Pseudopandemic
Page 53
Sources:
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210512122823/https://theindependentpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/COVID-19-Make-it-the-Last-Pandemic_final.pdf
[2] - https://archive.is/lDEYl
[3] - https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43385/9241593903_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[4] - https://in-this-together.com/Wdh4hd/GHG.pdf
[5] - https://archive.is/TJwO
[6] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22366993/
[7] - https://archive.is/lhZr8
[8] - https://archive.is/MIkMe
[9] - https://archive.is/Nzvvt
[10] - https://archive.is/9GRaQ
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210101020712/https://apps.who.int/gpmb/assets/annual_report/GPMB_annualreport_2019.pdf
[12] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210215085717/https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6824-2019-10-key-findings-and-after/05bd797500ea55be0724/optimized/full.pdf
[13] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200710090810/https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/pdfs/Clade-X-exercise-presentation-slides.pdf
[14] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201117190142/https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/darkest-winter/
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201117190142/https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/darkest-winter/
[16] - https://archive.is/8cqwG
[17] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201001044333/http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2007-0334/DEP2007-0334.pdf
[18] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101033241/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/927770/exercise-cygnus-report.pdf
[19] - https://archive.is/nue7q
[20] - https://archive.is/BBPQl
[21] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210313175735/http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf
[22] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210410164724/https://gbsn.org/network/gbsn-members/
[23] - https://archive.is/nes5b
[24] - https://archive.is/QefPf
[25] - https://archive.is/3WVxP
[26] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200805070812/https://www.fintechfutures.com/2019/06/icc-2019-moscow-an-interview-with-dmitry-samartsev/
[27] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sberbank_of_Russia
[28] - https://archive.is/iELGU
[29] - https://archive.is/kpfCZ
[30] - https://archive.is/Rp9YD
[31] - https://archive.is/XlDvl
[32] - https://archive.is/zDnQE
[33] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210409103042/https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Maurer_Nelson_FinCyber_final1.pdf
[34] - https://archive.is/CxAFO
[35] - https://archive.is/P1ddz
[36] - https://archive.is/6sakG
[37] - https://archive.is/Qg9CX
[38] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210512151609/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/985033/Draft_Online_Safety_Bill_Bookmarked.pdf
Chapter 25 - Money For Nothing
The core conspirators and their informed influencers possessed the means, opportunity and motive to commit the pseudopandemic fraud. Their control of a global system of compartmentalised authority and immense wealth gave them the means; their control of political, economic and public health policy, coupled with their dominance of the mainstream media enabled them to seize upon the COVID 19 opportunity. They were motivated by their desire to create a biosecurity based technocratic form of global governance. The purpose being to steal all of the Earth's resources, control global society through allocation of those resources and ultimately drive us to extinction, replacing us with a new humanoid species under their command.
Despite the evidence we have considered to this point, some may still struggle to accept that a tiny group of individuals could possibly possess sufficient resources to orchestrate a crime on the scale of the pseudopandemic. Yet if we understand how money is created, it not only becomes easy to see how so few can control so many, it becomes difficult to imagine how they could not.
Professor Carrol Quigley was a professor of History at Georgetown University in the US. Considered one of the most eminent political historians of the 20th Century he was also a consultant for the US Department of Defense, the United States Navy, the Smithsonian Institution and the House Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration.
Quigley investigated and studied the Round Table movement which began with Cecil Rhodes and came to fruition under Lord Milner. He soon discovered that they were closely tied to international banking and finance and had been working behind the scenes throughout the early decades of the 20th Century to create what they referred to as the "the three power world." [1] This was planned to be a world dominated by three centres of authority. The British Commonwealth and the US (the Anglo American Establishment), a Europe dominated by Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Bloc.
In Tragedy and Hope [2] and the posthumous publication of the Anglo American Establishment [3], Quigley systematically catalogued the activities of this network. To say this was historical revisionism would be an understatement. It overturned our world view entirely. Everything that we thought we knew about our place in modern history was transformed by Quigley's research.
To this day it is not the history we are commonly taught but other notable historians and independent researchers, such as Anthony C. Sutton and G. Edward Griffin, have corroborated the evidence underpinning much of his work. Quigley described a single organisation who were committed to creating a system of one world governance under their control. The method they favoured was infiltration.
