Winter Patriot Community Blog

(I have posted an addendum at the foot of this article)

In my last article, “Why Russia”, I indicated that Russia (including Ukraine) has been periodically under direct attack from organised jewry for the last one hundred years at least and longer than that indirectly. I mentioned that the jewish international bankers were the ultimate directors and financiers of these attacks. It may be worth repeating the quote from Leon Trotsky a.k.a. Lev Bronstein-

"We should turn Her (Russia) into a desert populated with white Niggers. We will impose upon them such a tyranny that was never dreamt by the most hideous despots of the East. The peculiar trait of that tyranny is that it will be enacted from the left rather than the right and it will be red rather than white in color. Its color will be red literally because we would spill such torrents of blood that they will pale all human losses of the capitalist wars and make (the survivors) shudder. The largest overseas banks will cooperate with us most closely. If we win the Revolution and squash Russia, on the funeral pyres of its remains we will strengthen the power of Zionism and become a power the whole world would drop in the face of on its knees. We will show (to the world) what real power means. By way of terror and blood baths we will bring the Russian intelligentsia into a state of total stupor, to idiocy, to the animal state of being.... And so far our young men dressed in leather - the sons of watch repair men from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitza - oh, how beautifully, how brilliantly do they master hatred of everything Russian! With what a great delight do they physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia ~ officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, agronomists, academicians, writers!" ~ Leib Bronstein (also known as Lev Trotsky) (Secret Forces in History of Russia. U.K. Begunov 1995, p 148) source

A very unlovely quote, for sure, but it is illuminating in that it ties together Jewish communists/revolutionaries with Zionism and International Bankers in common cause; a real live conspiracy against Russia. Of course, the peoples of many other countries have suffered from conspiracies involving these same international bankers. But Russia poses a particular threat to them at this time. Before elaborating on that, I want now to turn to the very simple sleight-of-hand mechanism behind the incredible power of banking that is used against us all before returning to Russia.

Banking in the hands of private individuals lies at the heart of the ills that plague and confound humanity the world over. Banking allows the people who control the system to dominate economic life in a nation. The wealth that comes from this control allows the bankers and their controlled corporations to buy elections and individual politicians. So they control a nation's internal politics and its foreign policy. The domestic policies and international relations of a country are then skewed to further the interests of the bankers who cause depressions and wars to increase their power and profits usually at the expense of the lives of ordinary citizens.

Bankers are able to get away with exploiting everyone else year after year, generation after generation, because they keep the general populace in ignorance of the truth of money. In this, they are abetted by peoples incredulity. From my experience, when people are confronted with the real workings of banking, they have great difficulty in accepting its truth. For a start, the explanation seems too simple for something that is the subject of much mystification and 'learned' discussion. Indeed, John Kenneth Galbraith, the famous American economist, said in his book, “Money: Whence it came, where it went”-
“The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it. The process by which banks create money is so simple the mind is repelled. With something so important, a deeper mystery seems only decent.”
.
But first, let us go back to the basics. Money is a measuring system that denotes value in terms of monetary units; dollars etc. So products or assets are said to be worth so many dollars, for instance. A building may be worth $10m but the building isn't $10m. Its value is a measure of how much money it might be exchanged for. To enact the change of ownership, $10m needs to be produced from somewhere, otherwise there is no trade.

So, money is also a means of exchange; an intermediary commodity that facilitates trade between all sorts of people that would be very awkward if bartering were the only alternative. Throughout history, things with intrinsic value in themselves were often used as currency/money; the 'means of exchange'. Gold coins being the most well known, for instance. But a gold coin as money has three aspects to it. One is its usefulness as gold. Another is its utility as a measurement of value and, lastly, its acceptability as a medium of exchange. The first aspect, its usefulness, its 'goldness' if I can say that, is real and exists in the physical world. The second aspect, what makes it money, its measurement of value, is unreal or virtual or abstract and exists only in people's minds. The unit of measure is entirely arbitrary. The third aspect, its acceptability as a medium of exchange is also a product of people's thinking. Though it may be reinforced through law, gold's utility is based on universal acceptability and that, in turn, is dependent on mass psychology. In other words, Gold's utility as a medium of exchange is based on peoples perceptions of other peoples perceptions about gold and not on anything intrinsic to gold itself.

