Tonight Friday at 8 p.m. Lawful Rebellion Night

Tonight at 8 p.m. Lawful Rebellion Night: "We will be kicking of at 8 p.m. with a pre-recorded speech by Roger Hayes of Lawful Rebellion followed up by a general discussion interspersed with video and audio clips of Lawful Rebellion in action.

Call It ConspiracyThe GreeningShakeout: How to Profit From the Greening of the Gold Mines

The War and Invasion Iraq, Libya and the Dollar

Iraq, Libya and the Dollar

 

“Some believe it [the NATO/US-led Libyan invasion] is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.
It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.
“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and Chief Editor of the Daily Bell.  (1) (2)
The attempt by Libya to create a new gold currency was backed with the vast amount of gold that Libya has collected over the years. At current conservative estimates Libya has 6.5 billion dollars woth of gold bullion stored. (3)
This proves that the Libyan plan to create a new gold currency to replace the dollar, and for Arab oil producing states to demand gold in payment for oil sales instead of the US dollar, was not some pit in the sky scheme – it was a well planned and well funded threat to the US control of the worlds oil sales via the dollar being the primary currency in such sales.
The invasion of Iraq was also based on two primary factors – Iraqi oil and the fact that Saddam Hussein planned to stop selling Iraqi oil in dollars and switch to the Euro. (4)
This is also the reason many suspect behind the threat to attack Iran, as Iran has also claimed it wishes to replace the dollar as the primary trading currency in its oil sales. (4)
The fact is that the Dollar as a currency is worthless. Its value is based solely on the fact that the United States controls the sale of oil through the dollar being the primary currency in which oil is traded around the world.
” The economic essence of this [post Bretton Woods] arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its
dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. ” (4)
If the Dollar were to be replaced by a new currency in relation to oil sales then this would result in the total collapse of the dollar as a global currency and destroy the American economy.
Therefore any nation state that threatens to undermine the dominance of the dollar and its control over global oil sales, will suffer what Iraq and Libya have suffered.
Iran is also in danger as well if its oil bourse progresses from the small trading mechanism at the moment to an large scale trading mechanism that is supported by other oil producing states. (5)
The fact is that the corporate media in Britain, Europe and America is not a free press, it is the Corporate Press and they are two entirely different things. The corporate media are as much dependent on the supremacy of the dollar as the American government, for a collapsed dollar would wipe out the value of
the global media corporations. Fox News, CNN, Sky News and all those other media groups are all as dependent on the dollar as the rest of the US economy.
A free press prints the truth whilst the corporate media print only lies and corporate propaganda.
This is why the propaganda we see about the Iraq War was based on lies, e.g. that the war was about searching for WMD and stopping Saddam’s missiles that could hit London in 45 minutes, all of which was revealed to be lies.
This also why we see the Libyan attack is peddled to the masses as a ’humanitarian mission’ when in reality it is Oil Imperialism and a war for the protection of the Dollar.
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse
(2) http://strategyunit.blogsome.com/2006/01/21/iran-crisis-another-war-for-oil-bourse-and-the-us-dollar/
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12833866
(4) http://www.thedailybell.com/2226/Real-Cause-for-Gaddafis-Expulsion-Wanted-Gold-Currency.html
(5) http://investmentwatchblog.com/has-the-un%E2%80%99s-intervention-in-libya-been-about-the-libyan-gold-dinar-mexico-central-bank-buys-gold/
One of the main debates about the real basis of the US and NATO attack on Libya has focused on the most obvious reasons, that being Libyan oil, but specualtion is now focusing on the even more interesting issue of Colonel Gadaffi’s attempt to create a new gold currency for Arab and African states to trade with instead
of the dollar.
origonaly published at http://freedomnewsnetwork.co.uk/

Force Pro multicultural MEPs Live in the “Enriched” Part of Brussels, Says Nick Griffin

