Add your Email here to follow EUbrainwashing

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Friday, 5 June 2015

Is My Enemy the State


I suppose the solution goes something like this: 'the state' does not exist, it is a belief, it is an illusion, it is a just another cult (but nonetheless a cult that is extremely prevalent - perhaps the most widespread cult in the history of humanity). Once people stop 'believing' in this, the 'cult of the state', it disappears, poof! (like a monster from a dream fades to nothing as soon as the dreamer wakes).

If 'the state' does not exist who is it that is a constant threat to the freedom of people. The answer, plain and simple, is: it is those who act as though the state is real and believe legitimises their various actions supposedly carried-out on the behalf of that belief they call 'the state'.


Those servants of 'the state' need to be fearful, fearful that, as this simple but evasive comprehension spreads, (that the state is a false construct which is harmful to the betterment of human society), that they, as willing agents of the imagined state, will be held personally accountable for their actions. Morally, financially and punitively. It will become 'risky' for them.

If it comes to a 'war' between 'the state' and 'human society', the people, in rebellion, will not be targeting the hard, the armed militarised police on duty, but will target the soft, all those 'servants of the state' who suckle on the teat of succour.  (Succour that is no less than the produce of stolen property obtained through the threat and use of violent force and the coercive system of physiological deception. They will soon need to live in fortresses and those fortresses will then quickly become no less than their jails).

Wednesday, 6 May 2015

I'm King of My World (as you are of yours)

I am a monarch, ruler and subject, sovereign of myself and myself only!  A state of anarchy does exist, has to exist, can only exist; now and at all times.

The impositions and bamboozlements of the believers in the cult of 'the state' has to work against, deny and hide this constant state of anarchy from view.


'The state' is false, an illusion, and therefore does not exist.  'The state' is just cult members doing whatever it is they think they are required or authorised to do.

There is only one freedom and that is the freedom of your mind.  They may chain you to the ground but whilst your mind is free you are free.

End 'the state'!

Tuesday, 5 May 2015

The False Definition of Anarchy

When I hear the word 'anarchy' I think 'without rulers', (as in the word's origin: Mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler').

When I hear someone using the word 'anarchy' to describe 'violence' I fear I may be confronted by a person who does not respect the basic tenants of liberty and freedom.  A person who has taken that word to mean its usurped bastardisation, its twisted propagandistic corruption, its false inversion.


A society without rules and rulers is by no means de-facto one that will be racked with violence.  Indeed look at the record of violence that result from the actions of 'the state', by far the greatest numbers are murdered by people who believe that the magical authority of 'the state' immunises them from normal human decent conduct whereupon they, for example, go to war and slaughter with apparent personal immunity.  It is a simple fact that many more have died at the hand of the cult of 'the state' in the last 100 years than all other non-state based violence together.

The only way 'the state' survives is through the use of force, the constant threat of violence.  Without the monopoly on violence 'the state' would collapse.  So is it any coincidence that in modern understanding the one word that describes the solution to this hateful system has been twisted inside-out to be taken to mean the very opposite, to strike the greatest threat to the cult of 'the state' a slanderous blow.  NO!  This is how language is used the build fase ideas into the minds of the common man.


I am not a clever clogs picking at use of words I am (a clever clogs) picking at use of an expression that says that: an absence of rulers would defiantly result it the total and violent breakdown of social order.

I say an absence of rulers could only result in a pure, balanced and harmonious social order.  The only thing preventing a balanced and harmonious social order from manifesting is but one of the effects of having rulers.  Far from 'the state' preserving social order, 'the state' causes social order's breakdown by reserving for itself the supposed right to total violence - especially through the coercive and constant threat of violent force.  Do people see this effect of 'the state' in their everyday experience?  Not always, they accept the tyranny, living kowtowed under the threat of use of violent force, as normal, an easily acceptable trade-off to allay their implanted and false fear, therefore essential, desirable even.


This is where I differ from the Libertarian.  Just as it is imposable to be a little bit pregnant, I do not believe there can ever be social harmony whilst there exists any form of 'the state'.  Whilst belief in the cult of 'the state' remains, no restraint can be devised that will stop it from growing into the Leviathan.  Just look at the degradation of America: from being the nation with apparently the most liberal constitution in the world's history of governments to what it is now, a disgusting military and intelligence complex, a police state and a nest of fascism: a human tax farm to feed the corporate internationalist oligarch's global hegemonic ambitions.

Forming the SDR Global Monitary & Political Union

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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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



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




Thursday, 23 April 2015

BadCop Inc - a definition of a police state

In a free society, that is in a stateless society, a free market would exist, for every kind of service, which businesses could address in whatsoever way they considered a competitive manner. Some organisations may offer policing services on a subscription basis, some may work through insurance providers and perhaps, more likely, an unimaginable solution would yet be found to whatever need for policing services existed. That model would then constantly evolve and improve; driven by demand and consumer choice.

A policing organisation that started to behave as we see cops funded via stolen money (taxation) behave, would most likley find their customers rapidly departed to a better provider - I mean, for starters: who wants to pay for a gang of bullies conducting themselves in such a inefficient and costly manner. Such poor public relations would backfire unless, that is, they come to your door and Taser you if you do not pay for their protection racket.


If they did Taser you for not paying it would be clear you needed the services of a better operation who would start their contract with you by getting the ugly Taser and theft cops, BadCop Inc, off your back. A business that intended to force you to place your business with them would need to have a far more subtle method of capturing and retaining your business.

