR: {earlier email} If the Jewish-owned media were totally

boycotted by the Goyim, the former would change their tune right away,

because they are, after all, out to make money.

HENRY: But the goyim have to deprogram themselves, with help of course,

just to recognize who is Jewish and who isn't, and why it matters.This

is now happening thanks to the crisis they've created.

ARDESHIR: Yes. Also due to the Internet, which allows deprogramming to

take place much more rapidly than before.

HENRY: Wow, Ardeshir's history of money in < 800 words!

Yes, today of course the IOUs are just data in computers.When someone

takes out a big loan for a home, the bank creates the money with a few

keystrokes and VOILA! the account of the homeseller is increased by

200,000.Now, however, the poor schmuck must work as a slave to the bank

for 30 years for those keystrokes, paying back both principal and

interest, from his own labor, for what the bank created from nothing in

seconds.

ARDESHIR: Yep!

HENRY: Of course, the bank does bear the "potential" liability that the

homebuilder or any number of people they have credited will demand

actual banknotes, but of course, their partners in this scam will help

them out if the scam is threatened in this way, and their ultimate

partner, the Fed Reserve banks, are the banknote printers of last

resort.

Of course, in any system, the man who wants to buy a house must give the

builder money or labor or other items of value.If he doesn't have

sufficient fungible assets he must get a loan.But in a sane,

reality-based, non-governmentally backed system, the loan would be

actual banknotes from someone's savings--with the bank simply acting as

intermediary. This is the case if the banks have a 100% reserve

requirement--which they SHOULD because anything less it just plain

fraud.

ARDESHIR: No, no, that shouldn't be necessary. In fact it would mean an

inconvenience for most people who can't afford to pay cash for their

homes or cars, because the bank would simply refuse a mortgage or a loan

to most people who asked for one!

No: what the banks do is quite okay, because each loan is just a

promise, clearly stated; and if everyone keeps their promises, the world

goes round just fine. It's not fraud if you promise something and keep

your promise.

Boyle's brilliant idea is, let's take advantage of this system! If the

banks can create money out of thin air, let the government do so as

well, and use that money, newly created by the government out of thin

air, to finance publicly beneficial works like the new London Tube and

hospitals.

Now the government is competing with the banks, because the government

can loan that money out without interest. The payback is that the nation

as a whole benefits, gets richer.

Moreover, in the case of the government-loaned money, it does not have

to be paid back in the form of money, but will mostly in the form of

labour and goods and time. The banks can't compete with the government

doing that.

So of course the banks will fight Boyle's scheme tooth and nail. But the

government, if it is truly a government of the people, by the people,

and - most importantly - for the people, will be able to fight back ...

and win!

But the people must back the government up to the hilt when it does

that. Otherwise it will be the banks that will win.

HENRY: Now if real money is loaned, the loaner must receive

interest.After all, he's surrendering is ability to use that money for

consumption or other investments, and he's taking a risk.So their's

nothing wrong or evil about interest, what's wrong is taking interest

when you're not loaning real savings to start with.

ARDESHIR: No, interest - especially compound interest - is bad for

society as a whole in any case, because only the filthy rich are able to

lend any substantial sums at all. The rest of us live from hand to

mouth! So interest creates an imbalance which results in the very rich

getting richer and richer with less and less work, while the poor, and

even the middle-class, after a certain point, get no richer and may even

get poorer.

You see, a person who has a couple of hundred million dollars, well,

there's no way he can spend all that money on consumption for himself

and his family, not even if he dines on truffles and foie gras every

day, lives in a twenty-million-dollar mansion in Beverley Hills, and has

a Bugatti Veyron plus a McLaren F1 - each going for a cool million

dollars US - in his garage. So he lends most of the hundred million out

... without deferring consumption. And if the loans are all secured

against sufficient assets, there is no risk involved either: not,

anyway, for the lender. Then the risk is entirely borne by the

borrowers, who may lose his job, get sick or have some other sort of

downturn, and not be able to pay back the loan.