Make MEPs Live in the “Enriched” Part of Brussels, Says Nick Griffin

  News Team at http://www.bnp.org.uk/

Nick Griffin MEP has called on his pro-multicultural peers in the European Parliament to practise what they preach and move their operations to one of Brussels’ move “diverse” areas.
Mr Griffin’s suggestion was in response to a study group looking into closing down the Strasbourg Parliament and moving the Plenary Sessions to Brussels.
A report titled “A Tale of Two Cities” for the Brussels-Strasbourg Seat Study Group identified that a large majority of MEPs – about 90 per cent – would prefer to meet only in Brussels. But last week, the French Senate adopted a resolution stating that all the European Parliament's activities should be moved to Strasbourg and that the Strasbourg city council has also adopted a similar resolution.
Asked for his opinion on the issue, Nick told the Study Group:
"I agree entirely that, in order to reduce the waste of taxpayers' money, there should only be one seat for the European Parliament.
“However, since liberal capitalist immigration policies have turned Brussels into a crime-ridden, multi-cultural slum, I suggest that Strasbourg would be preferable.
“But if we are forced to stay in Brussels, I propose that Parliament should buy a block of flats in the most 'enriched' part of the city and make MEPs live there, in order to allow them to enjoy the same benefits of immigration as so many of their poorer constituents."
More than 30 per cent of Brussels’ population is foreign-born, mostly concentrated in the north and west sides of the city, in the Molenbeek, Saint-Josse and Schaerbeek communes, which are home to a large Moroccan community. More than a quarter of the city's inhabitants are Muslim.
Brussels was hit by Muslim riots in 2009, when police were attacked with Molotov cocktails and gas cylinders, and an immigrant crime wave in 2010.
The city has the highest unemployment rate in Belgium, over 17 per cent, and in some areas, youth unemployment is as high as 50 per cent. Many neighbourhoods are considered no-go areas for indigenous people and policemen.
Ironically, European Parliament employees have been on the receiving end of muggings as they have travelled to and from work in the city.
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

PM Cameron Offers Another Juicy ‘Anti-Immigration’ Carrot – and Proves the British National Party Was Right

Cameron Dangles Another Juicy ‘Anti-Immigration’ Carrot – and Reveals the British National Party Was Right

  News Team at http://www.bnp.org.uk/

By Maid of Kent – With plans announced on Monday of a proposed ‘clampdown’ on distant relatives of immigrants being allowed to enter the UK temporarily for family reasons, David Cameron has unwittingly revealed the truth behind the ‘official’ immigration figures – and revealed that the British National Party has been right all along about the real numbers arriving in our country.
However, as usual, this loudly proclaimed clampdown is another Lib/Lab/Con sham to conceal another development in their loss of control of our borders.
While loudly trumpeting their proposed crackdown on immigration abuses in the puppet mainstream media, the Lib/Con government omitted to mention that on the same day it is being obliged by the Courts to abandon its requirement that a marriage or civil partnership involving someone subject to immigration control must have prior permission from the Home Office.
This Court-imposed ruling means that the government will have no control over immigrants using scam marriages as a means of entering the UK and automatically becoming eligible to claim the full range of state benefits.
So this loudly proposed crackdown is nothing more than an attempt to bury bad news and to keep the real truth from the British people.
Announcing a ‘drastic reduction’ in the issue of temporary visas so that only children or parents of immigrants will be allowed to travel to the UK, Home Office figures reveal that around 49,000 distant relatives of immigrants used this scam route to enter the UK last year, and had no intention of leaving.
In a recent speech, Home Secretary Theresa May announced that in 2004 more than two-thirds of the 63,000 people who had entered Britain on temporary visas to visit immigrant families were still here five years later.
That works out at 42,000 extra and officially uncounted immigrants in one year alone.
As readers of the British National Party website have known for years, the officially announced numbers of immigrants coming to the UK from non-EU countries have only included the ‘primary’ immigrant known as the head of household and have not included any of that primary immigrant’s immediate or extended family, who either arrive with him or follow at some time after.
As each primary immigrant can be responsible for an average of 22 other people entering the UK, a figure that does not include their British-born children and grandchildren – and the British-born children and grandchildren of the other 22 – it is not difficult to understand why large parts of our country are populated by non-EU immigrants and their descendents and why the native British people will be a minority in their own homeland within a few short decades.
Naive Britons who do not read the truth on this website have been convinced by decades of ‘official’ and dishonest Lib/Lab/Con government figures, which only count ‘primary’ immigrants and not their extended families, that the numbers arriving here are far less than they actually are.
In addition to the true figures entering the UK are the high birth rates of many non-EU immigrants, whose UK-born children are then counted as ‘British’.
In another ‘proposed’ crackdown announced today, Immigration Minister Damian Green plans to scrap the right of appeal for applicants who have been refused visas to attend weddings in the UK. This follows a previously announced ‘crackdown’ on the abuse of student visas – these two scam immigration routes accounted for 343,000 extra immigrants last year alone.