These three aspects are readily confused and because of our faulty education about money these separate aspects are very hard to get our heads around at first. Don't feel bad if you struggle with the concept of money. It is little wonder that most people struggle with budgeting, for instance. We as a species have only been dealing with the abstract concept and virtual reality of monetary value for the last few thousand years of our hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of survival on this planet. It's not in our DNA! The thing that makes something 'money' is an abstract concept and therefore does not exist outside people's minds.

But it is truly ironic that in a modern commercial society, it is the virtual aspect of value measurement together with the virtual medium of exchange that is very useful. It is much more practical to write out a cheque or swipe a plastic card or even fork over a fistful of 'bank notes' to pay for something than to be carting around bagfuls of gold and/or silver coins. Yes?

To this end, the original bankers, who were goldsmiths, would place customers' gold in their vaults for safe keeping and issue receipts for the gold 'on deposit'. People would trade with these receipts in place of the physical gold. The holders of the receipts trusted that the gold would be at the goldsmiths should they ever need to collect it.

In time, the goldsmiths became bankers and would lend out the gold that was left with them for interest and paid the depositors a portion of the interest as they were using their gold as collateral and to attract more gold on deposit. This became more sophisticated when banks issued 'bank notes' instead of receipts and then chequebooks to relieve people of the burden of having to carry around gold and precious metals. The idea being that you could exchange your money (in which ever virtual form you had) at your local friendly bank for gold coins or bullion if necessary. The fact that this exchange for gold was deemed unnecessary in practice was lost on everyone except the bankers who proceeded to issue far more bank notes than they had gold to cover them.

The truth is that few people have a practical application for gold itself. The original goldsmiths were the first to twig to this when they found that the call for physical gold never amounted to more than 10% of the gold on deposit. Pretty soon they figured they could lend out far more through receipts for gold than the gold they actually held. This, of course was fraud and the bankers that would follow the goldsmiths carried on with this same fraud. It only became legal at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 when it was enshrined in legislation as “Fractional Reserve Banking”. Sounds almost honest, doesn't it?

The bankers got rich through this fraud but the people also prospered because more money meant more demand could be met and so more trade was possible. All would have been well if the bankers had not decided to further exploit their position. But they did, of course.

Bankers engaged in two practices that eventually turned them from being mildly useful to being deadly parasites.

One, they continued to issue their money as debt in the form of loans that attracted compound interest and expanded the practice by attracting more and more money and gold on deposit which affectively took this money out of circulation. This caused a shortage of money and increased the demand for loans. So the bankers increased the lending of money at interest till the loans represented almost the entirety of the total money supply of any given nation and thus became critical to the functioning of any economy. They claimed that the bank notes that they produced were fully backed by gold but were never more than partially backed by gold just as the goldsmiths did with their receipts. They lent their money at interest and collected part payment of its face value every year from then on. This was much more profitable in the long run than simply spending the money for its face value and gave the bankers continuing control over borrowers.

Secondly, they manipulated the amount of money available for industry and the communities to generate wealth. Now that economies were entirely dependent on loan money to function, bankers would periodically swing between issuing too much money through very lax lending policies causing booms and often infation and too little money through recalling loans and foreclosing on mortgages and other securities and causing depressions. In doing so they instituted the mysterious 'business cycle' of boom and bust and through this they periodically plundered the host society causing much unnecessary hardship and even death in the process. They are still at it.

As I said, most money in our societies is created through bank loans. Banks will say that they lend out depositors' funds and are therefore 'financial intermediaries'. They say that the loans come as a result of the deposits. But this is simply not true. (Ask any banker or economist where money for the deposits originates from. It's not the government or Federal Reserve printing presses as this only represents 2-3% of the total money supply).

If it were true, depositors would find money deducted from their accounts to fund the loans. Instead new money is created when a loan is granted. No money is deducted from anyone''s account when a loan is made. Yet the borrower has money to spend. The new money is spent and ends up in someone else's account as a deposit. So the total of money in all the bank accounts has increased. We can now see that the deposits are a product of the loans; that money is the product of loans.

When the transaction is cleared through the banking system, the total amount of all the credit balances of all the bank accounts has increased and so it can be said that the 'money supply' has increased. The other half of the transaction increases the total amount of all the debit balances of all the bank accounts and so it can be said that the total debt of a nation has increased as well. The 'books' balance. The total debt equals the total amount of money . . . at least for a while.

After a while interest is due and the borrower's account is debited the amount of interest. The total indebtedness has increased. But no money has been spent causing the increase in debt represented by the interest charge so the total amount of money, the money supply, has not increased. With compound interest at work, in time this debt grows like Topsy. This is how all countries on earth have come to owe much more than the total amount of money in existence. The debt is unrepayable under the present system. To repay the debt would deprive an economy of all its money supply and still leave the nation with debt owing to the banks.