They or their representatives, both the informed and the deceived, took up key positions within the world's most powerful institutions and organisations. Most notably financial and political institutions, the intelligence agencies, global corporations, educational, scientific and medical institutions, workers unions, philanthropic foundations and the media.
Quigley outlined their objectives:
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
This network has not remained static but has rather evolved. The British imperialists soon had to share their dominant position with the new money of the US industrial and other banking and corporate titans. Their various projects such as the League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union [4] have each had their problems.
At the centre of this system of "rings within rings within rings" sits the parasite class and within them the core conspirators. By virtue of being the only people with the power to create money, they can dominate the global economy and thereby every institution they choose to infiltrate.
The parasite class are not "elite," they are neither wizards nor lizards. They are just people who possess a warped ideology, immense wealth and extreme authority. Mistakes and set backs happen and the parasite class' plans do not all run smoothly.
Through their policy think tanks, intergovernmental organisations such as the G7 and G20, their intergovernmental agencies like the WHO and the IPCC, and now with the increasing influence of corporate institu
tions like the WEF, immeasurably wealthy philanthropic foundations, like the BMGF, and NGO's like the WWF, the methods for wielding authoritarian power have adapted as they have centralised. This Global Public Private Partnership has matured into a global network of stakeholder partnerships.
The parasite class have the ability to create nearly all money from nothing. They can simply print or digitally assign it into existence. Only we have to work to obtain it. They do not. The only limit on how much money they can create from nothing is the State franchise's (government's) and the public's willingness to borrow and any regulatory restrictions they wish to impose upon their money creation stakeholder partners. Money is debt and it is created through the monetisation of debt.
In 2014 The Bank of England (BoE) published Money Creation In The Modern Economy [5]. In it they stated that most money in the economy exists as bank deposits. They explained that the primary mechanism for creating these deposits are loans:
"Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits."
To appreciate how this scam works consider the balance sheet of a commercial bank. It is made up of assets and liabilities. An asset is something in the bank's possession which has monetary value. Examples include cash, government bonds or loan agreements (contracts), and they sit on the left side of the balance sheet. On the right are the bank's liabilities. A liability is an obligation to pay an agreed sum (an IOU.)
If you borrow £1000 from a commercial bank it doesn't have that £1000 in its vault. Merely by tapping some numbers into a computer, the bank records the loan agreement you have with them as a £1000 asset and then credits a deposit of £1000 into your account. This deposit is the banks obligation to pay you the sum of £1000 and it records this as a liability on its balance sheet. Via the act of lending the banks has simultaneously created £1000 in assets and £1000 in liabilities.
No business on Earth, including multinational corporations, can function without credit unless the people who run it are wealthy enough to fund it. Therefore the ability to control credit is economic control and this translates directly to political control and thus policy and subsequent social control.
The interests repayable on credited loans is how commercial banks makes a profit. The bank records the total amount repayable as an asset. If you agree to pay back the loan at 5% interest over one year the commercial bank's balance sheets would show an additional £50 asset. You then use the bank's liability (the credited deposit) in the real economy to buy goods and services up to a total value up to £1000.
The bank has created £1000 of money from nothing, purely by creating a deposit as a debt. This is called broad money. It is the money households and businesses hold as deposits in banks. In their article the BoE explained:
"Broad money is made up of bank deposits — which are essentially IOUs from commercial banks to households and companies — and currency — mostly IOUs from the central bank. Of the two types of broad money, bank deposits make up the vast majority — 97% of the amount currently in circulation."
The BoE assert that 97% of all money in circulation is an IOU issued by a commercial bank and the other 3% is cash, which is an IOU issued by a central bank. Commercial banks buy cash at face value from central banks when they need it. They can only do this either through a central bank loan or by trading assets. There is also a cost of manufacturing (minting) cash (coins and notes) which the central bank passes on to the commercial bank. These charges and interest payments on cash are called seigniorage [6].
This means that all money in the productive economy (broad money), whether in the form of cash or a bank deposit, is a debt repayable to the controllers of the commercial and central banks. In theory, when you repay the loan you reduce the banks assets and liabilities in equal measure. Therefore, paying a debt removes broad money from the economy.