BRUSSELS Bureaucrats Waste £225Million Plus of Taxpayers’ Money pro‑EU Propaganda

BRUSSELS bureaucrats were slammed yesterday after it emerged they plan to spend more than £225million of taxpayers’ money next year on pro‑EU propaganda and spin.

The shameless plans were discovered in the small print of proposals for an inflation-busting 4.9 per cent rise in the EU’s total budget for 2012.

The details emerged on Europe Day – an annual ­commemoration of the first step taken in 1950 to create the union. It drew ­demonstrators on to the streets of Britain to shred the EU flag in a major snub to Brussels’ demands for it to be flown across the entire bloc.

Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe thinktank, said: “Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for PR exercises that vainly try to make them love the EU. The EU needs reform, not more spin.”

Nearly half the proposed budget, £115million, would be spent on administration and more than 1,000 staff in the EU’s communication division.

A further £84million would go on “informing about policy”, while some £25million is earmarked for events and publicity to promote Europe.

Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for PR exercises that vainly try to make them love the EU

Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe thinktank

Within the proposed package, £31million would be spent over the next four years on “information events” aimed at ­journalists to help “connect” the Commission with the ­people by ensuring they can provide “reliable and timely” coverage of the EU.

Ukip leader and Euro MP Nigel Farage said he feared a “sinister” attempt to “indoctrinate” journalists, adding: “Do they think journalists, or the public, are stupid? No amount of money or PR can make people like the EU or stop the press reporting the political reality of Brussels.”

A Commission spokesman said the communications budget added up to less than 0.2 per cent of the overall EU draft budget.

Yesterday two Government departments flew the EU flag. Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable hoisted it over his offices in Westminster and it was also raised above the Department for Communities and Local Government. Downing Street, however, refused to fly the flag.

Ukip member Ken White organised a protest against Europe Day in Maidenhead, Berks, where a pair of garden shears were used to shred the EU flag.

He said: “Why should the EU demand we fly their flag. The whole thing is so undemocratic. We must fight this.”

A protest also overshadowed yesterday’s celebrations at the European Parliament in Strasbourg. In a major embarrassment for the EU, politicians from the UK, the Netherlands, France and Denmark held up their national flags.

Mr Farage, who led the ­protest, said: “We have never voted for this EU flag or anthem, nor has anybody else in Europe voted for it. It has no legitimacy whatsoever.”

Europe Day commemorates the anniversary of French Foreign Minister ­Robert Schuman’s call for a coal and steel community – the forerunner of the EU.

Changes to French immigration law mean sick could be deported

Changes to French immigration law mean sick could be deported

 May 2011 by Giuseppe De Santis.

It’s a well known fact that the NHS wastes billions of pound every year treating people that shouldn’t be in the UK in the first place when, at the same time, many native Britons are denied vital drugs because they are too expensive.
Below is an interesting article published a few days ago on Radio France International about a plan to prevent immigrants getting treatment in France.
Maybe its time for Britain to do the same.