The rich then get, not just a free lunch, but a free breakfast and

dinner as well - and, with compound interest, later on free

afternoon-tea too, with crumpets; while the rest of us have to do with

bread and water, figuratively speaking, earned by the sweat of our

brows, sometimes never even knowing where our next meal is going to come

from.

That's why interest - especially compound interest - is bad for society

as a whole. That's why the Prophet Muhammad forbade it, and that's also

why the Talmud forbids Jews charging other Jews any interest. They

realised that interest within a society is not in the society's

interest.

And now that "society" is the whole entire world, it's not in the

world's interest either.

HENRY: The bankers realized early on that they could literally make out

like bandits, but they needed governments who would go along with the

scam.So they lobbied kings and princes, they made huge loans to them in

order to gain leverage over them.They used every propaganda tool in the

book to hide the simple nature of the scam and convince people and

governments that only banks could create money "responsibly".

ARDESHIR: Yes, but that was the fault of the governments, and the people

too. You can't dupe a clever guy! At least not more'n once. But neither

governments nor the people wanted to be clever. They still don't!

HENRY: So the bankers had to fight two ideas:

1.The idea governments should simply print their own currency and spend

it into circulation.

ARDESHIR: Yep!

HENRY: 2.The idea that banks should have 100% reserves--that they

actually have all the money that they say they have.

ARDESHIR: No. They don't even say they have it. All they say is that the

promise to pay the guy bearing their promissory note the sum it says on

the note. And they do!

Look: money is simply a promise. The promise is clearly stated. Money

does not, nor should it, depend on "reserves". As long as the stated

promises are kept, everything is hunky-dory.

I already gave the example of the two similar households of a dozen

people each. Suppose in one of the households the members use Monopoly

money - not real money - to pay others to do things around the house,

like gardening, cleaning, cooking, mending clothes, etc. This is fake

money, remember? There are no reserves to back it up at all. The members

can't spend it outside the house. This household, all the same, is still

going to be better off after a year has passed than that other one, the

one where the members sit around watching TV all day!

You see, the more agreements people enter into, and keep the agreements,

the more society benefits. It permits division of labour. One guy does

what he does best and the others do what they do best. If I had to

repair my own car or build my own house, I'd do a lousy job. I could if

I had to, of course, but it would take me ten times as long as it takes

a guy who is used to it. So I pay others to do things I am not expert at

doing. That makes sense.

HENRY: Banking propaganda was probably the first true propaganda--false

ideas that the propagandists didn't believe themselves.This was good

training for the Age of Propaganda that would ensue after the tearing

down of traditional Church-King regimes.

ARDESHIR: Good point. The term "Age of Propaganda" is right on, anyway.

But the cure is not to abolish the banking system and the money system

generally, because money makes the world go round. It is the imbalances

in the money system that ought to be corrected. And once one has

"scrubbed one's mind clean", as the Sikhs say, then one can see clearly

how to do it. Boyle's idea is one step in the right direction ... I

think.

HENRY: It's all these promises the government has made to the banks that

prevents Boyle's idea from being implemented. If the government breaks

the promises now, the banks will demand all their loaned money back

right away, which will topple the government: and the government can't

afford that.

All governments of the world would need to cooperate.

ARDESHIR: Well, yes and no. Yes, if total control is to be wrested away

from the banks. But each country can do its bit. And each group of

countries can do their bit too.

The Swiss, for instance, have their own currency and their own Central

Bank. They also have the Bank for International Settlements in Basle,

but that's a separate bank. That's not the Swiss Central Bank. The

Swedes also have their own Central Bank. To the extent the Swiss and

Swedes control their own Central Banks, they have a measure of control

over their own monetary affairs, quite irrespective of what the USA

does.

But not totally. To re-establish total control, the countries of the

world would all have to unite in fighting the private banks.

HENRY: They would have to disestablish their private central banks.

ARDESHIR: "Nationalise" is more like it. The Central Bank of any country

should be an arm of the government; it should not be in private hands.

You see, there are two types of big organisations: private and public.

The private ones, we never have any control over, except through the

public ones! Now the biggest public organisation of them all is our

government.