When a loan is repaid, the amount of money represented by the loan ceases to exist. Money is withdrawn from an account with a credit balance thus decreasing the total amount of all credit balance accounts and it is deposited into a loan or debit balance account and thus reducing the total debt in the banking system. In other words, money is extinguished along with the debt.

When new loans are not issued at the rate that old ones are being repaid, the money supply shrinks. This is how recessions and periodic depressions are created by the banks. This is what a 'credit squeeze' is. The shrinking money supply (made worse by accumulating interest charges) means that all the loans cannot be serviced and therefore some assets that were pledged as collateral for loans will be forfeited. Bankers profit through this by being able to buy up cheap assets from distressed sales and gradually come to further control an economy by buying up cheaply the fruits of the community's industry. The banks create the economic distress that they profit from. This is anti-social behaviour, pure and simple.

The amount of money available, i.e. the size of the money supply, determines the level of productive economic activity within a nation. Production is regulated by demand and demand is regulated (or only given effect) by the amount of money available to trade with. In practice, the size of the money supply roughly equals a year's GDP (Gross Domestic Product or the wealth generated by a nation within a given year) and therefore determines the level of employment in a nation and the resulting level of prosperity. Bankers can readily determine the level of prosperity enjoyed (or not) by a nation through regulating the amount of money they lend into society.

Regardless of whether the economy is in boom or bust, the bankers will skim off a percentage of the nation's wealth building for the year equal to the average interest rate charged on the money that is effectively rented each year to us through bank loans. You can readily see that bankers become very rich through this parasitic system. But there is no point in being rich if everyone else is, too. The whole point in being rich is to have people at your beck and call. You need power over them.

So bankers have a fundamental interest in keeping a large section of the community relatively poor. To this end, and to varying degrees, they keep the economy chronically short of funds (some years worse than others) and thus maintaining a chronic level of unemployment. The 'take home point' in all this is that the bankers have to choke down the economy to maintain maximum power for their wealth. This point will become important later in understanding why the bankers in the West are so threatened by Vladimir Putin and Russia.

The bankers' system of periodically expanding and then contracting the money supply to create the boom and then the bust to skim wealth from the community required co-ordination amongst the banks. It would not do to have one bank expanding their loans while another bank was contracting them. So the bankers got together and agreed to form central banks to co-ordinate this pillaging. The bankers, of course, owned these central banks between them. Central banks can be a good thing provided they are in hands of popular governments and run for the benefit of their populations by people who know what they are doing. This is rarely the case, though. Australia for twenty years before the Great Depression was one instance and Canada until the 1970's is another.

The international banking houses own and run most of the central banks of the West including the Federal Reserve in the US and the Bank of England in London. They make a show of these banks being government controlled by having the government appoint the senior executives to these banks. But the bankers control the governments and control who the governments appoint. There are some central banks in the West that are actually owned by their governments such as in Canada and Australia. But the bankers have now taken the trouble to have legislation passed in these countries to separate control of these central banks from the political control of their governments. They are now dependent for direction on the Bank for International Settlements in Basel Switzerland which, of course, is owned by the international bankers.

Russia and Ukraine are two other countries that have government owned but not government controlled central banks. However, in Russia's case, Vladimir Putin was able to circumvent the restrictions place on his development plans for Russia by the Bank of Russia. When the Russian Parliament would not back him in his plan to make the Bank of Russia more responsive to governments directives for development, Putin responded by extending the powers of a small development bank, the Foreign Economic Bank (Vneshekonombank - VEB). This bank took over the management of government pension funds and also provided funds for social development projects including the $50 billion capital to build the infrastructure for the Sochi Olympics. All of this provided interest free to the Russian people and not a penny profit for the bankers.

source

There is a very interesting article which details this and much more here - Russia's Destiny: Banking Mafia Seeks Revenge Against Putin
It is written by Natalia Vitrenko who is a doctor of Economic Sciences, a former member of the Ukrainian Parliament and a former candidate for President of Ukraine. Well, she was a candidate until she was injured in a grenade blast during her campaign. You can find out why she was the subject of an assassination attempt if you read her article. She also explains in far more detail than I have about how central banks are taken over and how they might benefit people once properly run.