Louise (not her real name), a 42-year-old Nigerian woman, is sitting in a hospital room in Argenteuil, a northern Paris suburb. She’s been here for several days.
Doctors have figured out that she has a stomach infection, but they are running more tests because she is HIV-positive.
Louise came to France in 2008, because she says she had problems with the Nigerian government. Even though her request for political asylum from France was turned down, she is still living here legally, because of her medical condition.
She says she had no idea she had the disease until doctors performed medical tests when she arrived in France.
“I had to do blood tests, urine tests,” she explains. “The nurse then asked me to come see her. She said ‘I’m very sorry your result is no good’. I say ‘what happened?’ She said, ‘you are HIV-positive’. I started crying.”
When she talks about being HIV-positive, Louise becomes very quiet and her eyes tear up. She says she has had to have psychological treatment, because she was considering suicide when she found out.
“When I came to France I was a normal person. If someone had told me four or five years ago that I have this illness, I would have slapped that person,” she says.
Her situation is not unusual. Dr Pascal Reveau of the Comede, a group that helps immigrants obtain medical care France, says most immigrants who have HIV or hepatitis don’t realize they are ill until after they arrive.
“Ninety per cent of them discover their status here in France,” he explains. “This means that less than ten per cent know they are infected, and they did not come here to get their HIV or hepatitis treated.”
In other words, people come to France for other reasons – often like Louise, they are asylum seekers. It is only once they discover they are sick that they apply for a residency permit for medical reasons.
Some 6,000 people do so each year, most for post traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), according to Dr Reveau. Others have hepatitis, HIV/Aids or other, non-transmittable problems like hypertension, diabetes and asthma.
Authorities determine whether or not someone should get a residency permit by asking a doctor for a certificate that answers three questions: Is the person suffering from a disease? Is the disease life-threatening? And is the treatment accessible in the home country?
This third question is key. The law as it currently stands refers to the accessibility of the treatment in the home country, which is determined by looking at country reports from institutions like UNaids, the WHO and the EU.
The modified law would change the wording slightly: instead of asking
‘Is the treatment accessible?’, it asks ‘Does the treatment exist?’
This is a subtle word change, but one that Dr Reveau says makes all the difference.
“Accessibility is a precise, public health expression,” he says. It has a specific meaning, unlike existence. “Existence is something either very broad or very narrow, and it depends really on the people who will be interpreting it. Existence could mean that the drug appears on a list in the country. But this of course has nothing to do with availability, affordability and accessibility. It could not be in the country because of problems with the organisation of the health system, because the drugs are not stored properly.”
He’s worried that in a climate of budget cuts and rising anti-immigrant sentiments in France, the mere existence of a drug in a country will mean more foreigners will be denied the health care they need.
This, he says is not just bad for people who are sick, but detrimental for French taxpayers as well. If they are not treated, they will end up in hospital emergency rooms.
“The less they will treat themselves, the more they will come to emergency services, and the more it will cost,” he says. “We think this is very dangerous for the health system in France.”
It will also cost more, he says, because more cases will end up in court on appeal.
Regardless of the cost, though, for Reveau, the issue is an ethical one.
“The way you treat the foreign people is the way you will treat the people who are not foreign,” he says. “The way I treat my human counterpart is the way I will be treated also. So what is my future?”
The French Senate and Parliament are at loggerheads over the bill, so on Wednesday a reconciliation committee meets to find a compromise.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

The Games They Play – Council Tries to Dupe Candidates into Signing “Equality Contracts”

The Games They Play – Council Tries to Dupe Candidates into Signing “Equality Contracts”

  Mon, 09/05/2011 - 17:30 |  News Team

By Cllr Clive Jefferson – The letter below was sent to all our candidates in the Amber Valley one week before election day. The “Derby Racial Equality Council” is another taxpayer-funded quango set up to harass the indigenous people of our Nation and is just another string to the bow of the forces amassed against us.
The contract urged all council candidates to sign it to “demonstrate [candidates’] commitment to serving Derbyshire [sic] diverse communities”.
The threat implied in this outrageous letter was that they were going to publish the replies they got and send all the details to the local and national media. What an outrageous thing – to ask a candidate to sign up to what in effect is a contract to promote multiculturalism if elected.
We advised our candidates to reply that they where standing for election to promote the rights of the indigenous population and not to promote the failed multicultural
experiment forced on our people by groups such as the Derby Racial Equality Council.
This is just another example of the forces and the finances arrayed against our candidates and is a timely reminder just why we stand by our principles against such people and such organisations.


