The 1 % Circle of Elites and The rest 99% of World’s Citizens:

By James Allan,
Angus, Scotland.

The people of the world now seem to want to fix things but the politicians still seem intent on allowing corporations to bring their harm upon us. A worship of greed is still more relevant in political circles than the requirements of people. It is an insane obsession. Hopefully, people will remember to think about people and diminish the corporations who cause all that’s wrong. 

Sajjad’s insights:

What I see in the near future is that, the elites will be totally shackled to think that their hegemonic existence would seem fading away and that’s what they don’t want. How we the general people are being manipulated to think that the fault is with us not with them and we eagerly apply those tactics on our own without any ground glance to it. 

How would we get rid of their shackles, seem little panicking at times? 
How does the poverty exist, while we the common citizens are entangled into this vicious circle created by elite and we are knowingly trapped in it?

I wish that we hoard some stones and throw at them is not possible either. Perhaps, time will tell us how to pick up the pebbles in our hands. How we empower us, find a way out of a complete rid of this intricated system, that’s the question. The elites have totally infected and sealed our systems that we can’t even intrude into so softly. The moment, 99% of us, realize the worth of ourselves, we will definitely be able to erase the filth, I hope we do.


It is they who orchestrate the evil. They get politicians and religious leaders  to incite with a threat, media they own to promote their threat, and corporations supply the tools of destruction. We know how it goes. People don’t wake up in the morning wanting to harm or kill. This happens at a political level at the behest of mad elites who always profit every time they convince us to wipe each other out.

The knowledge is there. We have to communicate more as people with a human agenda. I can’t predict the future but I know we have to keep pushing to achieve human goals, as opposed to secret agendas people are excluded from but expected to fund and find souls to sent to die to achieve corporate aims.

Does not feel like a correct thing to do and there is rightly vast opposition.

We can see it too Sajjad. The media and political threats still instills fear in some. The change will come from honest people being strong and dealing with the problems we face instead of leaving corrupt people in charge to play out repetition of what they have done so many times before. The rich want their wars. Sane people disagree. We learned but it seems the rich did not. 


Money might be the key. We use the system which works mostly for the richest and a banking system which is probably the worst system we could adopt. Only 3% of money is real. We rent the rest of the money from the elites and pay interest on it from the 3% which really exists. I can’t see how things will change if we keep enriching the richest in this manner indefinitely. A fair sovereign currency would remove a need to be manipulated by the elites. 


There will come a solution when people decide to stop appointing known liars to conduct affairs on their behalf. Good ideas are everywhere but until we learn that corruption and crime are not the things we should tolerate, it will keep on repeating. There is no need for anybody to starve or struggle to exist. When you look at how much bankers have the manipulation is obvious, as is their lack of human empathy. We need to or they will continue to destroy.

Hope seems to be spreading and you can tell the elites do not like it. I hope we make this world the better place it should be and we stop insane rich people from playing games with humanity as expendable pieces in their games. Knowledge is power. The more who understand the problems, the more likely we can address the problems. The power structure is Government, financial control, and media, all apparently more concerned about corporate interests than people.

Media is a voice. If we learn to present real truthful, media and defeat lies it may break the cycle. People are convinced to go to war based on outright lies. That’s something people should be able to address as it is the least costly part of the set up. Most global media is owned by six corporations and is full of things to incite hatred. The media propaganda steers people towards objectives which are not human objectives.
That’s one thing we can fix. When people realise not to subscribe to lying media then the real communication and social problem solving might get a chance.


I like true. True is real. It is a basis to solve. If we acknowledge truth then we can turn the tide in favour of humanity. Imagine the Scottish independence referendum and all the threats we sustained during the process, then look at exactly the same threats being directed at Catalonia.

It boils down to sovereign people versus bankers and corporations who see sovereign people as a market. People used to trade with people. Now corporations expect profit, no matter what they impose on people to achieve it. They  fear their greed will be halted if nations understand how our peoples are manipulated to be their captive market.


The sad thing is that we have politicians who are dedicated to quashing human rights whilst simultaneously making laws and pacts like TTIP to give companies rights to impose. Being forced to accept the business of giants who care little about people or environments will undoubtedly lead to global disaster. Big is not for our benefit. It is to make masses an available defined market and globalists and their sycophants rich. If we have to pay political fees to trade then there’s surely something entirely wrong about that. We will never retain real sovereign wealth until we learn not to give it away to greedy people offering a convincing scam.



One Comment

  1. Thursday, 16 January 2014
    An Academic View Of The Global Money Scam
    For all those that are still new to the global money scam, here is a simple entry level explanation from a slightly different perspective – an academic perspective.
    Banks don’t lend money
    Written by Michael Reiss (guest author) on .
    Posted in Economic Analysis, Theory, Understanding Money & Debt

    Professor Hyman Minsky once wrote “Banking is not money lending; to lend, a money lender must have money. The fundamental banking activity is accepting, that is, guaranteeing that some party is creditworthy. A bank, by accepting a debt instrument, agrees to make specified payments if the debtor will not or cannot”.

