Tag: Professor Richard Werner

A Rogue Rant

In this Rogue Rant, I take aim at the controlled opposition which is headed-up by Rupert the Bare Lowe, Nigel Farage and Ben Habib, ‘former’ investment bankers all. My conclusion is that far from going rogue, they are merely continuing to enact the bidding of their financial overlords who populate the Rothschild-licenced credit agencies which masquerade as ‘banks’.

Isn’t it curious how the 3 former investment bankers and current leaders of the British opposition groups never go anywhere near the subject of money as credit, its creation and control?

After all, is it not the case that it is the One Ring to Control it All?

If you enjoyed this Rogue Rant, then let me assure you that there is more to follow. Also, watch out for my new regular Rogue Cast feature, Great British Bell Ends (GBBE)

________________________________________-

Thank you for reading and listening to this Rogue Rant. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the  Buy Me a Coffee button and/or have taken out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.

0

The Promissory Note

A friend recently tendered, in good faith, a promissory note to the CEO of Nationwide Building Society to settle and close his mortgage account.

This article examines what happened when the tender of this lawful form of currency was made and how Nationwide  is seeking to rely on a dishonest statement in order to extort moneys it falsely claims are owed.

It should be read in conjunction with this previous article in which I cite the investigation, material evidence and conclusions of Professor Richard Werner concerning how the Licensed Credit Brokers, of which Nationwide is but one.

First and foremost, it is of crucial importance that we distinguish between what is a bank and those who are merely masquerading as such.

Each and every ‘bank’ in the UK is actually a Credit broker, licensed under the aegis of the Bank of England (BOE) of which William Paterson, founder of  the BOE in 1694, then a privately owned bank, stated,

“The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.”

Any and all so-called ‘banks’ are in fact merely credit brokers, licenced by the BOE, which are in the business of buying and selling securities like Deeds of Mortgage. As Professor Richard Werner states,

“I will tell you key points about banks. In case you thought banks lend money, they take deposits and lend money. You are wrong . Banking was developed, modern banking was developed, in the United Kingdom in the 17th century and the legal facts are very clear but not very well known. Banks do not take deposits and banks do not lend money. That’s a fact.”

Whilst the system of credit creation is duplicitously used to enslave the people by way of its misrepresentation of any and all loans (including mortgages), it is also a fact that we, as blessed creative living souls are the creditors of the credit system. It is, quite literally, a fact that it cannot exist without us.

Credit is created from the individual’s own creative abilities which are transformed into a system whereby this capacity is utilised to create money as debt also know as hypothecation:

“from medieval Latin hypothecat- ‘given as a pledge,’ from the verb hypothecare, based on Greek hupothēkē .”

In essence, it is the  promise to pay (pledge) which creates the credit. In this sense, it is not true to state the credit is created out of thin air. Interestingly a mortgage translates as a ‘dead’ pledge (promise).

“late Middle English: from Old French, literally ‘dead pledge,’ from mort (from Latin mortuus ‘dead’) + gage ‘pledge.’ ”

A promise satisfied by death? A promise without life? Why might that be the case? Death of what or who? Does it mean it is a promise which will only be satisfied when the individual dies? How could that be the case? Why would its extinguishment be dependent upon his death?

If the credit is created by the individual’s capacity to create then has a loan actually taken place?

It is a fact that the licenced credit broker ( the fake ‘bank’) does not lend its own funds – the book keeping entries prove that. The mechanics of credit creation under a fiat currency system are based entirely on the hypothecation of the individual’s promise to pay. That, of course, is how and why Bank of England notes are backed only by this hypothecation or what is an illusory promise, as per the definition above. A ten pound note can no longer be cashed in for ten pounds of sterling silver.

Note: the hypothecation is essentially a chimera as, in credit-based financial system, it is simply the individual’s promise to pay that creates the line of credit which is used to purchase the property outright.

More on this can be read in the comment below the essay, posted today (27/08/25) by Pat Cusack

There was a time when I was of the view that I had actually received moneys from the bank’s own coffers and, that being the case, I had to pay it back as it was not mine. I genuinely believed that a loan had been made and that it was one which I had solemnly promised to pay back. This I dutifully did, to the best of my ability, compound interest and all, to a total amount that equated with double that which I falsely believed I had borrowed – £67, 747 on an initial loan of £34, 000.

It was, however, an illusion. In fact, the whole thing was one big lie put to paper by way of the Deed of Mortgage which operates as a charge over the house in favour of the ‘bank’. Money has only the value we attach to it. Just like playing a game of monopoly. Pieces of paper are accrued or lost by way of the roll of the dice. It is a game of chance and decision in which the Bank of England has all the power.

So, if a ‘mort-gage’ is a promise/pledge to the death, what would its opposite be? A promise of life?

God gives us life. Satan, death. A mortgage is a work of satan. From this it follows that a mortgage is anti-life, which is likely related to the French origin of the term.

“Satan Old English, via late Latin and Greek from Hebrew śāṭān, literally ‘adversary,’ from śāṭan ‘plot against.’ ’’

Given the extent to which Western Civilisation is built upon the key tenets of the holy science currently known as Christianity, why then would the church of God not warn its flock about the inherent workings of such a device that is designed to enslave, ensnare and is of such an invidious nature as to be abhorrent to spiritual practice? So much so that Jesus, the inspirational being at the heart of its teachings, turned over the table of the money changers (bankers) when he discovered them to be operating in the temple?

No man of God should be going anywhere near a mortgage for it is a devilish device designed to entrap his soul, at least on the basis of its etymological origins, to a promise of death and yet the Church of England is hugely invested in the very financial apparatus that the Bible condemns.

Regardless of one’s take on the nature of this realm, we are here, in our avatars, to live – it is a journey of the soul.

A mortgage, founded upon the false pretext that a loan has taken place is the opposite to that. Thus, it is anti-life. Inevitably, mortgages that spring from a fiat currency are effectively unconscionable devices used for the purposes of indentured servitude that tie the people down by way of stealing energy via the fake ‘charge’.

I realise this may seem simplistic to many who will claim that I am reading too much into it and that it means no such thing because of its every day usage but that would be an appeal to common practice and, as such, fallacious. For the facts of the matter are plain:

1. No loan takes place, the credit is created by the pledge, the promise to pay.

2. The promissory note created on the back of the void mortgage deed is, in effect, a cash asset (deposit) given to the bank by the purported ‘mortgagor’.

3. Usury is the immoral practice of charging interest on purported loans. When no actual loan has taken place, it is self-evidently iniquitous, to put it mildly.

4. There is no valid power of attorney.

5. The failure to disclose how the real nature of the transaction by which credit is created renders the agreement void.

6. There is no lawful contract signed by both parties and as required at law, under s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1989.

7. The mortgage deed is a lie put to paper, signed by the individual under the instruction of his conveyancing solicitor before he is the beneficial owner of the home, with the necessary proprietary interest.

The deception runs through every aspect of our lives and it has been existent for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is nothing new under the sun,

“Now governmental borrowing was a fact of life. William and his government had surrendered the English nation’s sovereign prerogative to create and control its own money, and had passed on to the English nation a 1.2 million pound debt plus interest which had to be paid out of taxation. If the government created its own money, interest-free and debt-free, there would be no national debt and very little need for taxation as the government would not be short of the money for health, education and the armed forces. The English nation HAS NEVER RECOVERED, and is still paying interest on money borrowed to fight the Napoleonic Wars.

“In 1694 William – without consulting Parliament – borrowed 1,200,000 pounds in gold from the Jewish money-changers at 8 percent interest, which was to be repaid a year later. The Jews agreed to lend him the money on the condition that he gave them permission to establish a Bank of England and print for themselves in banknotes a sum equal to the King’s indebtedness. He thus agreed to pay them 108 percent in bank notes, plus the 8 percent interest” – Nicholas Hagger (Secret History of the West)

Richard Werner is 100% correct in his assertions, and to whom the following is entirely credited, but he is certainly not the first to express the facts, as he readily acknowledges herein. The reader is invited to read and re-read this carefully for it is the unassailable truth:

“In modern times private bankers discontinued issuing notes, and merely created Credits in their customers’ favour to be drawn against by Cheques. These Credits are in banking language termed Deposits. Now many persons seeing a material Bank Note, which is only a Right recorded on paper, are willing to admit that a Bank Note is cash.

But, from the want of a little reflection, they feel a difficulty with regard to what they see as Deposits. They admit that a Bank Note is an “Issue”, and “Currency,” but they fail to see that a Bank Credit is exactly in the same sense equally an “Issue,” “Currency,” and “Circulation”.”

[Macleod (1905, vol. 2, p. 310)]

“… Sir Robert Peel was quite mistaken in supposing that bankers only make advances out of bona fide capital. This is so fully set forth in the chapter on the Theory of Banking, that we need only to remind our readers that all banking advances are made, in the first instance, by creating credit” (p. 370, emphasis in original).

In his Theory of Credit Macleod (1891) put it this way:

“A bank is therefore not an office for “borrowing” and “lending” money, but it is a Manufactory of Credit.”
[Macleod (1891: II/2, 594)]

According to the credit creation theory then, banks create credit in the form of what bankers call ‘deposits’, and this credit is money. But how much credit can they create? Wicksell (1907) described a credit- based economy in the Economic Journal, arguing that

“The banks in their lending business are not only not limited by their own capital; they are not, at least not immediately, limited by any capital whatever; by concentrating in their hands almost all payments, they themselves create the money required….”

“In a pure system of credit, where all payments were made by transference in the bank-books, the banks would be able to grant at any moment any amount of loans at any, however diminutive, rate of interest.”
[Wicksell (1907, 214)]

Withers (1909), from 1916 to 1921 the editor of the Economist, also
saw few restraints on the amount of money banks could create out of nothing:

“… it is a common popular mistake, when one is told that the banks of the United Kingdom hold over 900 millions of deposits, to open one’s eyes in astonishment at the thought of this huge amount of cash that has been saved by the community as a whole, and stored by them in the hands of their bankers, and to regard it as a tremendous evidence of wealth. But this is not quite the true view of the case. Most of the money that is stored by the community in the banks consists of book-keeping credits lent to it by its bankers.”
[Withers (1909, pp. 57 ff.)]