If we want to control the big private organisations we need the big

public organisations. So governments we shall need, if for nothing else,

then to control the big private organisations. And big organisations we

will need also, because big projects can't be tackled by small groups of

people.

The answer, therefore, is not to get rid of the government, but make it

do what we need it to do. That can only happen, however, when people

take an interest in the government in an active way.

That doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon, however; and

that's what's so depressing.

HENRY: They would owe them little or nothing since they've paid those

banks billions of dollars in interest already--for money the banks

created from nothing.

ARDESHIR: Yes, but repudiating the debts is not necessary. That would

create mistrust. (Remember that the system works only because the stated

promises are kept. In other words, trust is an important part of what

keeps the system working.)

But the solution is simple. The governments can simply print the money

needed to pay off the private banks. That would cancel the debts.

That may create a bit of inflation, true enough; but that sort of

inflation would work, not just against the public, but against the banks

too, and in favour of those who borrowed from them - for with a small

amount of inflation - and I emphasise the word "small" - the borrowers

can pay the banks back with money that takes less effort to earn per

dollar (or euro or pound or whatever).

Yes, the transition would not be altogether painless, admittedly; but it

would be a lot less painful than keeping on the same old path to

oblivion.

Or maybe someone else can think up an even less painful solution. We

need creative thinkers in this field, just like we need in politics.

(Vide Deb Reich and the Parallel Sovereignty solution.)

HENRY:The problem, of course, is that the bankers and super-rich control

the governments and therefore control the police and the armies.So no

change is possible until a large number of middle-class people,

including generals and police chiefs, become convinced that the system

is all wrong and must be overthrown.Government control of education is

the banker's best means to avert this disaster.The Internet is their

worst enemy.

ARDESHIR:It's a vicious cycle. What is needed is to free the mind of the

idea that one ought to believe something simply because one is taught it

or told it. Indeed what's needed is to free the mind of the idea that

one has necessarily to believe, period. Belief is, in knowing ultimate

truths, quite unnecessary. It is the bane of our times. We believe that

the world is round and that germs cause disease, just as in the past

people believed that the world was flat and evil spirits caused disease.

Some of us believe that God does not exist, some believe He does. Some

of us believe that Jews are good guys and some of us believe they are

evil. Even if something is true we ought not to simply believe it. Know

it, yes, but not believe it.

The Internet will help a lot. We ought to take full advantage of it. We

ought to spread the word. Tear down old myths. Expose the lies for what

they are.

HENRY:Do Jews own and run the Swiss Banks?I wonder.

ARDESHIR: Even if they do it must be a recent phenomenon. The Swiss have

been banking for generations.

HENRY: Jews have in general accumulated tremendous wealth through all

the special privileges hidden in "capitalism".They've made huge profits

from banking, from corporate graft of all kinds, from lawyering, and

from doctoring.

ARDESHIR: Yes, of course. But the total amount of money in Jewish hands

is still only a fraction of the total amount in Goyish hands. It's just

that they all use it in concert, to do what's "good for the Jews". They

look out for their own interests, and I really can't blame them for

doing that. It's the Goyim I blame for not looking out for their own

interests!

HENRY: I have to laugh when our media whores show off Saddam's palaces.

That's small-time corruption!! Bring the cameras over here and look at

the wealth of our hundreds of thousands of bankers, "politicians", and

CEOs!!!!

ARDESHIR: Quite. Good point.

ARDESHIR: {earlier email} But for me personally, an essay is a method of

clearing my own mind, not putting forth a thesis or demolishing someone

else's. For putting forth a thesis, even an article of 2 or 3 pages is

sufficient. To demolish someone else's one needs more, because the

thesis being demolished ought, by rights, to be quoted in full, and all

its false points demolished one by one. I had to do that in demolishing

Goedel's Theorem.

HENRY: Quite true.When I started writing it was to organize my

thoughts.I realized that it was an intellectual tool. You don't really

know what you think until you write it down as a logical, coherent

argument. Then you are forced to fill in the blanks and justify every

hypothesis. Of course, this kind of writing is not what kids do in

schools. They just cobble together reports and papers--and that's all

that most academics ever do until they day they retire.