If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

You Get What You Vote For! When You Vote Labour

You Get What You Vote For

  News Team at http://www.bnp.org.uk/

On the day after the elections, violent Muslims promising more terror attacks in Britain took to the streets of London, just after the verdict for the inquests into the 7/7 bombings was announced.
Muslims clashed with police outside the US embassy in Westminster as they staged a mock “funeral service” for Osama bin Laden.
Protesters held signs that proclaimed “Islam Will Dominate The World” and “Jihad: To Defend The Muslims” and warned that vengeance attacks were “guaranteed” after reports of the al-Qaeda leader’s killing by American forces.
The protest was organised by Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary, who has praised both the 7/7 and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The former leader of the outlawed al-Muhajiroun and member of the poppy-burning Muslims Against Crusades extremist group demanded that the US return bin Laden's body to relatives.
Choudary said: "There will be one million Osamas. Muslims will remember Osama as a great man who stood up against Satan. Many will want to emulate his acts.”
Another protester, Abu Muaz, 28, from east London, added: "It is only a matter of time before another atrocity – the West is the enemy.”
The demonstration was especially insensitive because it came on the same day as the verdict on the 7/7 inquests was reached, just three miles away, at the Royal Court of Justice.
The verdict released by Lady Justice Heather Hallett recorded that the 52 victims had been “unlawfully” killed when four Muslim terrorists attacked three London Underground trains and a bus in 2005. The coroner also criticised MI5's handling of terrorist cases, warning that poor record keeping could allow flawed decisions to slip through with "dire consequences".
The clashes come just after the “news” that London has become a hotbed for terrorism, after a WikiLeak cable revealed 35 Guantanamo Bay detainees had received terrorist training in London mosques.
In other parts of the UK, Muslims held public “funeral prayers” for bin Laden. In Cardiff, a reported 100 people held a “service” in the city’s Despenser Gardens.
Organiser Abdul Haq, 26, said the prayer was held “out of respect to bin Laden as a senior Muslim”.
Haq said whether bin Laden was a terrorist or not was “irrelevant” as “first and foremost he was a Muslim” who should have been tried in a Sharia court.
“People can be offended or upset, but at the end of the day a Muslim was killed and we are offended that his body was not handed over,” he said.
The huge numbers of terrorist and pro-terrorist Muslims in Britain is a direct result of decades of LibLabCon open-door immigration policy. The traitor parties’ refusal to deport openly terrorist-supporting radicals, coupled with their illegal wars in Muslim lands, will ensure that the Muslims’ threat of another terrorist attack in Britain will surely become a reality.
If you voted for anyone other than the British National Party – or didn’t bother to vote at all – you got what you voted for, and you will get a lot more of it.
If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party  website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Muslims’ Paranoid Victim Mentality 

May , 2011 

By Amil Imani
As a group, Muslims are paranoid and suffer chronically from the disease of victimization. That is, they either victimize the helpless whenever and wherever they can, or scream murder against the strong. This mentality is one of the many bequests that Muhammad left for his Ummah.
Recall that Muhammad himself bemoaned his victim plight in Mecca, packed his bags and fled to Medina where the Jews were not as vicious as his own Quraish tribe operating the lucrative tourist business of the idolaters.
Then the infighting started in earnest among the various factions, as soon as Muhammad died. People began jockeying for power and doing their Muslim-best to destroy their competition. Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law was elbowed out of the way by the more powerful disciples of the Prophet and had to wait his turn to head the already fractured and feuding Ummah.
A number of the faithful resented the fact that Ali was not allowed to take over the reign. Some felt victimized by Omar and his powerful conspirators and hated Ali for not standing and fighting like a man. Some real stand-and-fight Muslims decided that Ali should be punished and he was knifed to death on his way to the mosque.
The death of Ali was the real stirring of the hornet’s nest, so to speak. All kinds of power struggle, infighting and bloodletting started among the followers of the religion of peace.
Ali’s boys, namely Hassan and Hussein, decided to salvage their dad’s honor by standing and fighting like a good Muslim should, as well as enjoying the perks that come with being the leaders of the gang.
So, a real fight was joined. On the one side was Yazid with his mighty army and wealth, and on the other side were Hassan and Hussein with their rag-tag band of followers. Hassan was killed unceremoniously in short order, but Hussein was not about to bow out. Hussein started a dialogue with his adversary, Yazid.
Hussein: I am the rightful inheritor of the house of Muhammad. I demand that all believers, including you Yazid, accept me (bayat) as the head of the Ummeh.
Yazid: Nothing doing man. Muhammad’s Ummah is not a family business. It is the faith of Allah that must follow his laws. The people select the most righteous man as the head of the faith, just the way the Caliphs did. The faith of Allah is based on meritocracy and not heredity.
Hussein: You are wrong, Yazid. My granddaddy started the business, my daddy gave his life for it, my brother was murdered to claim it, and I intend to take what is rightfully mine.
Yazid: Hussein, you seem to be just as stubborn as Hassan. You are not amenable to reason, so let the sword of justice settle our dispute.
So, you know the rest of the story. Hussein stubbornly refused to relinquish his claim to the powerful Yazid and ended up with his head cut off by Shimr, impaled on a spear and presented to Yazid as a trophy.
The followers of the house of Ali and his lineage, a minority of about 10 percent of the Muslims, felt victimized by the evil Yazid. Since there was very little these lovers of Ali’s house could do to materially change things, they assumed the role of victim. Year after year, century after century, they commemorated the victimization events of the time of Hussein, have beaten and slashed themselves bloody for their ancestors not going to the aid of Hussein, and bloodied themselves all aimed to atone for their ancestral sins.