“… The greater part of the banks’ deposits is thus seen to consist, not of cash paid in, but of credits borrowed. For every loan makes a deposit ….”
[Withers (1909, p. 63)]

“When notes were the currency of commerce a bank which made an advance or discounted a bill gave its customer its own notes as the proceeds of the operation, and created a liability for itself. Now, a bank makes an advance or discounts a bill, and makes a liability for itself in the corresponding credit in its books.”
[Withers (1909, p. 66)]

We ‘know from Keynes’ contribution to the Macmillan Committee (1931) that Keynes meant with this that each individual bank was able to create credit:

“It is not unnatural to think of the deposits of a bank as being created by the public through the deposit of cash representing either savings or amounts which are not for the time being required to meet expenditure. But the bulk of the deposits arise out of the action of the banks themselves, for by granting loans, allowing money to be drawn on an overdraft or purchasing securities a bank creates a credit in its books, which is the equivalent of a deposit” (p. 34).

All of which points to the veracity and sheer matter-of-factness of Lord Denning’s famous assertion that,

“We have repeatedly said in this court that a bill of exchange or a promissory note is to be treated like cash. It is to be honoured unless there is some good reason to the contrary,”

The foregoing brings us nicely back to the current situation in 2024 – namely that the delivery of a Promissory Note to the CEO of Nationwide, made by my friend, stands as a genuine settlement of the purported balance on his ‘mortgage’. The note is similar to this, which, by way of an example, contains the monetary value of the one I sent to Richard Pym, the then CEO of the Bradford and Bingley licenced broker that falsely claimed I owed them the stated total value (including their phoney legal costs as of April, 2010)


It is completely without doubt and factually correct to state that the licenced credit broker (Nationwide) has the ability to deposit the note in a special account and stream a line of credit that, as a matter of accountancy fact, will zero the balance. That, after all, is the very business it is engaged in.

I did the same some 14 years ago and the response was, more or less,  the same as this which is dated 27th August, 2024.

It is hard to imagine a more blatantly dishonest statement. In fact, the Nationwide is attempting to rely on this lie in order to steal his home. That is as clear an example of fraud as can be envisaged.

Whilst I am well-aware that the individual who sent the letter simply does not know how the very institution he is working for operates in the business of credit creation, it matters not one jot – he is lying.

In each and every case that I know of, including my own, the ‘bank’ never returns the note. Why might that be the case?

It is also to be noted that this is a legal tender of currency, an honourable payment made using the same specie of currency from which the original credit to buy the house was created.

The licenced broker creates the credit from depositing promissory notes and securities but it will refuse a genuine attempt to clear the balance by way of the same?

Ask yourself this – is it possible to imagine a more blatant example of financial enslavement? Of tyrannical despotism? Of Satanic fraud?

After all, given we are the creditors of the financial system, how could we possibly be indebted?

Nevertheless and regardless of the dishonesty of Nationwide, anyone can issue a Promissory Note to settle and close a mortgage account. Am I suggesting you try it? Why not?

If we had a truthful financial system, then what would happen once the shackles of fake debt are removed?

The answer to the last question, for those who have read this far and are paying attention can be reduced to 3 letters – UCT.

And on that ‘note’, I will end for now, with the ‘promise’ of more to follow on this most salient issue.

________________________________________

Thank you for reading and listening to this Rogue Rant. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the  Buy Me a Coffee button and/or have taken out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.

 

4

The Financial Sleuth

Sleuth Investigation Conclusively Demonstrates That the Financial System is Credit-based and that Any and All Loans are Illusory.

This essay was originally written in 2018 and has been revised in acknowledgement of the great exemplary work of Richard Werner – X link, one of the few, if not the only financial academic who examines the subject of Money/Credit and its creation in any detail.

At the heart of #TGBMS lies the fact that the banks do not make loans of money from their own deposits and that they merely extend credit on the back of fraudulent mortgage deeds.

For a number of years now, the fraudulent nature and illimitable potential for abuse of power associated with modern day banking practices has become increasingly clear to those few who are willing to dig into the actual monetary mechanics of banking i.e how ‘loans’ are created by the purported ‘lenders’ as debt.

On 26th August, 2009, I stepped into Nottingham County Court to defend a fraudulent possession claim made by agents for the Bradford and Bingley Building Society and boldly declared that it was my “duty” to get to the heart of this issue.  In that moment I  also became a financial sleuth, not out of choice but obligation. 16 years on and my mission continues and so does Richard Werner’s:

The ‘modern’ mechanics of money are more simple than many would have us believe. It boils down to this:

the ‘promise to pay’ is what creates the credit.

When a loan agreement or a mortgage deed is signed, that creates a financial instrument. The fact that the individual’s promise to pay – whether it be by way of a loan agreement or the ‘dead’ pledge that is a mortgage – is a financial instrument that is founded on the hypothecation of his future earnings. In other words, he is deceived into signing a valuable financial instrument which is procured by his negligent conveyancing solicitor and which, in the words of Lord Denning, is “as good as cash.”

Anyone who is actively investigating these matters is operating as a financial sleuth:

“sleuth |slo͞oTH| informal

noun

a detective.

verb [ no obj. ] (often as noun sleuthing)

carry out a search or investigation in the manner of a detective: scientists began their genetic sleuthing for honey mushrooms four years ago.

• [ with obj. ] dated investigate (someone or something).

ORIGIN

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘track,’ in sleuth-hound): from Old Norse slóth; compare with slot2. Current senses date from the late 19th cent.”

The attached PDF – “Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — was written by The theories and the empirical evidence” by Richard A. Werner, Centre for Banking, Finance and Mr Werner when he was working in the  Sustainable Development at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Richard’s detailed investigation into the mechanics of how an actual ‘loan’ is created stands as a monolith to the fraud of the fake licenced credit providers.

It is an admirable piece of sleuthing.  After enquiring at a number of High Street banks, the only bank that agreed to allow an in-depth examination of the actual monetary mechanics behind the ‘creation’ of a €200, 000 loan is a small German one:

“Raiffeisenbank Wildenberg e.G., located in a small town in the district of Lower Bavaria […]. The bank is a co- operative bank within the Raiffeisen and cooperative banking association of banks, with eight full-time staff. “

The entire process was documented and filmed in August, 2013.

The ledger entries are noted, as are the appearances of liabilities and assets on the books of the bank and its officers’ interactions with each other and/or other banks are recorded. As the author states, what is unravelled here is five thousand years of banking practice.

It is interesting to note that the staff, though open to the process, are seemingly blind to the actual mechanics themselves – i.e none of them seem particularly clear as to how it actually happens.  This, of course, makes sense for the controllers – why would the House of Rothschild want anyone below a certain level of its modus operandi to be knowledgeable about how the process works? After all once sufficient numbers understood the workings of the banking fraud, the truth would spill out to sufficient numbers of people and the game would be over:

Previously, the only time a court case has gone in favour of one who claimed he was loaned nothing, was the Credit River Case in America which resulted in a jury finding in favour of the mortgagor and the judge, Martin Mahoney being poisoned on a fishing trip.  Fishy, being the operative word:

“the 1969 trial of Jerome Daly vs the First National Bank of Montgomery. A Minnesota Trial Court’s decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff’s sale, to be VOID. To be short and sweet, banks can’t legally foreclose on your house because the money put up by the banks never actually exists and makes the contract void.”

The case can be viewed here:

 

and read about more extensively here:

“Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn’t given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank’s president, took the stand. To everyone’s surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money “out of thin air” for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. “It sounds like fraud to me,” intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors.”

In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

“Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,  did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.”

The court rejected the bank’s claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:

“This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.” SOURCE

The premise for Werner’s recent investigation is sound: he begins by stating his aim as to find out which of the 3 commonly held ‘theories’ about credit creation is true:

  1. Are loans created from deposits which are loaned out?
  2. Are loans created by way of fractional reserve banking practices, through ‘systemic interaction?
  3. Are loans created out of thin air?

“According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out. According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction. A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking).”

It is a fine piece of financial sleuthing and one which demands to be read by any one with a fully functioning capacity to consider such matters – which, in reality, should be everyone on the simple basis that it is the gargantuan issue that affects us all.

In a previous article, I explained how woefully inadequate my Economics A-Level had been in so far as it went nowhere near this issue of how money is created. John Meynard Keynes was the ‘guru’ whose work formed the basis for much of what was ‘taught’. Werner is less than impressed with the work of said economist, a man who shifted his position and who was responsible for much of the confusion and fudging that dominated twentieth century thinking on these matters:

“Keynes used his considerable clout to slow scientific analysis of the question whether banks could create money, as he instead engaged in ad hominem attacks on followers of the credit creation theory. Despite his enthusiastic early support for the credit creation theory (Keynes, 1924), only six years later he was condescending, if not dismissive, of this theory, referring to credit creation only in inverted commas. He was perhaps even more dismissive of supporters of the credit creation theory, who he referred to as being part of the “Army of Heretics and Cranks, whose numbers and enthusiasm are extraordinary”, and who seem to believe in “magic” and some kind of “Utopia” (Keynes, 1930, vol. 2, p. 215).”

It is self-evident that when men rely on fake authority figures such as Keynes, and fail to sleuth the facts out for themselves, confusion and ignorance reign. In such a state, predators like the House of Rothschild and all those who know the ‘secrets’ of monetary mechanics are able to take control and completely dominate the world by way of their hidden knowledge. They are not gods but to the average man, who has no such knowledge, they appear to be so.

In order to keep the secret, those Fake Gods Who Wear White Collars need to employ others who will not spill the beans. Thus, Freemasonic lodges and other hidden groups of influence are created to maintain and, when necessary, exert violence, in order to keep the secrets.

A few years ago, a man opined that by exposing The Great British Mortgage Swindle, I was ‘stealing the dreams of the ordinary man.” My reply was that, on the contrary, I am exposing the nefarious greed of those who act as gods and prevent the ordinary man from reaching his full potential.

That is the truth of the matter. It is also what makes ‘Money’ the world’s biggest religion – nobody appears to really know where and how it comes about yet billions believe in its magical nature without question:

ONE EYE TO CONTROL THEM ALL
ONE EYE TO CONTROL THEM ALL

Yet, over one hundred years ago, this very religion and its practices were being scrutinised:

“In modern times private bankers discontinued issuing notes, and merely created Credits in their customers’ favour to be drawn against by Cheques. These Credits are in banking language termed Deposits. Now many persons seeing a material Bank Note, which is only a Right recorded on paper, are willing to admit that a Bank Note is cash. But, from the want of a little reflection, they feel a difficulty with regard to what they see as Deposits. They admit that a Bank Note is an “Issue”, and “Currency,” but they fail to see that a Bank Credit is exactly in the same sense equally an “Issue,” “Currency,” and “Circulation”.”