One good way of making you stay with 'BadCop Inc' would be to provide their nasty violence based monopolistic service free of charge. That would have the effect of making it very difficult for widespread competition to get started as they would need to fund their service in some way. Conversely BadCop Inc. could fund their service through a charge made on everything everyone sells including everyone's time they sell at 'work'. BadCop could simultaneously take a slice on the earnings of everything everybody buys too.


But nonetheless people would not be happy. They would quickly realise that BadCop Inc. was just running the mother of all protection rackets. BadCop would have to take more money and provide, monopolistically, more supposed 'benefits' or their 'customers' would realise they were just being enslaved. So BadCop could open schools, to indoctrinate their public from the get-go, allow their 'customers' to vote for who, from a list, the next BadCop boss will be, BadCop could build roads so they can get about and collect their tithe. BadCop could see their friend's business' made money from the enterprise too and could tell these corporate cooperators what to do, such as making sure the papers, radio and TV never tell the enslaved public any sort of truth.

With all this enterprise at their hands BadCop would still have one big problem: it would slowly but surely rot from the inside out and the public would eventually see for themselves its ugliness and its threat. To counter this BadCop Inc. would have to continuously stupefy their enslaved public, make them believe BadCop is essential for humanity, and, whilst keeping their threat of violence always visible, cast themselves and their regime of violence as being utterly legitimate. Make people believe in them. Surround themselves with ceremony, ritual, costumes and badges. Make it a cult. This may be an inefficient and expensive business plan but it is the only viable option if BadCop wants to remain in business.


PS.  Watch the Lego Movie - better: buy it!

Saturday, 11 April 2015

The Nobody Who Rules Rules Anybody Rule.

The natural laws which exist without the rule of man are fundamental, determined by nature, and are therefore universal in their application.  The core of natural law in relation to human social order is that a man has the right to his own being, that is: to own himself, he is his own property.  If you do not agree to that stop here and reflect or ignore the lot as you wish.

'The state' is a violation of this fundamental precept from the get-go!    The justification for the legitimacy of 'the state' is dependent on the paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or on the 'divine right of kings'.  Both are false.  The will of the people cannot truthfully exist because there is no such thing, in nature, as 'the people'.  This is an invented collective, a rule of man and not a natural law.  Where a group of people decide to co-operate in some way, that is their privilege, but they have no more right to co-opt the individual who does not agree with their choice than he has to co-opt them all to act as he dictates.


'Human society' generally understands better today that the  'divine right of kings' is false than they understand that the 'consent of the governed' is false too.  The 'consent of ALL the governed' would not be false but that is not what is currently on offer in any land across the world.

When advocating that a man does not rape a woman it is not a legitimate argument to question: 'how will he sire a child if he does not rape' or 'does that child not have a right to be conceived'.  When something is identified as wrong it is not the duty of those identifying the problem to know with certainty what the outcomes will be if the crime is prevented.  It was not the duty of the abolitionist to explain precisely how sugar cane and cotton would be harvested in the future without slave labour.  And if the abolitionist described the modern farming market, methods and equipment that has been developed since he would be thought insane.

One thing is certain.  If enough individual people work towards finding better ways to do things, better ways will be found, shared, developed and widely exploited.  That is evident throughout the history of humanity.  It is also evident that this approach is better than a top-down dictation as, for example, the disaster of Soviet farming was found to be.


If people have property in themselves, their own body, it follows that they too have property in the physical product of their endeavours.  The work they do they own, that which they exchange their work for becomes their own, that which they own and then work on, develop and add value to, is theirs too.  The land they buy with the product of their labour or unencumbered homestead, they own.   A man can dictate what happens to property he owns, so long as it does not harm the property of others, but a man cannot dictate what happens to property he does not own except where it is causing harm to his property.

All resources are either the property of somebody or nobody.  If property is not utilised, the property of nobody, and it is understood there is no such thing as the false paradigms of the 'consent of the governed' or the 'rule of kings' people can come and make use of that property as they wish.  But would they?


It is improbable people would come to live in a place where they were not suited, welcomed or where the resources, economic or physical, were valuable but not already well utilised.  When people do come is when they see beneficial advantage over what they have in the place they come from.  Sometimes that is because they see they can serve a need that is not being well served and that is only to the general advantage otherwise that need would already be well served. 

Often people come because they are drawn into take advantage of the social benefits provided to them by 'the state' in control of the region, benefits that are taken from the local population, via the coercive threat of the use of force in taxation, and paid to the incoming people.  Welfare holds the poor in the grip of poverty, encourages immigration at the expense of the middle income earners but to the utter benefit of a small wealthy elite oligarchy who both own the 'means of wealth production' and influence the perpetuation and actions of 'the state' endlessly to their absolute benefit.


Joe Soap has the right to shun whosoever he wishes and along with his band of pals they can get together and shun all they like within the collective boarders of their properties.  Shut away they may shun away.  But Joe Soap does not have the right to impinge his view on a 'wider human society' because, like 'the people', 'human society' does not actually exist.  It is a collective term for human individuals gathered together but it does not allow a majority of those individuals any more right than they possess individually to impinge their view onto other individuals with whom they may not agree (but who are not harming their right to their property).

If 'who rules who' is the issue from which history has a catalogue of people struggling to defend values, lands and societies from those who want to supplant, enslave or exterminate them; is it not time we looked for the issue behind this age old curse?   Since it is invalid for any individual or group of individuals to rule over any other individual or group of individuals (who are not harming your property) the solution, by default, must simply be that 'nobody should rule anybody' and to therefore end the cult belief in the false paradigm of 'the state'.