Commercial banks do not use broad money themselves. Every bank, building society and financial institute that can create credit (money) has an account with a central bank [7]. Their central bank balance sheet determines the commercial bank's reserves. Banks use these reserves to settle debts with each other in a process called interbank settlement. These reserves are accounted for using different form of reserve money called "base money." This is entirely separate from the broad money used by the rest of us.
Using our example, the commercial bank's £50 profit, made from the deposit, is not broad money. The commercial bank's £50 profit is a base money asset.
Banks can also use central bank base money to lend to each other. The is called interbank lending and the profit made by the lending bank is determined by the interbank rate.
When this is done internationally the currency exchange rate also has an impact. Exchange rates fluctuate and are set when the rate matures (after two days trading). An average interests rate, based upon selected currency maturities and values, called the London Interbank Offered Rate [8] (LIBOR) is calculated daily. This sets the fluctuating international interbank rate when banks extend short term loans to each other.
This has an impact on credit finance the world over. The payments on credit cards, car loans, adjustable-rate mortgages and other debt monetisation products we commonly use, fluctuate in keeping with the interbank rate.
Economists are taught that banks operate a model called fractional reserve banking. The BoE's own post graduate financial regulation qualification course [9] educates future economists and financial regulators to believe in fractional reserve banking. The course introduction states:
"You’ll learn about the theory and practice of traditional areas of monetary policy and financial regulation.. You will study the fragilities in fractional reserve banking."
The “theory” suggests that a commercial banks ability to create money is restricted by their regulated base money reserve requirement. Economists are initially taught that the fractional reserve requirements, combined with set percentage lending increase over and above reserves, called the money multiplier, inhibits lending.
The banks can supposedly only lend (create money) in proportion to their reserves. By adjusting the ratio (reserve requirement) between broad and base money, the Central Bank is supposedly able to effectively regulate the amount of money commercial banks can create.
The BoE largely dispelled the money multiplier myth in their 2014 article:
"Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach... There is assumed to be a constant ratio of broad money to base money.. While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality. Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks today typically implement monetary policy by setting the price of reserves — that is, interest rates."
The BoE claim that a commercial bank's loan agreement with you will be registered as a £1000 asset and the corresponding deposit as their liability on their central bank balance sheet. In this way creating a £1000 of broad money simultaneously creates a £1000 of base money. In practice, commercial banks can also register other assets, such as bonds, with the central bank, so it isn't quite that simple but the theory is as alluded to by the BoE.
The commercial bank's £1000 liability to the central bank must be repaid with interests determined by the base rate. In our example, if the base rate is 1% the commercial bank must repay £1010 of base money to the central bank. Consequently, once you repay the broad money loan, the commercial bank has made a profit of £40 in base money and the central bank a profit of £10.
Again it isn't that simple as commercial banks also pay interest to savers, bond coupons, seigniorage etc. But the principle suggeste
d by the BoE, accepted by economists the world over, is that the base rate (interest rates) somehow limits the profit viability of creating money for the commercial banks. This is how central banks claim they manage "monetary policy." This isn't entirely true either. Their control is negligible.
In an important peer reviewed paper, that few will acknowledge, economics professor Richard A. Werner [10] empirically proved that commercial banks create money from absolutely nothing. In his paper Can Banks Individually Create Money Out Of Nothing [11] He gained direct access to a commercial banks balance sheet and then took out a €200,000 loan to monitor the effects on the bank's assets and liabilities.
Prof. Werner observed:
"The bank did not transfer the money away from other internal or external accounts, resulting in a rejection of.. the fractional reserve theory."
He showed that a deposit, brought into existence by a loan credit agreement (the creation of broad money), was treated by commercial banks as "a loan to the bank." The deposit did not belong to the borrower, it belonged to the bank. It was a contracted credit agreement between the borrower and the bank for which the bank expected repayment plus interest.
The bank had no need to reference either its capital or its central bank base reserve balance. This ability to create money from nothing effectively meant that the commercial creation of broad money simultaneously created base money reserves for commercial banks. The commercial bank created the broad money (as credit) entirely independently. Professor Werner explained what this meant:
"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."
Yet this is the money we use to buy everything. It is the money we go to work to earn. When our salaries are paid into the commercial bank these become deposits and, as such, are their liabilities. It is money they claim as their own and they expect repayment for loaning it onto existence, having created all of it as credit from nothing at all.