ARDESHIR: Right. But most people, as I said earlier, are not focussed on

clearing their minds of cant. They just don't care. ...

{end}

Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 21:54:29 -0400 From: Ardeshir Mehta

<ardeshir@sympatico.ca>

Peter,

On 5/5/03 6:58 PM, you wrote:

Ardeshir,

How do you know that many of the Swiss banks aren't owned by Jews?

I don't know any such thing. However, as I wrote to Henry, even if they

are, it must be a recent phenomenon. The Swiss have been banking for

generations. And I've never heard of a large Jewish population in

Switzerland.

I mean, one hears of American Jewish organisations like AIPAC and the

ADL, but one doesn't hear of such organisations in Switzerland!

Why are they in Switzerland?

As I wrote, Switzerland possesses a peculiar set of geographical and

historical circumstances which enable them to have the kinds of banks

they have - with full or almost full secrecy, totally safe vaults,

difficult to rob, etc., etc. Not every country possesses the physical

and social structures that make such banks possible.

{end}

Ardeshir,

The First Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland; I think that

subsequent ones were held there too.

Joseph Nedava says that Trotsky & other Jewish revolutionaries used to

live in Switzerland, while in exile.

He says that Trotsky used to play chess with Baron Bothschild when

there: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/nedava.html

Let's say Swiss banks are as non-Jewish & as powerful as you think. Why,

then, have Jewish lobbies been able to extort billions of dollars out of

them in recent years?

Doesn't this show who's calling the shots?

Peter

Swiss Banks and Jews Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 13:11:22 -0400 From:

Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@sympatico.ca>

Hi Peter,

On 5/9/03 3:15 AM, you wrote:

Ardeshir,

The First Zionist Congress was held in Switzerland; I think that

subsequent ones were held there too.

Joseph Nedava says that Trotsky & other Jewish revolutionaries used to

live in Switzerland, while in exile.

He says that Trotsky used to play chess with Baron Bothschild when

there: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/nedava.html

All true; but none of the Jews who met and lived in Switzerland were

Swiss *citizens*. The Swiss make a clear distinction between citizens

and non-citizen residents of Switzerland. The latter are not allowed

anywhere near the same rights the Swiss citizens have. I don't believe

any non-Swiss citizens are allowed to be anywhere high up on the boards

of any of the Swiss banks, for instance. They can *live* there but are

not allowed to make *decisions* there.

But lots of people are allowed to *live* in Switzerland *without* being

citizens of Switzerland. Einstein lived there for a while, for instance.

So did Charlie Chaplin, the writer Vladimir Nabokov, and (nowadays) the

Canadian pop singer Shania Twain. But they are not Swiss *citizens*.

They can't really make any *decisions* there.

Let's say Swiss banks are as non-Jewish & as powerful as you think.

Why, then, have Jewish lobbies been able to extort billions of dollars out

of them in recent years?

Doesn't this show who's calling the shots?

Well, my take on that is that the amount of money that's been extorted

from the Swiss is chicken feed to the Swiss, and so they really aren't

TOO upset at it. And of course it saves them from being stigmatised as

"anti-Semitic", which they, like the other Europeans, like to avoid as

much as possible. (That is a world-wide phenomenon now, as you know.)

But the very fact that the Jews have had to *extort* the money from the

Swiss banks makes it clear, does it not, that the Swiss banks are NOT in

the hands of the Jews! If the Jews *controlled* the Swiss banks, they

wouldn't *need* to extort the money, now would they. They'd just *take*

it!

Cheers,

Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html>.

David Boyle on Tax Havens and Interest-Free Money:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200304070021.htm

David Boyle on Rediscovering spiritual values in modern economics:

http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/issues/boyle206.htm

David Boyle on The scandal of the tax havens:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0FQP/4411_127/53290579/p1/article.jhtml?term=%22david+boyle%22

David Boyle on Economic Abstractions:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0FQP/4571_131/82373277/p1/article.jhtml?term=%22david+boyle%22

David Boyle's The Tyranny of Numbers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4243211,00.html

Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers ph +61 2 62475187

to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute