EUexit is not about money, it is about Freedom

There are two sides to BRexit - the economic and the political. The reason why businesses do not have a vote is: society is comprised of people and people are, supposedly via the ‘social contract’, represented by government.  Business interests are of relevance but the economic is secondary to the political in terms of the interest’s of the people. 

Just because the economy and business would do better that would not, for example, justify having a despotic totalitarian government.  People come first.

Businesses have to fit-in with the political landscape that is generally best for people. That does not mean businesses needs are of no relevance, clearly society needs a thriving economy so it is greatly a balance. 

Where there is a fundamental people rule. Exiting the EU is a political fundamental. If the EU was just a common market as originally described we would still be a willing partner I am sure. But it is not. The EU has become a political construct and it is that which has been firmly rejected by a majority of British people in a democratic referendum. 

Live with this change. We will adapt. Stop whining about economic downsides because that is not what is important. Leave understands the political need for independence.

Money and Currency

Money is a store of wealth that may be possible to use as a means of exchange and currency is a means of exchange that may be possible to use as a store of wealth.  Definitions are important.

Offshore Tax Avoidance & Cameron's Panama Hat

Another stage-managed 'leak' of documents enamours the world as this time the mainstream media tell tails against the ready made usual suspects of most wicked who have been off-shoring their wealth in tax-havens.  Naughty naughty.

Strange it is that amongst this cast of pantomime villains David Cameron, Britain's own beloved leader, is probably 'at it' too as it is evident his deceased father was an expert in the tax avoidance industry and operated companies to manage his wealth outside of the reach of the UK tax-man's grasp.

Strange it also is that David Cameron makes oblique statements about if he and his family derive benefit, or will someday derive benefit, from something that in all probability, near certainty, beyond reasonable doubt, exists: a substantial pot of gold buried on a treasure island with a pirate's map only they have possession of.  Why else would his father have formed off-shore companies with board meetings in Switzerland and all if there was no more than the £2.5 million declared in the UK at his death.  That is not enough ever for a decent London house these days.  We can see; David's wearing a Panama, we can see.

The retching hypocrisy is only illustrative of the quality of the material that survives the political system to rise to the top.

But in the wider scale of things, outside of the blatant perfidy, I am happy the wealthy work so hard to conceal and protect their lucre from taxation and death duties.  It is a war of attrition.  The higher taxes are the harder more wealthy folk will work to find the loopholes.  But the harder it is to find the loopholes the higher taxes will become.  If taxes were very low avoiding them would only need to be a little bit complicated.  As taxes rise most taxpayers would take prudent steps to avoid incurring them if it is simple and economical to do so.  High wealth tax payer's desire to invest in tax avoidance mechanisms helps keeps tax levels low.

If it is to be believed; JK Rowling famously admits to paying UK taxes without taking advantage of avoidance strategies and yet she is still one of the richest people in Britain.  How can this be?  She is a world wide best selling author and clearly has won substantial royalties all round but it is not like she owns and controls a giant global petro-chemical industry or media and aviation empire.  Her publisher's should be earning a few bob too and on other writer's works also.  Could it be she is showing that almost all the truly well-off do not have their money as visible as she does.

Apparently most multi-millionaires are self-made.  Is that because they fritter their spoils away in later life or is that because their eventual beneficiaries have trust-funds and off-shore investments made ready for when the time comes to pass it on.

The various means of tax planning for the wealthy are not the exception they are the norm.  You do not get to earn a fortune to let half of it vaporise in death duties, you do not have that mentality.  You do not pay more in tax than you can legal avoid either.  And the more that is at stake the more time and fees you will invest to hold-on to it. That is just good business.

None of this simple commercial reality for the taxation of the prime yielding human-herd tax-livestock is not known to the policy setters.  They understand.  And more; they understand that the ultimate tax-avoidance includes exiting the nation with all your wealth.  People would rather be rich overseas than taxed into poverty.  People would rather live on their wealth than slave away to earn nothing after the tax-man has took it all.

There is a competitive market in the provision of a national tax-efficient environment and top of that game has been for years the United Kingdom - not for the residents, the domiciles, but for the non-domiciles it is treasure island incarnate, with shops and shows and glamour.  The UK is the biggest off-shore provider, especially in combination with its extra little tax havens dotted here and there about the world.  For the international money/power super-rich there has been nothing else like it.  Until now!

It is becoming apparent that for the globe-trotting ultra money clique the USA is sharpening its offer of hush-hush trust facilitation and with good reason.  Having their money in your banks keeps your 'printed' money in demand and, in the event of a global central banking funny 'money' over-issue crises there is nothing better than to have the rich of the world all keeping their eggs in your basket to focus their attention on keeping the USD then durable for a while longer still no doubt.

Remain a United Kingdom - Kiss EU Goodbye

What are you worried about, Dear Remmenents, what? Economic predictions, guesses, assumptions, estimates, opinions for the effect our nation's exit will somehow cause. Well my prediction, my guess, my assumption, my estimate, my opinion is that it will be all for the better and in the long term I am truly confident of that. But such matters not are the primary to me.

I want freedom, independence, autonomy, I want the established balance of the political and legislative system, that has been developed, tuned and worked so well in this country for so very long, to REMAIN. I am not voting to EXIT I am voting for this nation, to my mind the greatest mix of people and social system in the history of the world, to remain, remain a sovereign entity.

Even the language is false. Remain is the language of security, safety, ease. Exit is the language of fear, risk, the unknown. These are the choice of words that a Kafkaesque government would want to frame the question to err the minds of the gullible and pliant towards their version of 'truth'.

And such petty fears, of the remmenents, are just as simplistically formed by others too. Remmenents busy themselves with questions of business, finance and commercial interests when what should be foremost in their minds is enduring freedom. What poses the greatest risk? Being a part of a new, still forming state comprised from a hotchpotch of countries who have seen more shifting of boarders and powers in a hundred years than Britain has seen in ten thousand. If they want safety they are misguided as to the real nature of the real threat. The real risk.

It is not about short term prosperity it is about long term freedom.

The Suffocation of Economic Central Control

Centralised control, whether 'the state' acting as if the market or, ostensibly, the 'market' acting as if 'the state', fails (as does tickling yourself fail to raise a chuckle).  What central 'control' is supposed to do is 'sense and react' and therein lays the two fundamental problems:

1/. the input is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be sensitive enough, accurate enough, smart enough to take account of every permutation)?
2/. the output is always going to be faulty (how can such a system be reactive enough, delicate enough, effective enough to take account of every permutation)?

And that does not take account of the two secondary problems, (problems that would remain even if the system of centralised control, be it faux market or state, did not suffer from the two fundamental problems):

a/. the centralised control is always going to attempt to manipulate the market by way of attempting to provide favourable conditions bias to suit its own agenda
b/. the faulty outputs and bias manipulation of the centralised control will distort the market away from the form it would otherwise naturally be drawn to.

Centralised control treats the economy as though it is one big thing and that then all the micro commercial activities will feed from that initiative, as if little piranhas swarming onto whatever gigantic carcass has been fed to them.  That may be fine for feeding identical fish but the economy is rightly comprised of totally disparate elements - it is an ultimately diverse ecosystem.

The great thing about diverse ecosystems is that, left alone, they manage themselves.  There is still a form of centralised control of economies but that is because: each and every element of the whole is a self regulating economy in itself.  The effect of each element, free to act in its own best self interest, is that a system of each element's independent economy acts upon a plethora of spontaneous and autonomous sub-economies to effectively create a whole.

It is not only imposable to replicate or replace the effectiveness of this type of system, it is unnecessary to try (unless the intention of influencing is for one sub-economy to do so in order to attempt to change the whole for reasons of self-interest).  It is unnecessary to try to replicate a system of sub-economies because: since the sub-economy system is so refined and reactive it cannot be bettered for servicing the interests of the sub-economy system as a whole.

There is no such thing as 'the economy', it is just a conceptual idea to explain the 'system of sub-economies' as a whole, just as there is not such thing as a forest, that is just a word for the conceptual idea of many trees, plants, animals living together in one place, symbiotically acting as a if a whole too.

Separation of the Economy from the State

Whilst we have 'the state' I do not see how it can release the control it effects over economy if only because politicians, businesses and other special interest groups will always have control or influence over the government and therefore the institutions of the market. It is not possible to have those acting as 'the state' submit that status because, by the very existence of 'the state', there will always exists a means for 'special interest groups' to have influence and control, especially influence and control over the economy.

It is not possible to have these institutions of the market and of government constructed and enforced in such a way that there is a separation of the economy from the State. The cause is not the 'way' the institutions of the market and of government are 'constructed and enforced' but rather, simply, that 'the state' and its institutions exist and therefore have influence and control. Clearly: if we did not have 'the state' we would not have that means for special interest groups to influence and control the economy or need to attempt to construct and enforce a government in such a way that there is then a separation of the economy from idea of 'the state'.

Is BitCoin a Bit of a Con?

What is interesting about Bitcoin is it has been a 'proof of concept' and the concept is now fundamentally proven. So what is next? As with the emergence of the WWW there was this 'eye of the storm' period when, for a while, the systems were in place and nothing much occurred. Then came the DOTCOM bubble. From the ashes today's enduring players arose: formed and consolidated. It appeared to me that nothing much was initially happening because nobody wanted to deal with companies and brands they had no historical knowledge of in the bricks-and-mortar world. Once these friendly faces emerged people went on-line and started shopping with them and soon also with a few notable internet born exceptions: Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay.  I recall Amazon was 'the one' - the big newcomer ground breaker.

Bitcoin has been victim of its optimistic supporters in so much as people have speculatively invested in Bitcoins whereas that is not its real purpose. It is first and foremost supposed to be a means of exchange - that is its strength. But as a means of exchange it has not started to be truly useful. I cannot see making my larger payments say from UKP to JPY is really helped by using Bitcoin as the mechanism of transfer. It needs me to hold funds as Bitcoin and sellers to want to do the same and that is a long way off. It is an unknown and subject to sharp value fluctuations.

Now if the IMF came up with a son-of-Bitcoin that was indelibly tethered to their SDR basket of currencies the day of the digital coin would happen immediately. And if every major bank offered access to the same service too: people would start doing business. This I predict is what is going to happen.

Now all that is fine and dandy but the Bitcoin has one more feature that I presume could not be the case with an IMF-SDR digital-coin which is: Bitcoin is not a fiat currency - there is a finite volume of possible Bitcoin algorithms - so Bitcoin will tend to grow in value if and when its uptake becomes more prevalent - be pro-rata deflationary with growing usage.

The people who understand this make the bulk of the speculative investors today and they have at least 'keep the wheels on the wagon' to this point in time. Bitcoin's potential growth in value yet to come is roughly (optimistically) equated to the value of all the fiat money in the world today.

Will it happen. I think not. There may be a limited volume of Bitcoin's possible to produce but there is no limit to the introduction of other technically comparable digital-coins that could share the supposed same deflationary quality (limited volume). So the idea of a limited volume is not really correct.

I predict there is a place for Bitcoin as an early market leader, an established brand, but it will be joined by a plethora of digital-coins backed by known brands and entities, including maybe even digital versions of existing national currencies, a PayPalPunt, an AmazonAmericano, an AppleSeed and the soon to be popular RothschildRenminbi. The water could become very muddy.

The only survivor could be the 'block-chain' which manages the Bitcoin records amongst other tasks too. But since the block chain is the keys to recording every financial transaction conducted I am very doubtful of its continued independence. I think the UN will claim that crown as the corner-stone to its new global tax regime. Then we can start to understand what may lay behind this anonymous experiment as has been similarly suspected of apparent 'new start' IT providers throughout the history of the digital revolution.

See also: Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

Your Property is the Last Resort of the Fractional/Central Banking Complex

I do not have a fundamental issue with a fractional reserve banking system nor with a central bank as a banker's lender of last resort. What I do have an issue with is 'the state' using its monopoly power of violence based coercion (the threat and use of force) to tax the people and underwrite that central bank.

In a stateless society people could legitimately offer banking services which employed a fractional reserve method of money creation and dealt in a form of money brought-about in this way. These banks, by way of assurance of their eventual solvency, could employ the services of central banks to effectively 'insure' their ability to repay depositors.

What those stateless central banks could not legitimately do is force the public to underwrite their losses. It would then just be up to the prospective customers of such banks to judge if they believed their deposits were safe in such institutions. And if those banks went bust the owners and directors of the bank would be liable to the creditors for their losses, every penny of their personal assets would be liable for forfeit.

So I think it is important to, truthfully and accurately, identify the real 'elephant' in this room. The elephant is not money, not fractional reserve money creation, not the bankers, not the banks, not the central banks, not even the inflation of an over-produced fiat currency. The elephant is the relationship between 'the state', money and banks, a relationship which indemnifies the banking system from its losses at the expense of an unwitting public.

It may be that the bankers have manipulated and cajoled 'the state' into the position of offering their commercial interests this indemnity (along with the protection of limited liability incorporation); that much is apparent to those who have studied the history of banking. But that is the prerogative of businesses: take whatever advantage you 'legally' can within the prevailing system.