A young boy flagellating himself during the festival of Ashura, when Shia Muslims commemorate the death of Hussein, grandson of Mohammed.
Well, the Yazid-Hussein bloody drama was some 1400 years ago. Isn’t it time to let go? Why is it, particularly to Iranian Shias, that they just keep on continuing and promoting the tragic events associated with two Arabs fighting for personal power?
We Iranians don’t have a dog in this fight. In fact we should rid ourselves of all Islamic stains, Shia, Sunni, or whatever, and with it stop playing victims of one power or another. Playing victim may give psychological relief but doesn’t solve any problems on the ground. And problems of the ground we have aplenty.
Again, give it up my countrymen. Enough playing victim: victims of the Jews, our perennial excuse that we have been using to victimize them whenever we can; victims of America; victims of the Crusaders. We are victims alright: victims of Islam that invaded our land and implanted a raft of pathological ideas in our heads.
Victimization is an Islamic disease. Islam, irrespective of sects, either victimizes the people it can, or plays victim to the real or imagined oppressors. This victimization mentality is at the root of Muslims’ backwardness and primitiveness.
We Iranians are descendants of an optimistic, enlightened, and positive people. We are the children of Cyrus the Great and not blind slaves of an Arab cult called Islam. Islam has brought us nothing but misery. Let go of Islam; bury it along with the memories of two Arabs, Yazid and Hussein, who fought for leadership. Don’t bloody yourselves for ten days every year to bemoan Hussein’s plight. All of Islam is not worth one drop of an Iranian’s blood. And blood we have given to this blood-sucker Islam by [the] barrel-full.
–§–
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen, a pro-democracy activist, novelist, essayist and literary translator who writes and speaks out for the struggling people of his native land.

The Con-Trick Which is Our Fractional Reserve Banking and Money-System

The Con-Trick Which is Our Banking and Money-System

Written by Mark Haynes   originally publish at http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/