    “Banking is not money lending”? Surely some mistake! Why would an economist as famous as Professor Minsky make such an outrageous sounding statement?… Well the answer is that its perfectly true. Crazy though it sounds, banks don’t lend money at all. To understand why this is the case we must understand some technicalities about money.

    Most people imagine that money is simply a system of government-created tokens (physical or electronic) that get passed form person to person as trade is carried out. Money of this kind does indeed exist, so called “central bank money” is of this type. However the vast majority of the money we spend day today is a second type, technically known as “broad money” or “cheque book money” which can best be described as “spendable bank IOUs”. The concept of a spendable IOU may sound rather strange, and in order to explain it, we must first consider some characteristics of an ordinary IOU, the kind you or I might use…

    Say that Mick wanted to borrow £10 from Jim. Jim could give Mick a £10 note in return for a piece of paper with “I.O.U. £10, signed.. Mick” written on it. The IOU would then have some value to Jim as a legal record of the loan. At some later time Mick would repay the loan. At this point Jim should no longer keep the IOU because Mick would no longer owe Jim any money. The IOU has now done its job and may be disposed of. To summarise, the lifecycle of an ordinary IOU is as follows:
    Creation (out of nothing. It did not exist previously)
    It now has value as a legal record of the loan.
    It expires (back out of existence) when the loan is repaid.
    Note that even though the IOU has value during stage 2, it is not easily spendable. If Jim went into a grocery shop and said “I’d like to have £10 worth of food, here’s an IOU from Mick, he’ll pay you back later”, the shopkeeper would almost certainly refuse. This is because the shopkeeper has no idea if Mick is creditworthy, the shopkeeper would be worried he may never receive £10 from Mick. Now imagine for a moment that it could somehow be arranged to have a guarantee from a famous high street bank, that Mick would indeed pay £10 to the holder of the IOU. Then the shopkeepers fears would be allayed and he would have no reason not to accept Mick’s IOU as payment for food. To summarise, a bank guarantee could convert a non-spendable IOU into a spendable IOU.

    So far this has all been hypothetical, but to see a non-spendable IOU get converted into a spendable one in the real world, look no further than the process of getting a “bank loan”. The term “bank loan” is in fact highly misleading. What is actually going on is not lending at all, it is in fact an IOU swapping arrangement. If Mick went to borrow £1000 from a bank, the first thing that would happen is that the bank would asses Mick’s creditworthiness. Assuming it was good enough, then the bank would ask Mick to sign a “loan agreement” which is essentially an IOU from Mick to the bank. What the bank would give Mick would generally not be “central bank money”, but instead its own IOUs (i.e. cheque book money). And just like ordinary IOUs, bank IOUs do not have to be obtained from anybody else. They are just created on the spot. No “lending” is going on. In order to “lend”, the bank would have had to have been in possession of the money beforehand, and they were not.

    So there you have the layman’s explanation. But some people are still not convinced. Many people have heard a different explanation of the money creation process at university or from textbooks and so assume that this explanation is somehow wrong. But let me assure you that it is the textbook explanation that is wrong. I do realise that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. So here goes…

    The first thing to say is that the explanation given here is indeed a simplification of the money creation process as it occurs in the real world. The full details of which are so complex and so frequently changing that they are not taught to undergraduate students as part of economics degrees. What students are often taught instead is a toy model of reality. A not-actually-true teaching aid. The idea of using a not-actually-true teaching aid is not unique to economics, in the field of chemistry a similar thing occurs with regard the behaviour of electrons around atomic nuclei. The real world behaviour is too complex for undergraduate students, so they are taught a not-actually-true story of “electron shells”. Its in virtually all the textbooks.

    The standard not-actually-true method for teaching students about the workings of our monetary system is an explanation called the “money multiplier model” in which banks appear to lend out money that has been deposited with them. When some economists finish their degrees and subsequently go on to specialise in the monetary system and finally learn the full details of the process, they occasionally have some choice words to say about the undergraduate textbook model:
    “The way monetary economics and banking is taught in many, maybe most, universities is very misleading”. Professor David Miles, Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England.
    “The old pedagogical analytical approach that centred around the money multiplier was misleading, atheoretical and has recently been shown to be without predictive value. It should be discarded immediately.” Professor Charles Goodhart CBE, FBA, ex Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England.
    “The textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected”. Michael Kumhof, Deputy Division Chief, Modelling Unit, Research Department, International Monetary Fund.
    “Textbooks assume that money is exogenous.” … “In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous” Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England.
    Notice the extremely high calibre of the economists being quoted. These are all economists that specialise in the workings of our monetary system.

    Is this issue controversial? Well yes and no (but mainly no)… let me explain. the issue is only controversial in as much as non-experts (that have just learned the textbook story) may say things that contradict the experts that have a detailed knowledge of the system in reality. But amongst the experts, it is not controversial at all.

    I shall finish with a quote form Professor Victoria Chick, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University College London: “Banks do not lend money. It may feel like it when you get a ‘loan’, but that’s not what they are doing. They don’t have a pot of money which they are passing on. What they are doing is accepting your IOU… they simply write up your account”.

    So there you have it, banks do not lend money. And if you want to argue against this on academic grounds, please only quote economists that specialise in the monetary system.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s