Clearly 'the state' should never subcontract the function of the creation of money to entities outside of itself and yet continue to offer the resources of 'the state' to back-up that non-governmental commercial banking system. But whilst there is a central power, such as 'the state', it will always be at risk of being subjected to whatever pressures can be brought to avail. Pressures to turn the power of 'the state' into the service of those who would see that 'usurpation of power' gives them an irreproachable commercial benefit.

'The state' is, first and foremost, the mechanism by which the money-power and ruling oligarchy does their bidding. That is the purpose of 'the state' and all other apparent functions just illusionary 'window dressing' to fool the people into the belief that the role of the state is to serve the interests of the people.

Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

The drive toward a centrally issued single global currency appears to be a long desired outcome of the banking elites who substantially own, control and benefit from the central banking network about the world. 

As seen with the incantation of the EU, originally sold to the plebiscite as a trading union, the launch of the EURO single currency was widely understood to be unsustainable without the simultaneous total political and economic integration of the disparate independent nation member states.  This obviously intentional outcome was endlessly scoffed-at and robust derided but the conclusion, now it is upon us, is simple: the creation of the EURO was either implemented by utter ignorant fools or it was a covertly intentional device used to force the amalgamation of the independent European nations into a Greater Europe.

With Europe as the template moves are clearly under-way to enact the same set of circumstances in the forming of a North America political and monetary union and then undoubtedly further regional trade unions will be subjected to similar drives towards their forming political unions too.

It appears that simultaneous to that momentum the SDR mechanism will gain significance apparently with the objective of developing the SRD value into more than a IMF and central bankers device by allowing transactions to be conducted between parties in SDR values without need to exchange into any other of the root currency when making settlement.  No doubt when an SDR currency becomes established the demand will then be for, step two, the currencies included in the 'pot' to peg their individual rate to a given value.

The effect of this SDR based currency will be to draw the major currencies, and the separate sovereign economic states from which they emanate, into the same eventual and inevitable trap as that which the previously independent nation states of Europe were enticed.  So I conclude that it will be greatly as a result of this growing global monetary union from which a growing global economic and subsequently global political union will also be demanded and formed.

When rarely questioned, the political momentum behind this open conspiracy is justified and explained as the ambition to raise-up the poorer economies of nations across the world to parity and to bring about the end of war between separate sovereign nation states.  On the surface that may be so but at what cost?

The cost will be the lack of competition between states.  When each country has to vie in the 'market' against each other to offer the best environment for a flourishing social and economic condition, nations that make bad choices pay the price and learn from nations that do well and thrive.  People and business are drawn to the more liberal and successful nations leaving the tardy nations one simple option: change for the better.

The international central banking establishment is not the property of the nation states or their populous.  The mechanism behind the issue of money is the state-dependent corporate (read neo-feudal) and so clearly, at some level, all actually privately owned.  Issuing money is a vastly profitable enterprise and inflation adds a further cost to the use of money to the people who have it as any-sort of measure or store of wealth.

There is no better means for the enslavement of the people: all encompassing yet covert.  The banker's tribute is gathered by 'the state' by way of taxation to pay interest on debt and by way of the perpetuation of the system of 'the state' for their continued control and gain. Whilst money is monopolised in any way by 'the state' there will always be the propensity for this ultimate and fundamental tool to be usurped and used to profit against the interests of the population and for dictatorial control.

Capitalism, Corporatism and the State

There does not have to be a 'state' for Capitalism to work, indeed the free market is the very life-blood of a healthy economy and of a harmonious human society when unencumbered by 'the state'. The less 'the state' the more competition arises, the more competition arises the broader the economic and social benefit.

 

Corporatism is another matter and the two, Capitalism and Corporatism, should in no way be confused. Corporatism is utterly dependent on government to grant it faux personage, indemnity, patent, monopoly and privilege. True that Capitalism will seek-out whatever benefit it can derive from whatever medium in which it is set; and that includes taking whatever advantage it can derive and coerce from 'the state'. When Capitalism so feeds from 'the state' it morphs into Corporatism. That is not the fault of Capitalism that is one of the many faults of 'the state'.

End 'the state'. End Corporatism! Long live Freedom. Long live Capitalism. Long live the Free Market.

Slaves to the Banker State

The missing factor in the housing market equation is the lack of consequences or to express that another way: imaginary limitations granted to lenders and borrower's liabilities.