Vitrenko goes on to explain why Putin is such a threat to the private bankers of the world. She mentions that the bankers destroy the real economy in favour of a speculative economy in country after country but doesn't address the consequences for the bankers once a country like Russia utilises a central bank to maximum effect. The unstated consequence is that the economy (in our case, Russia's) has recovered remarkably in just a dozen or so years from a position of abject poverty and even starvation for many of its citizens to one of rapidly rising standard of living. All this in contrast with the Western countries which have actually been stagnating or going backwards. And Russia will continue to boom without the spectre of a 'bust' waiting in the wings to scoop off the spoils for the financial elite.

What this means is that Russia will forge ahead of the West because the bankers have to restrict the Western economies to maintain their power. This disparity will become more and more obvious as the years pass by as will the costs that are incurred by everyone in the West for tolerating having the private, international (and mostly jewish) bankers in charge. It will become very obvious. This is the essential problem facing the bankers' survival and why they hate Vladimir Putin with such a vengeance. They simply cannot afford to have a competing system working so much better, and obviously so, than the one they impose on the West.

Natalia Vitrenko also talks about Libya and how Qadaffi threatened the bankers' power by providing prosperity for his people and was in the process of spreading this prosperity to the rest of Africa. Needless to say, Libya had its own government owned and controlled central bank as did Iraq before they were invaded and destroyed. Other countries that have government owned and controlled central banks include Syria, Iran, China and North Korea. Notice that all these countries have been attacked one way or another by the US. Or more correctly, by the Anglo/American/Zionist establishment.

Nationally controlled central banks threaten no one except international bankers. These central banks I've listed are outside the control of the international banker owned and controlled Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which dictates the economies of all the NATO countries and many others.

Remove private bankers from the control of central banks the world over and our wars will cease and prosperity will ensue for all. Governments will no longer have massive interest bills to pay each year. Taxes can drop dramatically. There will be no shortage of funds for infrastructure development. Unemployment will shrink to negligible levels and the call for social services will rapidly decrease. Crime will also decrease as will the ongoing rippling effects of the high rate of divorces. I could go on!

In fact, I will! Without bankers pushing for wars, the need for the massive 'defence' spending will cease. Those personnel and resources can be re-employed productively instead of being totally wasted at best and totally destructive at worst, as happens now. Nationalise banks and all war industries and you take away the driving profit motive for war and the massive waste of life and resources it entails.

source

I trust I have been able to shed some light on how bankers are the hidden principal power structure in our societies and the primary cause of wars in our time. I also hope I have explained the primary reason why Vladimir Putin is perceived by the bankers to be such a threat to their future wealth and power. There is much more to it, of course, but this monopoly by the international bankers of the money creation in Western countries is the root of the lion's share of all the trouble in modern history. And their desire, indeed their desperate need, to secure Ukraine (also see here) and extend this monopoly to China, Syria, Iran and Russia to safeguard their position is the cause of all current and immediate future wars and strife.

ADDENDUM

There is one point that I was going to leave till my next essay but it really belongs with this one as it is a fundamental principle and qualifies a statement I made. It needs to be included also to refute the objection bankers and economists of “The Austrian School” always raise to counter the prospect of governments providing their own interest free loan capital.

I mentioned that a government that has control of its own central bank will no longer be short of funds for infrastructure and other projects. This is true but the government needs to match the increase in funds to the available yet under utilised resources be they raw materials, capital equipment (factories, machinery etc.) or labour (people). So long as the extra money can be absorbed through an increase of productive activity, there will be no inflation. In other words, new money needs to be put to work. If new money exceeds this potential productive capacity, there will be inflation because the extra money will compete with existing money for the purchase of existing goods and services and drive the prices up.

Bankers continually claim that governments “will just print money and cause massive inflation”. But this is not the case so long as the situation is managed by people who know what they are doing. This does not include bankers! Bankers, of course, have been known to “just print massive amounts of money causing hyper-inflation. The inflation of the Weimar republic is a classic example that the bankers often trot out to denigrate the idea of governments printing money. But what they never tell you is that the barrow loads of money were printed by the private bankers and not the government.

So I'm sorry to say this but one has to come to the inescapable and shocking conclusion that bankers are bald-faced liars when there is a buck in it for them. I guess the notion that bankers and their employees are the experts on financial management will just have to join other notions such as the Easter Bunny, 'making the world safe for democracy', “the good war', NATO's 'humanitarian interventions' and generally 'fighting for peace'.

Next installment - The Reality Behind Gold Backed, Oil Backed and Fiat Currencies