The Money Scam
or
Why We Have To Pay Taxes.

It seems so simple. If the government creates our money, why can't they take what they need before passing the remainder into circulation? Why issue money only to take it back in taxes? It doesn't make sense.

Actually money isn't "passed" or "issued", but spent into circulation. If the government really did create the money, they wouldn't need to impose taxes because all of our money would be spent into existence by the government.

Most people believe the government does issue money on our behalf, and that ownership of this money filters back, through government, to the people themselves. This assumption is then actively reinforced by politicians and others who know that their careers, and even their lives, depend on their continued silence regarding the true nature of what must be the greatest fraud in history.

We, the people, the true owners of this land, employ the politicians to run the country on our behalf, or so we are told, but like everything else they tell us, it simply isn't true. In a democracy, issuing a nation's currency would be an essential task of government. Unfortunately there aren't any real democracies. Being allowed to vote every few years, with the candidates being pre-selected by the "ruling class", is about as far removed from true democracy as it is possible to get.

A few people, primarily on the internet, attempt to explain the monetary fraud in terms of America's privately-owned "Federal Reserve" system, but most such documents tend to be long and boring. People don't persevere with things that bore them, and even those that do understand how it all works are often left wondering whether similarly treasonous schemes could succeed in other countries.

The short answer to this question is an emphatic "YES". Nearly every country in the world now has the same kind of monetary system headed by the same people, the London-based Rothschilds and their accomplices.

Fractional Reserve Lending.

Modern banking is actually a combination of two distinct frauds, fractional reserve lending and money as debt. I'll explain each one in turn, beginning with the fractional reserve system.

In the early days, money consisted of gold and silver coins, the English "pound" representing silver coins totalling one pound in weight, a fact that should give a very clear indication of just how much our currency has been devalued over the centuries.

Not many people would have been wealthy enough to possess a whole pound in those days, and those who did have great wealth needed to protect themselves against theft, then as now. A few would have invested in a safe of their own, but most simply deposited their gold and silver coins with the local goldsmith, to keep in his strongroom.

In return for an annual fee, the goldsmith would look after the coins and issue a receipt for their value. Any time the depositor wanted his money, he would simply present the receipt and the coins would be returned to him. This was the origin of banking as a profession, and with the passage of time, many goldsmiths found they no longer needed to create jewellery in order to make a living.

Gradually people realised there was no need to carry actual coinage. Instead they could exchange the receipts, or "banknotes" as they came to be known, and the goldsmiths obliged by issuing printed receipts - notes - in fixed denominations to better facilitate this kind of transaction.

Barely one in ten depositors ever came back to claim their gold and silver coins now that they were able to pay for goods and services with pieces of paper. Banknotes were "as good as gold", and they were much more convenient than all those coins.

The real money was left in the safe while it's owners exchanged printed receipts. The goldsmiths were paid to look after the heavy coins, and they were making a good living, but enough is never enough for some people, so they planned the perfect crime. The more devious among them realised they could steal most of that money without ever needing to remove it from the safe. All they had to do was issue printed receipts for money that didn't exist, and nobody would be any the wiser.

Over time they found they could safely issue loans to eight or nine times the value of the money in their vaults, money that didn't belong to them and that they were being paid to look after. By issuing receipts for money they didn't have, they were effectively creating money out of nothing, money that didn't exist until the debt was repaid.

Borrowers were perfectly happy to accept banknotes instead of money, and every penny paid against the loan was profit for the bankers. They were making a fortune and charging "interest" as well. For every pound they had in their possession they could safely issue "loans" to the value of eight or nine pounds and get it all back in cash, plus interest.

That's how fractional reserve banking came about, and the same system remains in use to this day, though modern bankers are able to get away with lending (creating) much more than ten times the amount their unsuspecting depositors entrust to them.

Money as Debt.

Those first loans weren't really money at all, but debt, an agreement by the borrower to pay the banker an amount equal to that shown on the printed receipt, plus an annual percentage as "interest". If the loan - and the interest - was not repaid within a specified period, the total amount outstanding, interest as well as capital, attracted still more interest, something we know today as compound interest.

Most people wouldn't object to the bankers charging interest in order to make a profit, but the loan itself was fraudulent. No actual money was involved. All that was borrowed was a piece of paper printed with the name of the banker and words equivalent to the modern "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ... " followed by the amount of the "loan". It worked like real money, so nobody was any the wiser, but every penny "re"-paid by the borrower was profit for the bankers, the "capital" as well as the interest.

The scam only worked because people trusted this new paper money. They never suspected that their real money was effectively being stolen, albeit temporarily, to back these fraudulent loans.

By lending far more in banknotes or "promises to pay" than the actual money in their vaults, the bankers became extremely wealthy in a very short time. For every pound they had on deposit, they could lend eight or nine pounds and get ten pounds back in repayments - in respect of loans that didn't really exist, and still they were able to charge depositors an annual fee to "look after" the real money that made it all possible.

The stolen money was safe. It was still there in the vault for anybody to see. The only way the bankers' dishonesty could have been exposed would have been if too many depositors had wanted to redeem their paper receipts for the original gold and silver, at which point each pound might have been found to have as many as ten "owners" claiming it.