This is the fault of the state. How? If I lend the capital to a house purchaser and they default I suffer a loss - that focuses my mind as to the real risk and consequence. If my loans to borrowers were made with capital that I did not own but was nevertheless available to me as a result of, say, my substantial and consistent business cash-flow, that would be a risky business strategy, but I could argue I was still not actually 'trading insolvently' because the loan I had made formed an asset on my balance sheet.

How could I take such a risk (knowing if my borrower defaults I cannot pay my liabilities)? Easily if I have a state registered Limited Liability company (Ltd Co) and I measure the potential for profit exceeds the value of my Ltd Co should this loan default and the company go bust (unable to pay creditors). Most Ltd Co's do not see this sort of prospect as making commercial sense even with their directors enjoying Limited Liability protection because they do not see the potential for sufficient return against capital available and the prospect of risk as a viable equation (let alone its questionable legality within the scope of trading insolvently as a Ltd Co).

Yet banks do expose themselves to this risk. Why? Because they can create almost as much money as they require so long as they are either receiving deposits at a sufficient rate, are re-financing loans or are able to enjoy interbank lending to fund the loans they are making. And then the full risk is ultimately mitigated because the central bank will act as 'lender of last resort' should their house of cards threaten to fall. Whilst the beneficiaries of central banks are hard to identify the guarantor is not: it is the state. But what actually is 'the state'? The state is a conduit for the power of the forced taxation of human society.

The only viable and moral solution is to remove the link between the productive, wealth creation, ability of human society and the financial indemnification of all types company owners for their losses - especially banks. Bank's owners will be very focused as to the risk they are taking when they see all their private property, past and future, is at risk. Bankers want the all the reward for themselves and YOU to take all losses. Bankers have used a succession manufactured wars to indebt states to them and to force states to allow the grant of this present banking system. They have created repeated economic bubbles and crashes to force the state to borrow more of the money they create via the permitted wizardry of fractional-reserve-banking.

Whilst we continue to have human society controlled and bleed via a 'state' we continue to allow a means for the banking money power elites to tap-in to the life-blood of humanity, through the power of state taxation, for their own gains at the cost of all others. The only enduring protection is to end the state!

Unweaving the state's web by means of autonomous cooperation

The deeper and deeper the stupidity tangle becomes the more and more convolutions are added again and again to try and solve a knot so inextricably spun it can never be unwound by prescriptive means.  NEVER will be unwound by prescriptive means.

NEVER NEVER NEVER!

This is the lesson human society is going to have to learn:  the concept of 'the state' is a busted flush.  It is a horrendously out-of-date illusionary hangover from neolithic tribal ordering, from wolf packs, from street dogs.

Mankind can do better than this.  This reliance on the state coming to save us all, like a omnipotent god with special powers, like mummy and daddy caring for a little child, has to be seen for the illusion that it is and broken free from.

The two things the state does well is a/. self-perpetuation and b/. provide a mechanism for 'vampires' to feed off the productiveness of humanity.  At everything else it really really sucks!

I feel like I am one of very few atheists, a castaway in a world of utter religious maniacs, a population so deeply indoctrinated into an extremely dangerous false belief system that only a complete implosion of the 'order' they think results is going to shock them out of it.

There are no single answers for unwinding the inevitable knots human society will always weave.  That is why 'scientific socialism' is always destined to be a path of failure and collapse.  The answers can only be found from ground-upwards solutions found by human society, on mass, via naturally occurring activity evolving autonomously into securing the most durable and efficient mechanisms for the optimum fruiting of humanity.

' In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost....'
The Great Dictator's Speech
http://www.charliechaplin.com/en/synopsis/articles/29-The-Great-Dictator-s-Speech

Naked Capitalism and a more Natural World Order

The idea of 'privatisation of public services' rather infers that these services are still 'public services' just run on the behalf of the public by private enterprise.  There are anticipated merits in that approach, reducing waste, improving cost efficiency, cutting-out 'job entitlement', etc.  There are also disadvantages to privatisation such as excessive profit making and the need for continuous government supervision.  The real problem of state operated public services being privatised is not addressed just by privatising the operation but fundamentally still retaining the states monopoly over the service.  And that is not what is proposed by Rothbard.

What the "The Libertarian Manifesto" calls for is naked capitalism - unregulated by any form of state mechanism; because there is no state!  So any service the public generally wants to purchase is totally open to be offered by any business that wishes to tackle that market.  If the service provider provides a poor service/price equation people soon vote with their feet and that company goes out of business.  If a company offer a good package, insurance that includes a certain proportion of charitable contribution for example, people will buy their service if the offer is compatible with what they value.