In light of the Con-Dem coalition’s planned imposition of austerity measures, meaning severe public spending cuts and tax rises, and the consequent destruction and damage to many of the British people’s lives and living standards, I thought we should examine our banking/money-system and it’s history, which has lead our nation to such a ruinous state of affairs. We have in this country (and much of the world), a debt-based money-system built on the fractional reserve lending principle, where banks are allowed to lend usually up to ten times the amount it has on deposit in loans. The history of this system can be traced back to medieval times, when in some fateful moment a moneylender realised that the essence of any viable money-system is confidence, and that once this confidence had been established, a very lucrative magical money-trick could be performed. Goldsmiths dealt with precious metals, and out of necessity provided safe storage for this treasure, which people out of fear of robbery would deposit with the goldsmith. (2) The goldsmith’s started to charge a fee for this safe-keeping service, and to loan out coin and bullion to the community. They became moneylenders who realised that once they established trust in the community and a reputation for integrity and honesty they could issue promises to pay on paper backed by the real wealth in their vaults, these Goldsmith’s notes were the next stage in banking development when the paper receipts for coin/bullion deposits began to be used as the medium of exchange and means of payment. The goldsmith/moneylender next discovered that as long as the people believed in the convertibility of their promises to pay into gold or silver, such promises could be issued far in excess of any actual physical holding of precious metal. Experience taught the moneylender that only one in ten of his clients at any one time would actually come to demand payment in their physical gold or silver money. This being the case the moneylender could make loans totalling ten times the value of the coin and bullion reserves in his vaults, charging interest on these loans, safe in the knowledge he would not have to produce the physical coin/bullion to his clients. With this discovery the fractional reserve banking system was born, whilst it lead to an unprecedented economic expansion, it also gave control over this expansionary credit system to the bankers/financiers (1)The numbers in your own bank account were all created, essentially out of nothing, not by the Bank of England or the Royal Mint, but by commercial banks. (2)The banks are able to create this ‘number money’ through the accounting process that they use to make loans, using a business model known as ‘fractional reserve banking’. Rather than taking money from a saver and lending it to a borrower (as per the common understanding of banking), they simply write new numbers into the bank account of a borrower – effectively creating new money. Without seeing the process in action, it can be a little hard to believe, so below are a few quotes ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ which confirm this amazing fact: “…by far the largest role in creating broad money is played by the banking sector… when banks make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed the money.” – Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2007 Q3 “Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money.” – Paul Tucker, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England & member of the Monetary Policy Committee “… changes in the money stock primarily reflect developments in bank lending as new deposits are created.” – Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p378 “…the banking sector plays such an important role in the creation of money. Changes in the terms for deposits will affect the demand for money, while changes in the terms for loans will affect the amount of bank lending and hence money supply.” – Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p383 “The money-creating sector in the United Kingdom consists of resident banks (including the Bank of England) and building societies.” – Quarterly Bulletin 2007 Q3, p405 Bank deposits (the numbers in your bank account) now make up 97.4% of the total quantity of money in the economy[1]. By volume of payments, bank deposits are used for 99.91% of transactions and transfers5, with cash being used for just 0.09% of transfers [2]. Consequently, the physical currency issued by the state has been almost entirely replaced by a digital currency issued by private companies. The UK’s money has been privatised. The ‘Rules of Money’ Under a fractional reserve banking system, there are two ‘rules of money’: When a bank makes a loan, it increases the amount of money in the hands of the public8 (by increasing the total quantity of digital bank deposits). When a member of the public repays a loan, it reduces the amount of money in the hands of the public (by decreasing the total quantity of digital bank deposits) Consequently, through excessive lending between 2000 and 2008, banks were able to double the money supply in just 7 years – an increase in the total money supply from £884 billion to £1,674 billion [1]. All the ‘Money’ in your bank account represents someone else’s debt since all the number money in your account was created by banks making loans, this means that for every pound in your bank account, someone else is in debt by an equal amount. In fact, due to compound interest, the public’s debts are now greater than all the money that exists in the economy. According to Bank of England figures, if the UK public collectively took all the money in our bank accounts and used it to pay down our debts, we would end up with no money at all and still owe £306billion (plus interest) to the banks! [3] In other words, we now have a debt-based money supply issued entirely by private, profit-seeking companies. Our money supply has been effectively privatised. The damaging effects of this system to the economy and society are numerous and severe. Implications of Fractional-Reserve Banking There are two important implications of fractional reserve banking that affect everything that happens in our economy and society: Banks have the power to shape Britain’s economy through their monopoly on the supply of money to the public and to businesses. If they invest wisely in productive businesses, they can help the economy to grow, but if they choose to pump the money (bank deposits) that they create into housing and commercial real estate, we get destabilising asset price bubbles and a severe financial crisis. Judging by their track record, should we entrust this huge power and responsibility to an industry concerned solely with short term profit, rather than the health of the wider economy? As the sole suppliers of money to the public, if banks lend, the economy functions. If they don’t, it grinds to a halt (as in the credit crunch). Our economy is completely without a stable, permanent money supply, and entirely dependent on the mood of the banking sector. Who Should We Blame? Many people are angry at the banks, or individual bankers. But the truth is that it is the government who sets that ‘rules of play’, and successive governments have failed to reform the banking system at the right time. Instead, after every crisis, the government and authorities focus on getting back to business as usual. They focus on ‘getting banks lending again’ without questioning why we are all so dependent on bank debt to keep the economy functioning. So we should blame all those successive governments who have repeatedly failed to fix the banking system, but the pressing concern is to do something about it. But we also need to make sure that they don’t make the same mistake again. We need to make sure everyone understands how the banking system really works, how money is created, and how we can fix the system. When British Freedom comes to power it should take back from the private banking cartel the sovereign right of a duly elected government to create the nation’s money-supply, issuing it debt-free into the economy. It should end the taxpayer subsidy of this corrupt, fraudulent banking system built on debt and usury. (1) http://prosperityuk.com/2002/05/money-for-the-people-by-the-people/ (2) http://hubpages.com/hub/Growth-of-Banking (3) http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/whats-wrong-fractional-reserve-banking/