[Macleod (1905, vol. 2, p. 310)]

“… Sir Robert Peel was quite mistaken in supposing that bankers only make advances out of bona fide capital. This is so fully set forth in the chapter on the Theory of Banking, that we need only to remind our readers that all banking advances are made, in the first instance, by creating credit” (p. 370, emphasis in original).

In his Theory of Credit Macleod (1891) put it this way:

“A bank is therefore not an office for “borrowing” and “lending” money, but it is a Manufactory of Credit.”

[Macleod (1891: II/2, 594)]

To return to the sleuthing Professor, the evidence uncovered by Werner confirms what I and others have been asserting: the customer’s signature on the agreement (the pledge) creates the financial instrument which, in turn, creates the ‘magical’ deposit:

“Starting by analysing the liability side information (Table 7), we find that customer deposits are considered part of the financial institution’s balance sheet. This contradicts the financial intermediation theory, which assumes that banks are not special and are virtually indistinguishable from non-bank financial institutions that have to keep customer deposits off balance sheet. In actual fact, a bank considers a customers’ deposits starkly differently from non-bank financial institutions, who record customer deposits off their balance sheet. Instead we find that the bank treats customer deposits as a loan to the bank, recorded under rubric ‘claims by customers’, who in turn receive as record of their loans to the bank (called ‘deposits’) what is known as their ‘account statement’. This can only be reconciled with the credit creation or fractional reserve theories of banking.” [P15]

The conclusions of the report are clear: the promise to pay creates the credit which is misnamed money and that created by way of digits tapped into a computerised account:

“It was examined whether in the process of making money available to the borrower the bank transfers these funds from other accounts (within or outside the bank). In the process of making loaned money available in the borrower’s bank account, it was found that the bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of both the fractional reserve theory and the financial intermediation theory. Instead, it was found that the bank newly ‘invented’ the funds by crediting the borrower’s account with a deposit, although no such deposit had taken place. This is in line with the claims of the credit creation theory.

Thus it can now be said with confidence for the first time – possibly in the 5000 years’ history of banking – that it has been empirically demonstrated that each individual bank creates credit and money out of nothing, when it extends what is called a ‘bank loan’. The bank does not loan any existing money, but instead creates new money. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks out of thin air. The implications are far-reaching.”

The implications are gargantuan indeed.

It is my view that Werner’s conclusion that banks ‘create money out of thin air’  thoroughly exposes the swindle.

In support of his paper, I would add the following points:

The assertion that the credit/money is created out of thin air as a kind of magic trick overlooks the fact that the individual’s promise to pay – whether it be by way of a loan agreement or the ‘dead’ pledge that is a mortgage – forms the basis of a financial instrument that is founded on the hypothecation of his future earnings. Or, his ability to ‘repay’ the credit, which is an oxymoron, of course.

His conclusion could be clearer if he stated that no ‘loan’ takes place. It is simply an extension of credit made from the deposit of the cash asset – the security that is backed by the promise to pay: an extension of credit that is fraudulently represented as a loan.

Ultimately, it is an elaborate game of ‘magical’ book-keeping with the banks currently hiding the other side of the ledger that demonstrates a deposit has been made.

Nevertheless, it is a splendid piece of research from which we can begin airing the facts of monetary mechanics and, as such, an individual could certainly enter it into court as compelling evidence in a claim/defence against a bank that no moneys are owed.

The ramifications of these findings are huge. Little wonder, Ross Cranston, acting as the presiding judge, stated to me, in an initial aside at the start of the hearing in February 2015 that if he allowed my claim for negligence vs the conveyancing solicitor to be awarded in my favour  it would result in the entire edifice collapsing.  Sir Cranston, I would wager, does have some understanding of how credit is created, having also written papers on international banking law. Indeed, the banks and the judiciary have been warned, time after time:

As Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.”

And, Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:

“When a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”

Richard Pym: ex CEO of bailed-out B&B of UKAR.
Richard Pym: ex CEO of bailed-out B&B of UKAR.

It was this awareness that led me to challenge his bank to prove it had loaned me any of its own moneys. Of course, its CEO, Richard Pym (left), refused to do so on the simple basis he could not provide any evidence of such.

Slavery is where we are at – paying a fake mortgage debt under threat of eviction is extortion and is nothing short of indentured servitude. The genocidal lengths the banks go to collect on these imaginary loans is perfectly illustrated in the Great British Mortgage Swindle which confronts the issue full on, in heart-wrenching and graphic detail.

SUCKING AT THE ROTHSCHILD TEAT
SUCKING AT THE ROTHSCHILD TEAT

Professor Werner’s report stands as a remarkable and  admirable piece of sleuthing: another nail in the coffin of the fake money masters, the House of Rothschild and their sycophantic henchmen who operate at various levels within the rigged game. The rigged game of banking and its acolytes who inhabit the legal professions and the judiciary, that is.

From time to time over the last 16 years, I have questioned my own sanity in regard to this very issue – it is so monstrous in its scope and effect that it couldn’t possibly be true, could it?

Well, it most certainly is.

Thus, the converse is true: for an individual to believe he was in receipt of a loan is insane. Welcome to the nut house.

____________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your attention. Ironically enough, I am still without a UK bank account and I am currently homeless, which means any and all donations are most helpful and truly appreciated at this time, so please feel free to chuck a few quid into the Rogue Male coffers.

Therefore, if you’re able, please consider taking out a paid subscription on Substack or donate via the Rogue Male Coffee Pot.

Until the next time, all the very best to you and yours and, remember, Fortune truly Favours the Brave.

_____________________________________________________________

 

Acknowledgements: Richard Werner for his continued excellence and for a brilliant piece of work;  Timothy Madden, another analyst whose work shines a light into the hidden world of monetary mechanics;  Jerome Daly for his stand against this iniquitous practice and, Martin Mahoney the judge with the balls who was bumped off. 

Further reading:

1. Minnesota Judge Allegedly Poisoned In 1969 After Ruling Against Corrupt Banksters

2. PDF OF Richard Werner’s investigation prof-richard-werner-banks-create-money-from-nothing

3. The Great British Mortgage Swindle (TGBMS) Links

a. Buy the DVD

b. Watch on Amazon Prime

4. For Whom the Bell Tolls

5. Money’s Secrets

6. Renegade Inc interview with Michael O’Bernicia and yours truly

7.  Who is the Holder of Your Mortgage Deed?

 

11

Episode 54 – The Truth

Plainly expressed, the Truth is simple, which is in marked contrast to the falsehoods that are so manifestly pumped out right now, largely by the state-institutions of propaganda but also by individuals who put their rhetoric before the grammar (the data) and logic (reason).

However, the Truth is always a beautiful thing for when it is expressed, there is a resonance in our bodies by which we intuit it to be correct.

As John Keats expressed it in his Ode on a Grecian Urn,

When old age shall this generation waste,
                Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
         “Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
                Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

Please join me on this impromptu RogueCast in which I distinguish between those who are simply morons and those who are gobshites.

Edit: this episode is dedicatd to one of my lovely supporters, Dina whose birthday it is today. Many Happy Returns, my dear and thank you for your generous support.

If you haven’t already, then please take the time to  read these articles on promissory notes and the one on the promise to pay in order to add context to what I am discoursing upon.

Please note also that I will shortly be offering a Saturday night webinar, An Introduction to the Trivium, in which I will take the audience through a practical application of this keystone of the 7 Liberal Arts which stands as the most effective method for uncovering the truth.

Many thanks to all those who have helped to keep my work going via their donations through the ‘Buy me a Coffee’ button https://www.buymeacoffee.com/modb

As stated in the RogueCast, I have been denied any form of credit across a variety of platforms – I am currently banned from accessing my Faceborg account and Google/YouTube is literally blocking me from uploading my latest RogueCasts, so please like and share this post as far and wide as you are able and be sure to subscribe to the Rogue Male email list for all notifications.

Thank you for watching – yours,  In Truth and Honour, Michael

Further reading and listening:

The Promissory Note

A Promise to Pay

If you haven’t seen it already, then the Great British Mortgage Swindle can be viewed for free at the link provided.

3

Episode 53: Credit Where Credit is Due

Credit creation and the Deception of Banking.

In this ramble through the woods adjacent to Beauvale Priory, in Nottinghamshire, I examine the issue of banking and fake debt, with particular reference to the swindle inherent in every mortgage. The entire edifice of what we call money is, 100% credit based, as detailed in my previous articles, A Promise to Pay and The Promissory Note.

I encourage all viewers to first read the articles at my site, www.roguemale.org in order to avail yourselves of the unassailable facts of the matter. Each of the references can be read in yesterday’s post.

As stated previously, I will be offering a Webinar which will cover each aspect of this work on the financial servitude of modern day banking.

Many thanks to all those who have helped to keep my work going via their donations through the ‘Buy me a Coffee’ button https://www.buymeacoffee.com/modb

Please note, in a somewhat ironic turn of events, I have been denied any form of credit across a variety of platforms – I am currently banned from accessing my Faceborg account and Google/YouTube is literally blocking me from uploading my latest RogueCasts, so please like and share this post as far and wide as you are able and be sure to subscribe to the Rogue Male email list for all notifications.

Appendix and further references:

Authorities and References:

Rose and Hudgins (2013), Bank Management and Financial Services, McGraw-Hill

Ellinger, Lomnicka and Hare (2011), Elllinger’s Modern Banking Law, 5th edition, Oxford University Press

Henry Dunning Macleod (1906), The Theory and Practice of Banking, 2nd Volume, 6th impression, Longmans, Green & Co.

Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon), various publications

1. Rose and Hudgins (2013), Bank Management and Financial Services, McGraw-Hill

p. 539

“Chapter 16, Lending Policies and Procedures

“16-7 Parts of a Typical Loan Agreement

“The Promissory Note

“When a lending institution grants a loan to one of its customers, such an extension of credit is accompanied by a written contract with several different parts. First, the promissory note, signed by the borrower, specifies the principal amount of the loan. The face of the note will also indicate the interest rate attached to the principal amount and the terms under which repayment must take place (including the dates on which any instalment payments are due).”

p. 540

“The promissory note is a negotiable instrument. This customer-signed note represents that part of the loan process where money is created. When a borrower defaults, lenders generally sue for recovery of their funds based on the content of this note.”

2. Ellinger, Lomnicka and Hare (2011), Elllinger’s Modern Banking Law, 5th edition, Oxford University Press

p. 389

“Promissory notes are used to crystallize the maker’s promise to pay a given amount (often a specific instalment payable under a facility) to the payee. They are widely used in respect of all types of lending contract…”

p. 445

Promissory Notes

“… are principally issued to secure the repayment of loan instalments or sums due…”

“The principal advantage of a promissory note for the payee is that he may either receive early payment by discounting the instrument to a third party or sue for the face value of the instrument if dishonoured at maturity. In the latter case, the payee may obtain summary judgment for the amount of the instrument, as the defences that arise out of the underlying transaction are not necessarily available to an action on the note…”

“…promissory notes and bills of exchange differ in form – the latter involves the drawer giving the drawee an order to make payment, whilst the former involves the maker giving a promise to pay – so that an instrument taking the form of a bill of exchange may be reclassified as a promissory note and vice versa.

BEA 1882, s.5(2). See also Mason v. Lack (1929) 45 TLR 363; Haseldine v. Winstanley [1939] 2 KB 101.

“…the Bill of Exchange Act 1882 in general applies with the necessary modifications to promissory notes.

“The legal requirements for a valid promissory note are the same as for bills of exchange: there must be an unconditional promise in writing signed by the maker to pay a sum certain at a fixed or determinable future time to the order of a specified payee or to bearer. Haseldine v. Winstanley [1939] 2 KB 101. s.83(1). See also City Link Melbourne Ltd. v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 272, [33]

“This definition can cover an ‘IOU’ embodying a promise to pay, a bank cheque, or any other document howsoever named that fulfils the statutory definition. See Linac v. Lehmann [2001] DCR 718, [33]-[35]

“As regards payment, there is no requirement to present a promissory note to the maker…

3. Henry Dunning Macleod (1906), The Theory and Practice of Banking, 2nd Volume, 6th impression, Longmans, Green & Co.

(Henry Dunning Macleod, Barrister at Law, Inner Temple)

p. 311
“…the business of banking is not to lend money, but to create Credit.

p. 370
“…all banking advances are made, in the first instance, by creating credit.

p. 372
“A banker never lends money, in the first instance; we have already explained that the very essence of banking is to create Credit, or liabilities payable to bearer on demand.
… All banking advances, then, are made by creating Credit, or Deposits; and whether this Credit is transferred from one person to another … in no way affects its nature or its quantity.

p. 480
“Hence credit or debt in legal, commercial and economical language, means a right of action against a person for a sum of money. Such a right, credit or debt is a chose-in-action, and is included under the terms goods and chattels.

p. 482
“Definition of Instruments of Credit or Debt
Any written record of a fact is termed an Instrument. Any written evidence of a debt is termed an Instrument of Credit or of Debt.
A written contract by which one person is bound to pay (1) a certain sum of money; (2) to a certain person; (3) at a certain time; is termed an Obligation, or Security for Money, or a Valuable Security.
…
A written Promise made by one person to pay absolutely and at all events (1) a certain sum of money; (2) to a certain person; (3) at a certain time; is in modern language termed a Promissory Note, or, shortly, a Note.

…
A mere acknowledgement of a debt, not containing a promise to pay, is usually termed an I O U.

A Bill, Note or I O U is always a chose-in-action, that is, it operates as a charge, or Credit, against the person of the Debtor.

p. 407

“If a customer wants an advance, the banker discounts his customer’s Promissory Note; … He does this in exactly the same way as he discounted a bill. He buys the Promissory Note from his customer, and in exchange for it he creates a Credit in his favour in his books, which is termed a Deposit.

p. 408

“These banking Credits are… in fact, Capital created out of Nothing.

“Thus the student must carefully observe that in the technical language of commerce a “banker” is a trader who issues his own credit, in various forms, for money and debts. This species of business, no doubt, originated with the money changers: but yet money changing is not “banking”. Nor are “bankers” money lenders: in all cases whatever they issue nothing but their own credit…

4. Richard A. Werner, D.Phil. (Oxon)

Empirical evidence that banks do not lend money but create credit:

Werner, Richard A. (2016), A lost century in Economics: Three theories of banking and the conclusive evidence, International Review of Financial Analysis, 46, July, 361–379, online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521915001477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2015.08.014

Werner, Richard A. (2014). Can Banks Individually Create Money Out of Nothing? – The Theories and the Empirical Evidence, International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 1-19, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001070 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.07.015

Details on just how banks are able to ‘create money out of nothing’, while non-bank firms cannot do so:

Werner, Richard A. (2014). How do banks create money, and why can other firms not do the same? An explanation for the coexistence of lending and deposit-taking, International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521914001434 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.10.013

The above publication shows that the credit is created by the bank incorrectly and without obvious justification re-classifying one type of liability (its accounts payable liability arising from its obligation to ‘lend money/sums’ to the borrower in the loan contract) as another type of liability called ‘customer deposit’ – the latter being a form of credit that is commonly used to pay for transactions. No customer nor the bank made this deposit.

4

A Promise to Pay

The inherent honour of making a promise is that the individual should fulfill it. By tendering a valid form of payment in the shape of a Promissory note made payable on demand to the bearer, the individual is fulfilling his promise, under the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882: this act is the cornerstone of the financial system under and through which the licenced credit broker (the mortgage company/’bank’) creates the credit which is used to buy the house in the first place.

That is a fact that the ‘bank’ cannot get round –

Part IV Promissory Notes

83 Promissory note defined.

(1) A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.

(2) An instrument in the form of a note payable to maker’s order is not a note within the meaning of this section unless and until it is indorsed by the maker.

(3) A note is not invalid by reason only that it contains also a pledge of collateral security with authority to sell or dispose thereof.

(4) A note which is, or on the face of it purports to be, both made and payable within the British Islands is an inland note. Any other note is a foreign note.

84 Delivery necessary.

A promissory note is inchoate and incomplete until delivery thereof to the payee or bearer.

85 Joint and several notes.

(1) A promissory note may be made by two or more makers, and they may be liable thereon jointly, or jointly and severally according to its tenour.

(2) Where a note runs “I promise to pay” and is signed by two or more persons it is deemed to be their joint and several note.

86 Note payable on demand.

(1) Where a note payable on demand has been indorsed, it must be presented for payment within a reasonable time of the indorsement. If it be not so presented the indorser is discharged.

(2) In determining what is reasonable time, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade, and the facts of the particular case.

(3) Where a note payable on demand is negotiated, it is not deemed to be overdue, for the purpose of affecting the holder with defects of title of which he had no notice, by reason that it appears that a reasonable time for presenting it for payment has elapsed since its issue.

87 Presentment of note for payment.

(1) Where a promissory note is in the body of it made payable at a particular place, it must be presented for payment at that place in order to render the maker liable. In any other case, presentment for payment is not necessary in order to render the maker liable.

(2) Presentment for payment is necessary in order to render the indorser of a note liable.

(3) Where a note is in the body of it made payable at a particular place, presentment at that place is necessary in order to render an indorser liable; but when a place of payment is indicated by way of memorandum only, presentment at that place is sufficient to render the indorser liable, but a presentment to the maker elsewhere, if sufficient in other respects, shall also suffice.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61/part/IV

In yesterday’s article, I provided a number of citations, including those of Professor Richard Werner which testify to the unassailable validity of this all-encompassing legislation,  which is relevant to each and every English speaking country around this realm and even India.

The financial ring that controls it all is not backed by anything other than the Promise to Pay on the simple basis that the currency is all fiat – meaning it is not backed by anything of substance. In the case of the ‘UK”, the gold standard upon which the Great British Pound was backed was removed in 1931. The Bank of England has openly stated this is the case and that,

Debt consists mainly of debt securities and bank loans, but also includes trade credits, currency and deposits and loans by multilateral institutions. P31, https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2008/quarterly-bulletin-2008-q1.pdf

Credit Where Credit is Due

In the above cited first quarterly bulletin from the Bank of England, the author, Charles Bean, Chief Economist and Executive Director for Monetary Policy, Bank of England states in his conclusion,

Summary and conclusions

Let me try to pull together some of my central themes.

I have stressed that we should take care to avoid talking about money when we mean credit. In a similar spirit, we should be clear when we mean total credit and when bank lending, but without assuming the two are divorced.

Notice how he conflates credit and lending when the two are manifestly not the same thing. This is the sleight of hand that underpins the operations of the credit facilitators and it is what Woodrow Wilson was lamenting some time after he had signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which placed credit-creation in the hands of the Rothschilds and their associates. Any country with a ‘Central’ Bank is under the same octopus of control,

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Naturally, the question which should arise in the mind of anyone who has a mortgage over his home is this:  should I deliver a promissory note to my mortgage company in order that it be deposited in a special account from which the credit can be created to zero the balance on my void mortgage?

Well, why not? After all, the entire racket is predicated on the promise to pay, as set in stone by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, and, irrespective of the cogniitve dissonance of the ‘bank’ staff, it is a lawful remedy that is available to us all. Were that not the case, there would be no dead pledge – mortgage – in the first place.

I would also add that it is important to stay in honour – tendering a valid form of a deposit in the shape of a negotiable instrument called a Promissory Note to settle a purported debt is, in my view, an entirely honourable act, as exemplified by the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.

Should you deliver the note to the CEO of the lender and some bean counter at the ‘bank’ claims that they cannot accept it, then they are lying to you. Further, in each instance, the note will not be returned to you. Why? It has value.

Either way, you have them by the short and curlies – after all, when a valid payment is refused, the debt is discharged.

Quite literally, you have nothing to lose.

Anyone wanting assistance is welcome to drop me a line and keep your eyes open for an upcoming Webinar in which I will expand further on this most interesting of possibilities.

Many thanks to all those who have helped to keep my work going via their donations through the ‘Buy me a Coffee’ button. I am currently banned from accessing my Faceborg account and Google/YouTube is preventing me uploading my latest RogueCast, so please like and share this post as far and wide as you are able and be sure to subscribe to the Rogue Male email list for all notifications.

 

3

TGBMS: the Fraud of Antonio Horta-Osorio.

Consensus Reality is a phrase that means those sets of things which the majority of people consider to be real. There are countless examples but for the purposes of this article, let’s focus on the fraud of the banking system. Most people wrongly believe that the banks loan them money.

This false belief leads them to the conclusion that their ‘debts’ are real and that they must be paid back, usually with interest. After all, that’s only fair isn’t it? Well, not if you have been duped into believing that you are indeed the ‘borrower’. The professional negligence and failure of the conveyancing solicitor to explain how the mortgage is unlawful for wont of real consideration, how the deed of mortgage is void, why there is no valid agreement between the parties and the failure to disclose just how the ‘funds’ are created amount to one thing: fraud.

Logically, just because the majority of people believe something to be real, does not make it so.

The oft-quoted line from the film, the Matrix is as good an example of what consensus reality means as any:

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill — the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill — you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

The blue pill is the consensus reality; the red is the deeper reality.

Some time ago a blue-pilled individual offered a comment on this site that suggested both Tom Crawford and myself had fallen prey to an “internet theory” which had led us both into taking on the bank known as the Bradford and Bingley (now UKAR) over our purported mortgages.  He went on to state that we should simply have paid the bank what it was falsely claiming was owed and that would have allowed us to enjoy the ‘equity’ in our old age.

This blue pill perspective exists only in the consensus reality of those who falsely believe the banks ever make genuine loans, whether on mortgages or of any kind. It is the attitude of those who go along to get along, who ‘pay Caesar what is Caesar’s.’

However, once the red pill has been swallowed – viz., once the individual has become aware of certain hidden truths – there can be no going back, no matter how much one desires to return to that state of (imagined) blissful ignorance.

For instance, prior to 1999, I had been working for 10 years as an English teacher at a school in  Leicester. By and large, I was operating via a socialist mindset which resulted in me mistakenly believing that improving the language and literary skills of the children, and enabling them to perform well in examinations, was of benefit to them and to society, and that school was important in the development of every individual, for the collective good of all. I believed too in the consensus reality that the government was there to ensure that resources were evenly distributed and inequities balanced and that the way to achieve this was via a progressive system of taxation. All of which, no doubt, would position me as a statist, someone who believes in the illusion of government operating for the good of all.

The reality, of course, is that government is in the business of extorting money out of people and, should they not pay, locking them up in cages. Council Tax is a prime example of this – Councils commit fraud on people by forcing them to pay even when there is no contractual arrangement between them and the individuals involved. Why should one be forced to pay for ‘services’ which one does not use or require?

Nineteen years on, I can only shake my head at my former self and how I had fallen for the indoctrination of the cultural Marxists and their ilk. I now know that the public education system exists for the purposes of mind control, that all taxation is theft, that government is nothing more than a huge extortion racket, that it is the biggest murderer of people ever and that the politicians are mere puppets who are being played by the hidden hand of the banking and state/military industrial complex. The UK government is most certainly not sovereign on the simple basis that it does not issue its own money and/or credit: all of it is controlled by the Bank of England, which in turn is controlled by the Crown House of Rothschild.

In short: it is all about control and the most expedient way to control the people is through the financial system. All of which, logically, leads me to view that the only way to create free peoples is to educate them to think for themselves.

“The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant”

Maximilien Robespierre.

None of that which I have learned concerning the hidden reality of our existences can I magically ‘un-know’ –  and why should I wish to? The red pill has been popped. There can be no turning back. Indeed, how could one go back into such a system knowing what one knows? It would mean slipping into an intolerable state of self-delusion.

For all that, some who claim to have popped the red pill are unaware that they have further to go – especially when they continue to place their faith in the corrupt government and its self-serving politicians.

It is very easy to regret one’s decisions yet perhaps harder to remember one’s own larger purpose.

When we pay attention, life unfolds purposefully. Connections with others, shared understandings, a sense of purposefulness fall on us as divine blessings.

Now, this site does not get many visitors but, rest assured, those who are here to read these posts are those for whom I write. When one enjoys that sense of one’s connections with others, it can lead to revelatory moments at which point it is possible to step into one’s powers and realise that our actions do have an impact on the consciousness of mankind.

Does that make me an optimist? Possibly, but consider this: could it actually be I am a realist instead? Or, what about a realistic optimist?

It seems logical to me that the system is wholly based on compliance and, when that can not be had, it uses violence against the individual, regardless of the absence of agreement. That is the ‘might is right’ modus operandi; the opposite of which is voluntary association. Every one is free to enter into an agreement/contract with any individual or entity he chooses and, it thus follows, no one has the right to force bogus contracts on any one. It boils down to right and wrong – which is always matter of conscience.

By way of illustration, here is an entry on David Thoreau concerning Individualist anarchism:

“(Thoreau’s) essay Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) was first published in 1849. It argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that people have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War.

The American version of individualist anarchism has a strong emphasis on the non-aggression principle and individual sovereignty. Some individualist anarchists, such as Thoreau, do not speak of economics but simply the right of “disunion” from the state, and foresee the gradual elimination of the state through social evolution.” Wikipedia

The power to abolish the oppressive tyranny of the state lies solely with the people – a fact that the apparatus of the conditioning system known as state education utterly fails to address on the simple basis that to do so would almost certainly hasten its demise.

It can be somewhat depressing to realise that the entire system is fraudulent –  for example, many do realise that Council tax is extortion and the Banking sector is an elaborate illusion. But what are they doing about it? The answer is to learn the nature of the illusion via self-education and then educate others:

“Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is.” ― Isaac Asimov

Consensus reality rightly dictates that if something is borrowed, then it must be returned. However, in the case of a mortgage or, indeed, any ‘loan’ from a bank, nothing is loaned – credit is merely extended by way of the signature of the one who is falsely labelled the ‘borrower’.

On the subject of the fraudulent banking system, which is exposed in all its gory detail in the documentary, the Great British Mortgage Swindle, what would you do if you had the means to redeem your mortgage whilst simultaneously having the full knowledge that your mortgage is void and that no loan ever factually took place? Would you not seek to challenge the bank to prove there is a valid lawful mortgage and that the bank can prove it made a loan before handing over tens of thousands of pounds?

Antonio Horta-Osorio, CEO, Halifax

In the following actual situation the ‘mortgagor’ is in the genuine position of being able to pay off the alleged balance  in full. Thus, his request of AntonioHorta-Osorio (left), the CEO of the purported lender, ‘the Halifax’ (part of HBOS) is sincere.

Remember too, if the mortgage was valid then there should be no problem with the bank producing the requested items in exchange for him settling the balance. The following redacted correspondence reveals the full extent of the CEO’s obfuscation of the facts and the fraudulent nature of the banking swindle.

The reader is encouraged to take note of the stipulation that this is in no way to be treated as a complaint.

The response from the CEO’s underling, Wendy Zeal, completely ignored that fact:

Antonio was provided with another opportunity to respond in substance and was helpfully furnished with a copy of Professor Richard Werner’s investigation that demonstrates how banks create money out of thin air:

 

The next response from the same office was again characterised by blatant misrepresentation:

A short and to-the-point response was sent to Antonio’s Office of the Chief Executive:

Once again, his willing partner in the fraud, Wendy Zeal, sent a reply that amounted to another misrepresentation of the facts. Remember, this is a genuine attempt to redeem the mortgage:

 

Now, let’s consider what is going on here.

Firstly, it is clear from the correspondence that Antonio, the CEO, is denying a customer the chance to settle the balance on an alleged mortgage. That is an unlawful action. Why is he doing so?

Secondly, by treating it as complaint, he and his minion, Wendy Zeal, are committing fraud by misrepresentation, in breach of the 2006 Fraud Act, of which section 2 states:

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention). Source

Now, for anyone with a fully functioning brain, the responses from the CEO of the Halifax are clearly fraudulent, as defined by the legislation. Why so?

Could it be that he is unable to provide the requested items?

Why doesn’t he simply state that whilst he cannot hand over those items, the mortgagor can still go ahead and redeem his mortgage, as is his long-established right?

Has he got something to hide? A search engine quickly reveals that Antonio is certainly not the most honourable of men. An internal memo from him to all employees of the Halifax stressed that they should at all times behave in ways that are morally correct. Yet, a few months later, Antonio was caught, in flagrante delicto, cheating on his wife – an act which purportedly resulted in him having his annual salary cut by a mouth-watering £3 million.

Assuming that she is a capable and intelligent woman, Wendy Zeal, by going along with the misrepresentations of her boss, is also complicit in the fraud. She would do well to heed some advice from scripture:

“You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.” Exodus 23:1 23

Whilst the situation is not over yet, it starkly illustrates the almost casual fraud and arrogant behaviour of those working in the higher echelons of the Rothschild Central Banking Game and how the system treats its mortgagors with contempt. The reader is also reminded that HBOS, of which the Halifax is part, were bailed out by way of stolen taxes to the tune of £45 billion when it failed some ten years ago.

TBGMS: Are you ready to take the red, white and blue pill?

Of course, the colossal failures and fraud of those who operate at the higher end of the corrupt banking system are revealed in The Great British Mortgage Swindle. The question is are the British people ready to pop the red, white and blue pill and do something about it? Or, are they content to live in a state of financial and spiritual enslavement to a system of fraud and control that extorts them at every opportunity?

And, for the avoidance of doubt, any blue pilled individual who fancies having a dig is encouraged to engage his brain first and stick to the facts. Don’t take my word for it that the system is rigged: here are the words of the former governor of the Bank of England (you know the entity that runs the entire shit parade that passes for a finance) –

 

Acknowledgment: a huge thank-you to David R for his continued support. It is truly appreciated.

TGBMS Links

Buy the DVD (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=3aa64175f0&e=483727ac6f)

Watch on Amazon Prime (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=d173e8fbab&e=483727ac6f)

Book Cinema Tickets (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=588e7d8966&e=483727ac6f)

Download Free PDF of TGBMS: Next Steps (https://thegreatbritishmortgageswindle.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d15706cafc460fd76074a0069&id=464b61d3d1&e=483727ac6f)

 

10

Revisited: The Tom Crawford Affair

 

The notorious Bradford and Bingley Building Society (now known as UKAR), who were bailed out to the tune of £19.1b in 2008, was the Bank at the heart of the matter that arose between themselves and Tom Crawford of Nottingham.

STRONGHOLD: B&B (UKAR) HQ, BINGLEY, WEST YORKSHIRE.

Whilst this was not the first time this unscrupulous financial entity had been involved in a ‘difficult’ and fraudulent possession claim via the city’s county court, it marked the remarkable rise of a genuine grassroots movement determined to wipe out the scourge of the Great British Mortgage Swindle.

RogueMale has written about this matter in some detail previously and anyone who is not familiar with the issue is encouraged to dip into the articles.

The key question that any mortgagor should be asking is this –

“did the bank actually lend me any moneys to purchase my house?”

The splendid work of Professor Richard Werner of Southampton University on this matter emphatically demonstrates that the credit creation behind all loans and mortgages means the funds are created out of thin air. That is how the system works – 97% of the money supply in the UK is created out of the ether. Here is a quotation from Richard Werner that answers the question in a way that few will ever go near:

“I will tell you key points about banks.

 

In case you thought banks lend money, they take deposits and lend money. You are wrong .

 

Banking was developed, modern banking was developed, in the United Kingdom in the 17th century and the legal facts are very clear but not very well known.

 

Banks do not take deposits and banks do not lend money. That’s a fact. How is that possible? Well, legally they do not take deposits. They borrow from the public, because your money at the bank is not on deposit. Its not held in custody, it’s not a bailment. What is it legally? You have lent money to the bank. So the expression in banking are designed to mislead what’s really happening. Who is the owner of this money? It is the banks, you are just a general creditor. Which is very different from the impression given when we use the term deposit.

 

What about lending surely banks lend money? No they don’t.

 

No bank has ever lent any money.

 

How is that possible? What does a bank do?

 

Banks purchase securities and they don’t pay up. That’s what they do. How is that? Well if you go to the bank and you borrow money you sign a loan contract. Very crucial.

 

Your signature creates the money supply. Because the bank legally will consider the loan contract a promissory note.

 

And that is what is considered legally, is a promissory note.

 

Just like the bank of England Note, central bank money, paper money, is a promissory note from the central bank. And the bank purchases this contract. That is what they do, they purchase the loan contract. Now they owe you money.

 

You say I dont care about the mechanics, give me the money. The banker will say we will put it in your account. You will find it in your bank account. Well what is a bank account? It is not a deposit. Its a record of the bank’s debt to the public. It is a record of the bank’s debt to the new borrower, and they show you the record of how much money they owe you. That is it, they don’t pay up. And this is how the money supply is created. So lets go in sequence:

 

Step one: You go to the bank and you sign the loan contract, say a thousand pounds. This will be recorded in the bank balance sheet as an increase in bank assets. The bank, will then, record its debt to the borrower. But it will do some accountant trick. It should really say this is an accounts payable item. Something that the bank has to pay but it has not yet paid. But it won’t record as an accounts payable. If you talk to an bank’s accountant they are horrified “No you cannot use an expression like accounts payable in a bank” And do you know why? Because they recorded it as customer deposit. They show it on the bank’s liability side as a customer deposit. But nobody has deposited it, the customer has not deposited for sure. The customer is borrowing it.

 

The bank has not deposited either. It is added to the money supply, and this is how 97% of the money supply is created out of nothing on the basis of a signature and of course on the credit of the borrower. That is money creation. So no money is transferred from any where else to the borrowers account.”

 

When asked in court to prove the alleged amount ‘owed’ by the Tom and Sue Crawford, the bank was unable to do so, relying entirely on a computer ‘print out’ which was dismissed by the Judge, Nigel Godsmark  (not that his final judgement went anywhere near that issue).

That fact needs to be stressed as clearly as possible, for it applies to all mortgagors, – when asked for verifiable proof that an amount is owed, the banks are incapable of providing it. Why? Because it is fictitious: it operates in the realms of fantasy. Any consideration on the part of the bank is an illusion.

The epic battle undertaken by Michael of Bernicia and the trustees of the family property portfolio against HBOS establishes a number of facts concerning the other illusions that exist at the heart of the swindle:

  1. There is no lawful contract, no signed agreement between the parties, as required at law.
  2. There is no valid mortgage deed, properly executed by the mortgagors – despite the fact that a conveyancing solicitor, Tim Grey of Sintons Lawyers in Newcastle, oversaw each and every aspect of the purported mortgages.
  3. That being the case, there is no valid and binding power of attorney, despite the fact that the banks claim to have an ‘irrevocable’ one – which is a legal impossibility.
  4. There is no valid debt. source

Thus, the swindle is predicated upon a series of illusions, which renders the entire mortgage industry a monumental fraud, perpetrated upon the people.  There are some 11.2 million of these fraudulent devices registered at the Land Registry.  It is literally a racket of monstrous proportions.

THE REALITY OF INSTITUTIONALISED MORTGAGE FRAUD.

As the aphorism goes, the closer one is to the target, the greater the flak one can expect.

Sure enough, those paid trolls, shills and agents of the state and the banksters emerged from the shadows as soon as Tom and the Crawford family began to attract hundreds if not thousands of supporters to their cause.

Many of these trolls and shills sought to falsely and maliciously paint Tom as a stubborn misguided man who should simply have ‘paid off’ the fraudulent sum of £43k that was being claimed by the bank.

One such character suggested it be done by crowd funding – an option rejected by Tom on the basis of the facts. In every sense, nothing was owed. The bank had already unjustly enriched itself to the tune of over £120k in the form of payments made by Tom and Sue over the 25 years of the void mortgage, why should he make any kind of payment, let alone enlist the support of the public when said public had already been fleeced, one way or another, by the swindle, as have we all?

That same individual once suggested to me that “everyone knows that’s how banking works” and that we should all simply pay Caesar what is Caesar’s.  A glib response that serves only to maintain the status quo and which suggests he has some kind of vested interest in the continuation of the swindle. The levels of vitriol that spewed out from all those agents was like a tsunami and the Crawford family were deluged across the social media in utter bullshit.  I sometimes wonder how many have truly grasped the enormity of the fraud and thus understood how it has been used to enslave us all to false debt, simply to keep a roof over our heads.

The attitude of those who say that that is how it works and there is nothing we can do about it is, in one word, pathetic. It is characterised by denial whereby many seek to hide from the facts and cognitive dissonance clouds their minds. Yet, do we really need to be concerned with the majority of people who are unwilling or incapable of realising the truth of the matter?

For what are the implications of huge numbers of people seeing through the illusions of TGBMS?

An end to the genocide of eviction and greater personal freedom for all.  That is it.

To educate the people to the facts of TGBMS is the frequently stated aim of much of the work at this site. Whilst the release of the film will certainly go a long way to achieving that, in the meantime, anyone who has not quite grasped the reality that the banks do not lend anything is encouraged to watch the short film below in which Professor Richard Werner succinctly explains to a gathering of accountants the fact that credit creation leads to ‘money’ being created out of thin air. Quite what the hundreds of thousands of accountants across these lands would make of it is anyone’s guess, given the fact that they have a vested interest in continuing the illusion. However, they and all those who perpetuate the fraud of the banking system will, ultimately, be proven to be on the wrong side of history. All of which is more the reason for all right thinking individuals to salute the stance taken by Tom Crawofrd and those thousands who support him.

 

 

Acknowledgements: David R for his generous sponsorship of this site and, once again, Michael of Bernicia for his unflinching determination and robust exposition of the swindle in all its forms.

Finally, if one has the means and appreciates the work at this site, please make a donation of any size via the donate button. 

 

3

Banking & Electioneering: Frigging in the Rigging

The Rothschilds, their Polipuppets and the Fraud of the General Election

A Punch & Judy Show: Corbyn & May

Let’s face facts – the ‘snap’ election scheduled for 8th June, 2017 is nothing more than a sophisticated puppet show, the result of which will be rigged in favour of those who control the marionettes who operate on the stage known as the House of Commons. These marionettes are collectively known as politicians. However, a more suitable expression may be ‘polipuppet’, which for the purposes of clarity can be defined thus:

polipuppet |ˌpolipupett|

noun

a life-long actor who obediently and professionally plays the role of a political party representative, and is controlled by the House of Rothschild and/or its agencies.

  • Margaret Thatcher was a British polipuppet whose decimation of the country’s industry was carried out under the instructions of N. M. Rothschild.

ORIGIN

21st century English: from Old French politique ‘political,’ via Latin from Greek politikos, from politēs ‘citizen,’ from polis ‘city’ and ‘puppet’ mid 16th cent. (denoting a doll): later form of poppet, generally having a more unfavourable connotation.

In the same way the life-long actor known as Donald Trump was falsely presented as a maverick candidate who was inserted to quell the rising tide of nationalism amongst an awakening American populace (who merely voted for a new CEO of the USA Corporation) both May and Corbyn will be offered up as ‘solutions’ to the problems facing the UK Corporation.

Puppets on Strings

The puppet show will serve a number of purposes, each of which is beneficial to the hidden hand that controls the fake ‘state’, the main ones being the ‘divide and rule’ agenda and the continuation of the fraud of the banks.

It is now an established fact that the banks do not lend anything and are in the business of buying securities like loan agreements and mortgages to create streams of credit, made-up figures, literally created on a computer. On the back of these fake loans, for which, obviously, there is no consideration on the part of the banks, people’s homes are being stolen by way of void possession orders, issued by a judiciary that has been instructed to maintain the pretence that moneys are owed.

“You got the money to buy the house, didn’t you?”

being the increasingly unsophisticated argument posed by any judge who is forced to go anywhere near the fact that no loan ever took place.

Of course, it is not only individuals who are paying out on fake loans, under the pretence that money is owed; it is also the local councils who have taken out the long term ‘loans’ known as LOBOs.

In any event, the effect is the same – the individual is coerced into picking up the tab for the fake debt. Thus, council tax payers are facing rises in payments in order to service the criminal interest rates piled on top of the fake loans. Services are being cut as a direct consequence. It is fair to state that the banks are like parasites that have infested the private and public bodies of the people. They bleed us dry as they simultaneously fill their vaults with ill-gotten gains.

To charge interest is usury and under the ancient law of these lands, usury is unlawful – and,  for good reason.

To charge interest on fictitious loans is nothing less than criminal.

It all amounts to the people being subjected to a pernicious form of indentured servitude, or slavery by another name. So much for “Rule, Britannia, Britons never will be slaves.”

The answer as to how they have been getting away with it for so long may well lie in the miseducation and general dumbing down that the people have been subjected to over the last 150 years or so and, of course, the fake news media, whose purpose is to promulgate the status quo.

The notion that the polipuppets known as May or Corbyn, both of whom have sworn an oath to the Privy Council, a vow never to hear any criticism of ‘the Crown’, are actually in charge of the ‘nation’ is, in the light of the facts, utterly ludicrous to any one with a fully functioning brain and knowledge of financial operations.

The fact is that, just as all around the world bar – an increasingly small number of sovereign nations – the whole rotten edifice of this indentured servitude is controlled by the House of Rothschild, a family of pernicious financial parasites that has ruled the roost for at least 200 years in the Britain alone.

The Rothschild family claims to be Jewish.  Its tentacles extend into every aspect of our lives, all around the world.

Prior to 1858, it was unlawful for a non Christian to sit in the House of Commons on the basis that he would be unable to swear his allegiance to God and the people whom he was supposed to be serving. The law was changed in order to allow Lionel de Rothschild to take up a position:

“1847: Lionel De Rothschild now married to the daughter of his uncle, Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild, is elected to the parliamentary seat for the City of London.

 

A requirement for entering parliament was to take an oath in the true faith of a Christian. Lionel De Rothschild refused to do this as he was Jewish and his seat in parliament remained empty for 11 years until new oaths were allowed.  He must have been an invaluable representative for his constituency, bearing in mind he could never vote on any bill as he never entered parliament!  I wonder how he managed to keep his parliamentary seat for 11 years?”

 

“1858: Lionel De Rothschild finally takes his seat in parliament when the requirement to take an oath in the true faith of a Christian is broadened to include other oaths. He becomes the first Jewish member of the British parliament.”

 

“1891: The British Labour Leader (newspaper) makes the following statement on the subject of the Rothschilds,

 

“This blood-sucking crew has been the cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century, and has piled up its prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between States which ought never to have quarrelled.

 

Whenever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumours of war circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbance.”

 

Comments like this worry the Rothschilds and towards the end of the 1800’s they purchase Reuters news agency so they can have some control of the media. Source

In his book, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” (1973), Gary Allen states,

“One major reason for the historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in political history is the Rothschilds were Jewish…The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organisation called The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an instrument to try and convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds and their allies is an attack on all Jews.

 

In this way they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo within universities.

 

Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds of ADL communities all over the country. The ADL has never let the truth or logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs…

 

Actually, nobody has a right to be more angry at the Rothschild clique than their fellow Jews… The Rothschild empire helped finance Adolf Hitler.”

 

By 1868, Benjamin Disraeli had become the first Jewish Prime Minister of Britain.

“Jews, like other religious minorities, received equal rights over a century ago, beginning with formal Jewish Emancipation in 1858, at which point Lionel de Rothschild was allowed to sit in the House of Commons after the law restricting the oath of office to Christians was changed, the ministry said.”

Source: Extracts from “Jewish World” by Itamar Eichner (published 09.11.2006).

In more recent times, the Thatcherite government’s dismantling of British industry in the 1980s and beyond was manipulated by the House of Rothschild:

“N. M. Rothschild & Sons advise the British government on the privatisation of British Gas. They subsequently advise the British government on virtually all of their other privatisations of state owned assets including: British Steel; British Coal; all the British regional electricity boards; and all the British regional water boards.

 

A British MP heavily involved in these privatisations is future Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont, a former Rothschild banker.” source

 

“It is quite extraordinary the number of privatisation troughs that N. M. Rothschild has got its snout into: British Telecom, Britoil, British Gas, Royal Ordnance, British Airways, Rolls Royce, British Airports Authority, British Petroleum, British steel, water, regional electricity, Northern Ireland electricity, British coal, the list goes on and on. The chancellor, Norman Lamont, and the economic secretary, Anthony Nelson both used to work for N. M. Rothschild. ” — Private Eye on Thatcherism, April 1993

All of which amounts to the inescapable fact that the ‘Government’ of Britain is controlled by the hidden hand of the ‘Money Changers’, who operate through the Council on Foreign Relations and other controlled offshoots such as the Fabian Party.

The Rothschild dominated agencies of control.

Think the Rothschilds have nothing to do with the Labour Party?  Think again: the spymaster of Mi5, the double agent, Victor Rothschild, sat in the Lords on the Labour benches:

“In 1937, he inherited his title from his uncle, Walter Rothschild, who was the 2nd Baron Rothschild and thereafter sat as a Labour party peer in the House of Lords. During the Second World War, he was recruited by MI5 and was awarded the George medal for his work.” Source: www.maccabi.com.au/News/283/A-history-of-Jewish-first-class-cricketers.cfm

Our so-called ‘culture’ has been controlled from the ‘top’ down, infected by a variety of social engineering projects (viruses), many of which have sprung from the Tavistock Institute, to such a degree that we live in times of widespread degeneracy and under a yoke of financial enslavement. It has recently been termed ‘weaponised anthropology’, or the engineering of mankind’s psychology.

Rest assured, whichever ‘party’ gets elected to ‘government’ on 08 June, the result will have been engineered, with the voting rigged in strict accordance with the wishes of the aforementioned ‘controllers’. The not-so-hidden hand of the House of Rothschild.

The greatest swindle of all time has been perpetuated by these parasitic deceivers; for over 200 years they have held guard to the hidden mechanics of the creation of a fiat currency system. A fiat currency that is issued by their licenced mandarins as debt, a fiat currency that is printed in note form by the private Bank of England (and every other so-called ‘central bank’ in the world).

However, the game is up. The claim made by the Rothschild Bank in London during the American Civil War (which they funded) in a letter to its New York agents that:

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting the system is inimical to their interests.”

is as hollow now as it ever was.

 

Thanks to the likes of Professor Richard Werner, the facts are becoming ever clearer:

Interviewer: “You’re firmly of the view that banks create money out of thin air?”

 

Richard Werner (RW): “ Yes, I’ve produced the first empirical studies to prove that in the 5 thousand year history of banking. Banks don’t take deposits and banks don’t lend money.

 

“So what is a deposit? A deposit is not actually a deposit; it’s not a bailment, it’s not held in custody. At law, the word deposit is meaningless.

 

The law courts and various judgements have made it very clear: if you give your money to a bank, even though it’s called a deposit, this money is simply a loan to the bank. So, there is no such thing as deposit: it’s a loan to the bank.

 

“So, banks borrow from the public – that much we’ve established.

 

“What about lending? Surely, they’re lending money? No, they don’t. Banks don’t lend money. Again, at law, they’re in the business of purchasing securities. That’s it. So you say, don’t confuse me with all that legalese, I want a loan. Fine, here’s the loan contract, here’s the offer letter and you sign.

 

“At law, it’s very clear: you have issued a security, namely a promissory note and that bank is going to purchase that – that’s what’s happened.”

 

RT – “ Put it in layman’s terms – what does that mean?”

 

RW “ it means that what the bank is doing is very different from what it presents to the public that it’s doing.

 

“How does this fit together?

 

“You say, fine, the bank purchases my promissory note but how do I get my money? I don’t care about the details, I want my money.

 

“The bank will say, well, you’ll find it in your account. That would be technically correct. If they say we’ll transfer it to your account, that’s wrong because no money is transferred at all, from anywhere inside the bank  or outside the bank. Why? Because what we call a deposit is simply the bank’s record of its debt to the public. Now, it also owes you money and its record of the money it owes you is what you think you are getting as money and that’s all it is.

 

“And that is how the banks create the money supply; the money supply consists to 97% of bank deposits and these are created out of nothing by banks when they ‘lend’ because they invent fictitious customer deposits. Why?

 

“They simply re-state, slightly incorrectly in accounting terms, that there’s an account payable liability arising out of the loan contract which is your promissory note as a customer deposit but nobody has deposited any money. I wonder how the FCA deals with this because in the financial sector, you’re supposed to not mislead your customers.”

Source: Russia Today interview, 07 March, 2017:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC0G7pY4wRE

“The House of Rothschild is really at the top of the pyramid of power. They are behind the New World Order and the complete domination of the world agenda. They are behind the European Union and the Euro and they are behind the idea of a North American Union and the Amero. They are controlling all of the world’s secret services and their private army is NATO.”  Source

The fact is that no polipuppet, whether it be Corbyn, May, Macron or Trump, will go anywhere near this issue of the fraud of money creation and the over-arching control of the people by way of the indentured servitude. The referenced Financial Service Authority (FSA) is as toothless an entity as the CPS which has recently declined to prosecute the Tory polipuppets who committed demonstrable election fraud in 2015. The system is rigged from top to bottom but, as long as the people are mired in the false belief that the banks are owed money and that there is a national or private ‘debt’ to be paid, it will continue to limp on.

The Rothschilds’ Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – used to exonerate its members from any criminality.

However, given the fact that the fiat money system the Rothschilds’ control is based on the sweat equity of the people via the ‘promise to pay’ and that there is nothing to prevent the people from creating their own currencies and lines of credit (as evidenced by the rise of Bitcoin), its continued dominance is precarious.

It is a system of control that is only as strong as its weakest links, of which there are many.

______________________________________________

Acknowledgments to the excellent work of Richard Werner and the HumansAreFree website for its comprehensive documentation of the Rothschild history.

Special acknowledgments: to long-time supporter, Jan Bogusz, who passed away last month, David R for his continued sponsorship and  Erik S for his donation last month. Thank-you, gents, it’s most appreciated.

Anyone who wishes to support the work of RM is kindly directed to the donate button on this page.

 

6

THE BANKING CON – A STARK REMINDER

The Immorality of Banking –  a plain tale

Of Old King Coal, fake LOBO loans and illusory debt, exposed to the bones.

I have written many times about the fraudulent nature of the banking system;  I have even fallen prey to its genocidal ways and co-produced a film about it, TGBMS.  I’m not going to stop writing about it either, so long as it is necessary to expose its immoral machinations for what they are.

Money and its creation is the world’s biggest religion. It holds everyone in thrall.  It is a racket that permeates every aspect of our lives, no matter which level of so-called society we find ourselves at.

As Michael of Bernicia states in the trailer to the aforementioned film,

‘What would you do if you knew that every bank loan was a complete and utter fraud? That the banking industry is a huge con?”

Some might, quite understandably, take the view that he who has been tricked deserves to be tricked. After all, if he was unable to see through the con trick at the time it was played, then more fool he. Were we not warned via the programming of the brand known as Shakespeare, to be wary of usury and Jewish money lenders (The Merchant of Venice)? Was it not laid out clearly to us in Hamlet? –

Neither a borrower nor a lender be,

For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.

Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 75–77

And what of Jesus overturning the money-changers’ tables in the temple?

When everyone and everything is in hock to the banksters, one cannot help but think, how did it get to this? The history of banking, its use of fiat currencies, of usury and the hidden practices of credit creation via the honourable promise to pay are there to be explored by the critical thinker and it behoves him to do so at the earliest opportunity.

How and why so many fail to understand the fraud that is committed by the banks every minute of every day is a question which can be answered by a brief examination of the state’s deliberate policy of dumbing down the population via its programme of mass schooling. Notice I state schooling and not education, which is something completely different.

Schools exist not to liberate the individual and inspire him to become whatever he so chooses to be but, rather, have been created to deliberately dumb down the people into a collective mass of stupidity which neither knows of nor cares to understand the matrix of deceit that has been constructed around it. Standardised tests measure the ability to regurgitate information – it is the Frankfurt School of thought whereby shit in equals shit out. The masses are effectively dumbed down and those who can parrot, without question, the information they have been fed are rewarded with the jobs in ‘human resource’ organisation and other low grade service sector positions of management. They are paid according to how well they tow the line. They are not paid to think:

“Mass dumbness is vital to modern society. The dumb person is wonderfully flexible clay for psychological shaping by market research, government policymakers; public-opinion leaders, and any other interest group. The more pre-thought thoughts a person has memorized, the easier it is to predict what choices he or she will make. What dumb people cannot do is think for themselves or ever be alone for very long without feeling crazy. That is the whole point of national forced schooling; we aren’t supposed to be able to think for ourselves because independent thinking gets in the way of “professional” think-ing, which is believed to follow rules of scientific precision.” John Taylor Gatto, The Tyranny Of Compulsory Schooling

Few of us escape this tyranny and its effectiveness is amply demonstrated by those who are most supplicant to the collectivist mindset: politicians of all hues.

Politicians are not only incapable of thinking and acting outside the fake paradigms of the state, they are jointly and singularly, notoriously self-serving. It doesn’t take much research to demonstrate that fact.

Yet the pretence that they are there to serve the people continues to linger.

It is their self-serving egoic modus operandi that leaves them wide open for manipulation by the deep government that controls the puppet show commonly known as politics, a theatre where ego abounds and honour is dead.

Can we imagine how things might be if those who work in the political field actually did so with the interests of the people at heart, rather than the promotion of state-corporate-collectivist agendas? A collection of individuals who were not subject to the fake left-right paradigms?

Whilst I remain dubious of any politician and his intentions, I was pleasantly surprised by Donald Trump’s support of the coal miners, which can be read about here.

Imagine if a British leader came forward like Trump and announced legislation that brought back the mining industry and its associated industry?

“It is time to acknowledge that the decision to close the coal mines was a catastrophe for the people of this nation. Communities were destroyed, families torn apart and the nation’s independence was compromised to such an extent that we now have foreign companies purportedly owning much of the country’s power industry. It is time to reverse that. The rich coal seams that exist across the lands and off shore will be reopened and an associated power generation scheme will mean the establishment of efficient, non-polluting energy.

 

In the meantime, we will also be funding alternative sources of generating electricity via Tesla technology and over-unity devices that will serve to resurrect the latent steel and engineering industries, which have similarly suffered over the last 5 decades.

 

Engineering will once more come to the fore in the isles of Britain, after all, we have a rich history of invention and innovation. The government will no longer be taking up fake loans from the usual coterie of Rothschild dominated banks. Instead, the Great British Pound will be printed by the treasury, free and clear of usury, which is to be outlawed in accordance with the ancient laws of these lands. Community banks will be established and special funds created for the commencement and revival of these industrial initiatives. No longer will we be held to ransom by the private interests of the Bank of England and its associated licenced minions in the credit industry.”

Could you imagine the stooge May doing it? Or even the Fabian puppet Corbyn? Would that happen under the current political regime?

Not a chance.

And yet, the coal reserves underground and off-shore around |the British Isles remain substantial enough to reestablish the self-sufficiency in power production that was until only recently a hallmark of these lands.

“There are vast coal resources beneath parts of Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and NE Leicestershire (henceforth referred to as the Yorkshire-Nottinghamshire Coalfield). This coalfield has been extensively and intensively exploited for hundreds of years, particularly since the industrial revolution. Over 400 collieries were open at its peak in the late 19th and early part of the 20th Century. Over the centuries mining has gradually advanced to the east, exploiting progressively deeper seams. Nottinghamshire’s pits were some of the deepest in the country. For example, Bevercotes (opened in the 1960s but now closed) and Harworth have shafts more than 1000 m deep.” source

Following the brutal destruction of the coal mining industry by the Thatcher government, the country is left in the ridiculous position whereby,

“Currently 40% of the electricity we use is generated from coal-fired power stations and UK Coal supplies the fuel that makes 4% of the country’s electricity. This means that 70% of the coal used to generate the nation’s energy is imported from places such as Russia, America and Colombia.” source

So, a country that was self-sufficient in coal just a generation ago is now dependent upon imports simply because a draconian government fraudulently auctioned off the industry to the carpet baggers? Is that not an extreme state of affairs?

Indeed, we currently live in an extreme state, where ‘Benefit fraud’ leads to jail. But banking fraud? Where does that lead?  Usually, a cover up or a slap on the wrist fine for whichever bank has been caught operating fraudulently, wth the proceeds ending up who knows where, but most likely in her Maj’s Treasury. That is extremism personified.

“In 2009, James Crosby admitted that HBOS had engaged in High Risk lending and putting client funds at risk – and the SFO reported “over $200 million still missing and unaccounted for” in their Press release in 2008 – huge moneys,still not found!  This is demonstrably because of Fraud at the Board level of HBOS PLC (James Crosby was the FCA’s deputy chairman at the material time engaging in insider dealing it appears, and pulling strings – with no punishment for these gross violations of Public trust).” E Watson.

Anyone who does not believe the banks are effectively acting as the deep state would do well to note this:

 “Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and David Rockefeller’s intellectual flunkey: “The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organised life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”

For now, at least, the banks are running it. The Great British Mortgage Swindle is an example of how the banks steal money via the very homes we live in and the LOBO loans taken out by many councils from c. 2003 to 2012 are another stark example.

Lender option borrower option or lender’s option borrower’s option (LOBO) is a long term borrowing instrument available in the United Kingdom. They involve periodic interest re-fixings, which incorporates two linked options:

 

lender’s option: option for the lender to set revised (usually higher) interest rates at predetermined interest reset dates such as annually.

 

borrower’s option: linked option for the borrower (exercisable only if the lender’s option is exercised) to pay the revised interest rate or to redeem the bond although that may involve exit fees.

 

They are provided by banks and the loan contract runs for between 40 and 70 years. There is no regulatory body responsible for overseeing their use … Campaign group Debt Resistance UK researched LOBOs using the Freedom of Information Act.Banks, such as Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), provide LOBO loans to about 240 UK councils (63% of all councils in 2013) with a total value of £15 billion. Out of this £15 billion it is estimated that about £1 billion in upfront profits was made by the lenders. LOBOs are currently almost a fifth of all council borrowing.

 

LOBOs were recommended to councils by specialist financial advisers who, unknown to the council, were in turn paid commission by the banks providing the LOBOs.

 

At least 12 councils have the most expensive types of LOBO loan. Most of these have “inverse floaters” taken out with RBS – interest rates for the loan are increased if general bank lending rates decrease.

 

As a direct consequence of making repayments on LOBOs, councils have had to make major cuts in services to their residents. It has been calculated that if councils were free to relinquish their LOBO contracts at no penalty and instead borrow at a more typical market rate it would save them about £145 million for 2015 alone. Some councils are considering taking legal action.  source

For instance, take Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire: this comment from the local newspaper summarises it neatly:

“Kirklees have L.O.B.O loans for £500 million to be repaid in the future, you are paying £4 million a year interest, you seem reluctant to mention this. I suggest everybody googles lobo loans and and Kirklees liability it makes interesting reading.” source

Interest payments on the purported loans are taken to service the debt directly from the people via unlawful council tax. A fake debt at that. Just like a mortgage. No consideration by the banks. No disclosure as to how the credit is created and disguised as a ‘loan’.

Huddersfield Town Hall.

Little wonder said council has just added 10% to its council tax bills. The politicians who took out the loans have fecked up and the ‘tax payer’ is footing the ever rising ‘bill’:

“Hear Hear I have tried to get the Kirklees L.O.B.O. loans mentioned in the Examiner in the past but the subject seems to be taboo, but they are one of the main reasons why Kirklees is in such dire financial straits, with massive interest repayments and no accounting for what these loans were used for!”

 

“Well said David, my estimate of £500m is on the conservative side for 30yrs interest, couple this with £500m unsecured pension liabilities and Kirklees has a future deficit of 1Trillion. Perhaps unqualified Sheard and Turner would care to comment?” source

 

Read more on LOBO loan swindle here and here.

These LOBO loans are widespread:

“Newham council, Labour 60 / 60, took out 27 loans at a face value of £563m which now cost £959m. Sir Robert Andrew “Robin” Wales is Mayor on £80,029 / year and oversaw a £111m project to relocate council offices, including £18.7m of design and refurbishment costs.”

 

Update: “Britain’s most enthusiastic council for taking out Lobo loans, Newham, has ditched the scheme saving up to £100 million.

Newham has agreed with its lender, thought to be Barclays, to overhaul £248.5 million of Lobo loans — an acronym for lender option borrower option — and move to traditional fixed-rate borrowing.

It will save £1.6 million a year over an almost 60-year period, or £94 million in total.” source

The bottom line? If one borrows something, then one has to give it back. Whether it be a lawn mower, a hole punch or someone’s pet chimp, it has to be returned to its owner. Simple.

The councils who took out these false loans have had to make massive cutbacks in public services just to keep up on the interest payments – repayments can run for 40 to 70 years.

It is yet another massive swindle.

The corollary of this is plain. Did you borrow anything? If not, then you are under no moral obligation  to ‘pay it back’. How could you be?

It is a question of morality. How much fecking clearer can it get?

If no actual loan takes place, then how can you pay it back?  And that point applies to councils and companies just as much as it applies to individuals. The LOBO loans have lead to cut backs in museum and library services, to name but two in Kirklees alone.  And all because the fake loans and their criminal interest rates have to be ‘serviced’.

Says who? Do they really have to serviced?

Someone with balls would do well to demand that the usual suspects, Barclays and Royal Bank Scotland actually prove they made a loan from their own coffers and that the credit extension was not simply created via a few strokes on a computer keyboard. All loans are created out of thin air!

If it is simply an extension of credit, facilitated by the administrative procedures of the bank, then from where does the moral obligation come to ‘pay it back’? Nothing has been loaned. No deposits, bank or customers – the loan has been created out of nothing. It is merely a conjuring trick.

The Icelandic peoples demonstrated what happens when the banksters are told, in no uncertain terms, to feck off with their fake debts. When will a British Council do the same?  The game is up and it is surely only a matter of time before the whole rotten edifice of the banking racket crumbles and falls away.

FOOTNOTES

Britain’s considerable coal reserves:

http://www.nmrs.org.uk/mines-map/coal-mining-in-the-british-isles/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593032/Coal-fuel-UK-centuries-Vast-deposits-totalling-23trillion-tonnes-North-Sea.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10885210/Scotland-sitting-on-vast-coal-reserves-miner-says.html

Acknowledgements: thanks to Steve K for his kind donation and, as ever, David R for his continued support of the work at RogueMale.

Anyone wishing to show his appreciation of the site is encouraged to do so via the Paypal link. Many thanks.

1

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