Every example (I can think of) of capitalism taking unfair advantage of and manipulating the marketplace can be drilled-down to find eventually it is actually dependent on the existence of 'the state' and taking advantage of the authority and regulation of the state.

Monopolistic business practices in themselves are not actually a problem, a company that offers an unbeatable price/service in a free market deserves to, and will by default, gain a monopoly.  The problem comes when the monopoly is gained by means other than just an unbeatable price/service mix within a free market.  For example Standard Oil 'took' the market because it found a way to circumnavigate legislation designed to prevent such monopolistic practices.  Had the legislation not existed they would have been exposed to a market where every one of their competitors were also able to compete on a level field - including all attempting to work towards capturing a monopoly of the oil market.  By having prohibitive legislation the state effectively caused the unfair advantage.

That the state, or elements within the state, deliberately causes disarray so to force change or to make the change they provided appear successful (a strategy Common Purpose is accused of) is not an argument for keeping services within the state.  It is an illustration of why the state is not a suitable mechanism for operating such activities because the authority of the state can be, and often is, abused.

The state needs to justify its existence and does so by means of appearing to meet and by manipulating public perception.  Clearly a government that just taxes and builds fabulous palaces for an aristocratic class will not be well supported for long.  A government that is considered to provide 'law and order, economy and welfare, education and health, defence and diplomacy' may conversely look like they are providing not only a useful range of services in an optimal way but services imposable to fulfil without the involvement of a state.  Bernays was years behind the curve.

A relatively small proportion of taxes gathered is actually spent on providing this succor to the masses but it is an investment, of the people's money, well spent on behalf of the state; for it provides the state's government with a 'democratic majority' and therefore apparent legitimacy.  Democracy is a gift to those who would control the people since their willing compliance, in ignorance of the true situation, is a less costly and more productive form of enslavement than old-fashioned brutality and force.  All that needs to be done is to control the political parties, their candidates and have influence over of the bulk of the media.

Belief in the legitimacy and necessity of the state is the most prevalent delusion suffered by humanity.  The state is no more than a system of manipulation and control, quasi-religious in nature.   The world has a wealth of resources to provide an abundance for human society but distribution of wealth has always been hampered by our innate competitiveness.

The primary method for diverting wealth to the few has been social power, power of pack leader, tribal leader, priest, monarch, the state.  It is the oldest form of establishment - older than humanity itself.  This power establishment has been evolving into ever deepening consolidation and is reaching a point where nations are being melded into continental unions and those unions responding to a single central global governance. 

This is a dangerous time for human society - the risk is the nature and motives of the money-power that has sponsored the drive towards single world governance and the vulnerability of such a single system for tyrannical authoritarianism (multiplicity provides multiple fail-safes).  We stand at a crossroad where the choice is simply between accepting the drive towards this greater global state as essential and inevitable or smashing the paradigm and allowing humanity to operate in a more natural order without centralised control of any sort.

The Illusion of Money

Home-made money may not be accepted as 'legal tender' but anyone is free to buy and sell in any currency they wish. Just the state does not have to accept it as payment of debt and nor does anyone else.  If I buy and sell in JP YEN exclusively I must still pay my tax bill in UK Pounds.

Because of this the illusion is that the only good means of 'tender' is the state issued 'legal tender' and so there appears to be no real market for any alternative currencies, even those that may have clearly very substantial backing.

If there was an alternative currency of substantial backing and the state declared they would accept it by way of payment, recognise it as legal tender, it would potentially become useful and adopted.

But that is not going to occur simply because: if the new currency's backing is more resilient (not a fiat currency and so resistant to inflation) than the state's own tender (which is an inflationary fiat currency) we should all be able to workout what will result.

This is one reason why the state holds the monopoly for the production of their legal tender. The other reason is publishing a fiat currency is, well, like printing your own money.

So why does the banking system not take the advantage and publish their own currencies in competition with the state? (It would be easy to develop insurances for exchanging to state money for paying your tax-bills and the like).

Banks are not going to try to compete because it is the banks that actually produce a large part of the state currency, from nothing, with fractional reserve banking for which they are granted a monopoly by the state. So effectively they are already reaping in the benefit whilst getting the state to act as lender of last resort.

So why does a non banking organisation not issue a new currency? They could but the existing banking system would refuse to deal with it so an entirely independent banking structure would have to be put into place. Bit Coins is an example of this concept.

The Generation of a Generation's Debt.

The problem is the bankers have their losses underwritten by taxpayers. There will always be imprudent lending decisions whilst bankers usurp the authority of the state in this way.  If bankers did not have this safety net would they have lent anything to Greece in the first place - of cause not.

And this is far from over. Once all the world's banking systems and nations are fully propped-up with debt, interest rates will start to rise to the point that then the only payments will be interest, never making inroads onto the capital sum. The state is used to milk the taxpayer to meet the banker's never-ending interest charges for debts they created in the first place by vast imprudent lending.

And yet where does the money these international bankers lend come from. How come they have reserves so colossal they can make loans the major nations of the world cannot put-together themselves?
It is that these international bankers control almost all the world's central banks (not Syria's or Iran's though surprise surprise) so they actually are the ones 'creating' the money. These 'privately' operated central banks use the ability that should belong to the nation states of people of the world and then lend that money they create for nothing at interest paid to themselves.

It is a sick system that is constantly draining the abundance of the world away from humanity and perpetuating poverty instead.

The only good thing is usually the bulk of this sort of debt is generated by war.

The inner meaning of the Troikas Greek money shovel

Words play an interesting part in discerning the mechanisms of the state. So often the elite's selection of which betray unspoken truths, a desire for self-aggrandisement (ego), an element of deceptive spin along with the inner-culture's mocking and vaguely coded humour.

Obsequiously The Troika is a hearty Russian symbol, a winter sledge pulled by three lusty horses - hooray for our saviours! But this too, be cautioned, hints at the dark soviet heart lurking in the EU and the UN.

The Troika also references a Triumvirate, the Roman establishment's employment of Triumviri special commissions, of three men of equal power, assembled to deal with various thorny matters. That's the ego.

The spin is that Modern Greece has a history of Troikas or Triumvirate, occurring at pivotal points, and with not entirely negative connotations to the people of today.

And the jibe is the reference given in that the term sounds like Troy. Certainly these three gift bearing horses contain more than a nasty sting behind their tails.

Prism Planet

Anyone to which this flap over Prism is a surprise is, frankly, naive and ill-informed.  The only news to me was being introduced to this new name.

Five Eyes SIGINT or ECHELON has been known to exist for decades and was the feature of a European Parliament report back in 2001 where the threat of industrial espionage is understood as paramount. It is clear that every action on every phone and web based system, across the world, is possible to have been subject to intercept and likely subject of analysis.

 See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-0264+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

The technical possibilities remain unknown but it is evident that these systems employ super-computers of gigantic capacity capable of robotic artificial-intelligence analysis of all interactions and associations, including geographic, to seek-out correlations of interest and so identify subjects for closer observation and deeper analysis.

It is also clear these automated systems have the same ability to examine actual communications content, including spoken, on a wide and random scale to further identify and analyse targets of interest.

Whilst it is comforting to think this is only done to protect society from extraordinary threats it is evident even from the synopsis of the EU report, sighted above, that this system is prospectively used for a far wider mode of operation than that: ranging from industrial espionage to the political subjugation of other sovereign states.

But rather than the EU acting to curtail these activities the closing remarks of their 2001 report demonstrates no less than a jealousy and a desire to form the same system or to even integrate and share.

See P192 - 12. The EU's external relations and intelligence gathering

So I would ask the question (but do not anticipate an answer):  How deeply involved is the EU with Prism and indeed does it benefit from the intelligence derived, especially in relation to the EU member state's sovereign governments?

Whilst for the US to risk allowing the intelligence services of each and every EU member state to draw from the intelligence and analysis they derive from their vast network is improbable it is more likely a focused EU intelligence service would be considered a less risky partner to develop.

Once all the tools desirable to a draconian and authoritarian state have been put into place all that remains is for that state to arise, to become evident, when resistance will have be made all-but imposable.

The State is Mother to Little Ducklings

It would be nice to think the warm and cuddly state looks after folk just 'cause they want to take care of them all. Yes: people are seduced into replacing their 'want to be nurtured as if children' into adulthood - they remain as childish adults. The state cultivates this as a normality.

This is a ploy - a deception. This is an outcome of the state's mechanisms: from state controlled schooling, the growing excessive state interference with all important aspects of human existence; from healthcare to banal media culture to devaluation of family and tribe to stupefying politically correct thinking and such. It cultivates immature adulthood. It brings about a submissive and unquestioning populous.

But in fact it is not so good for the people as we are trained to think. It is brought about because people would not be seduced by a state that appeared to return nothing - that clearly just took tithes via the threat of force.

The state is a self perpetuating entity. No state works to reduce itself to the smallest role possible. And worse the state is not as it appears: not for the people and of the people. It is a mechanism of control and for the gathering of taxes, opportunity and advantages - wealth that far exceeds that which it returns.

The wealth is directed to the controlling oligarchy who choreograph the theatre of governments. The main route for money from this tithe gathering system is via the interest paid to the privately controlled central banking system alongside of a labyrinth of global corporates.

The humans are tax-salves, given just enough choice and independence to not clearly perceive their situation. They are the human-tax-slave-herd. Countries are tax-farms in which the human-herd produces.

Unemployment benefits costs jobs - who will work for less than they can receive for nothing. Meanwhile other have their profits taken to subsidise the non-productive.

Supplementary benefits just subside employers at the expense of the tax payer.

Minimum wages reduce employment opportunities.

The fact is that without these interferences from the state there will be greater employment, lower taxes, more production and greater wealth produced for all to befit from. Especially without the bloodsuckers who sup upon it all.

The global elite's government fronts need this mishmash to subdue humanity into a convoluted stupor of ill-educated poverty and run-ragged servitude.

So keep begging to suckling those measly drips of stolen milk at the bosom of the state or get a grip and produce your own abundance. There is plenty to go around.

Bank of England warn quantitative easing could lead to “unwarranted depreciation of sterling”

I did not appoint these fools. I did not sign-up for this. But it looks like I'll have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

When you have an unlimited and growing financial liability to which it can be demanded that you yield - with all the 'authority' of a government by way of its absolute powers of taxation and force - you are extremely exposed. Nobody in their right mind would accept such a liability willingly.

This so called 'quantitative easing' can only lead to “a depreciation of sterling”. That is obvious. The only reason depreciation would not be apparent is if every other currency is being produced at the same rate or there is seen to be an equivalent growth of value of the specific money producing nation's total economic resource.

The situation is clearly the former: depreciation is not so apparent, with sterling yet, because most other major currencies are being produced at a similar rate. But that does not mean the value of money is not falling, it just means the value of these currencies are all falling simultaneously (like an ill equipped international school of bungee-jumping).

 

And still inflation is not yet so intensely evident. Why? Because of deflation in so many market sectors due simply to the generally failing economy. There is no scope to increase prices of any kind of goods and services which folk feel they can, if need be, do without (because the market is so soft, disposable income so thin, without they will do).

 I did not sign-off for this maybe but categorically my kids did not in any way and so if you are born into debt that is indentured servitude or, put it another-way, slavery; TAX SLAVERY! And so it is. We are the HUMAN-TAX-HERD and this place we foolishly thought of as being 'our country' is nothing of the sort. It is a giant TAX-FARM. 

Who the beneficial owners are is not so clear - I say "follow the money". But our 'democratically elected' squad of muppits are just a foil of fake accountability and their boundless army of public sector money eaters just give them a virtually guaranteed mandate. Belief in the necessity of 'The State' (of any kind or form) is the most persistent and dangerous superstitious illusion of which I am now thankfully utterly free.

The paradigm of the necessity of the state is false.

It would be nice to believe that our conundrums are simply the result of ineffectiveness, inefficiency and incompetence alongside of greedy capitalists taking advantage where they can.  I do not think so.

I think, opposite to the apparent shambles being the result of poor planning and management, the slow death of the global economy results from a long-term global manipulation of central banks and the currencies they issue. 

The so called 'political leaders' are bit-part patsies who are selected to go along or be destroyed.  Democracy is a hollow sham devised to give the impression these people represent the interests of the plebiscite.

The desired outcome is to drive the current human-tax-slave tax-farms known as 'nations' into every deeper integration within a series of pan-continental unions and in turn drive those unions towards a single union of global governance; an ambition referred to, by our political masters, as the 'New World Order'.

Alongside of this is the necessity to draw the variety of currencies issued by this plethora of 'nation-state' tax-farms into similar pan-continental union currencies (the EURO the AMERO the AFRO etc), then represent their international transaction with a SDR based currency and eventually supplant all with a single global unified currency.

Conspiracy or Cock-up?

If everything that goes awry at the hands of government are just more and more cock-ups, please when do we declare the whole concept of the state a busted-flush - that it is a belief as muddled, deep-rooted but as wrong as that of religion (sorry bible bashers).

Or do we accept that the degeneration of so much, when so many great minds ponder endlessly upon all, is not all accidental but deliberate and failure is core to the perpetuation of the state; at which point we should too declare it to be a busted-flush.

The paradigm of the necessity of the state is false.