By effectively stealing money that belonged to their depositors, and then lending up to ten times it's value, the bankers were generating vast fortunes for themselves. For every pound they were paid to look after, they could make a clear profit of up to ten pounds in as little as two years, which might potentially become a hundred pounds in four years, a thousand in six, and the more money they had in their vaults, regardless of who actually owned it, the more they were able to lend for still greater profits.

(For convenience this assumes an annual interest rate of a little less than 5% on a two-year loan, but the principle is sound whatever the precise details may have been.)

The whole enterprise was dishonest and illegal, quite apart from the fact that they were usurping the nation's exclusive right to create it's own money, itself an act of treason, but it quickly made the bankers extremely wealthy, much more so than any king or even any one country.

It wasn't long before these wealthy bankers were openly mixing with kings, queens and corrupt politicians, who should have had them arrested and imprisoned for theft, fraud and undermining the nation's currency by means of their own counterfeit version. That's what should have happened, but money represents power, and power inevitably corrupts. The greater a man's power, the more corrupt he becomes, and the more wealth he acquires, by fair means or foul, the greedier he becomes.

Rulers of all kinds had initially become wealthy by stealing from those weaker than themselves, since when they have never concerned themselves unduly with what's "right" or "fair", or even what's "legal". All they care about is maximising their own wealth, power and influence. Instead of locking the bankers up and destroying their false paper "money", they chose instead to conspire with the fraudsters for the sake of their own personal fortunes, even though it meant making themselves subordinate to the bankers and would ultimately destroy both the economy and the sovereignty of their respective countries.

All it takes to destroy a country is to give control of it's currency to a private company whose only concern is to maximise it's profits. Only governments have the right - and, in fact, the duty - to issue a nation's currency. Anything else is treason.

This thought didn't deter those rulers who wanted to steal the entire wealth of their respective countries for themselves. Instead of considering what was best for the people, and for the nation as a whole, they thought only to line their own pockets at the people's expense, hence in 1694 King William III of England created the deceptively-named "Bank of England", which to this day is a private company fraudulently masquerading as a government agency.

The "Bank of England" creates money in the manner of the goldsmiths of bygone days, by lending pieces of paper - or typing numbers into a computer - and demanding something of real value in return. Every penny thus created is loaned into existence and remains the property of the bank, attracting compound interest forever, or until the debt is repaid.

The government borrows the money it needs from the bankers, and the people have to pay the interest through taxation. Individuals too are able to borrow directly from the banks, thereby generating still more income for the owners.

The catch.

The easiest way to understand how the introduction of debt-based fractional reserve banking can destroy a nation's sovereignty and transfer it's wealth to the private bankers is to imagine a country which has no money of it's own. Presumably the people have lived by barter and goodwill, the way all human societies would have operated in prehistoric times, with everybody working for the common good and everybody enjoying equal benefits.

(Please try to ignore those idiots and psychopaths who insist we humans are barely-controlled savages. Except in a very few cases involving mental defectives, we enjoy helping people, we hate injustice, we care for each other and we protect the vulnerable. That's what human nature is really like, and that's how things still could be if only we were able to depose the true savages who imagine they have some kind of "divine right" to dictate how the rest of us should live.)

Now imagine this hypothetical country, which previously had no money of it's own, wants to trade with it's neighbours, and has unwisely chosen to adopt the Rothschild banking model now found throughout the world, in which a privately-owned psuedo-"national" bank is given sole rights to create money, which it does by lending said money into existence and then taxing the people to pay the interest on the loan.

The country's entire money supply now belongs for all time to the privately owned bank. They never relinquish their ownership, and they charge interest on all that money. Worse, they alone are granted the right to vary the interest rate as they think fit.

It seems to work well enough at first, but nobody likes to be taxed on what is rightfully theirs, so after perhaps the first year the people decide it's not for them, that they'd rather go back to their old ways. They withdraw every note, every coin from circulation and hand it back to the bankers, but what can they use to pay the interest? There never was any additional money, so the interest can never be paid and will itself continue to accrue compound interest forever.

The only way the interest could be paid would be by taking out another loan, which itself would attract interest from the moment of it's creation.

If an individual is unable to pay the interest on a mortgage, the bank takes possession of his home, callously throwing whole families out onto the street to live or die as circumstances dictate.

If a country cannot pay it's debts, the bankers take something else. They don't really want their own worthless paper. They'd much rather have something of real value, such as buildings or land, which is how they have been able to establish what amounts to an independent state within the city of London which makes it's own laws and employs it's own police force, with similarly autonomous banker-owned "city states" in Washington and Rome, perhaps also in places such as Zurich and Tel Aviv.

So why haven't we heard about this before?

If all this is true, how has it been kept from the public for so long? We all know politicians can't keep secrets, and what about the press? There's very little that can be hidden from them. How could the greatest scam in history have been kept secret for more than three centuries?

First of all, nobody, however wealthy, could take over an entire country without the approval and active participation of the reigning monarch. The Bank of England was created by King William III to enhance his own personal fortune. All those politicians are nothing more than employees of (or "front men" for) the private company known as the Bank of England, an organisation owned by the official head of state, to whom they have to swear allegiance before being allowed to take their appointed seats.

It is often said that the bankers achieve political power by bribing or blackmailing politicians, but this is only a small part of the truth. The bankers employ the politicians on behalf of the monarch. When candidates are chosen to stand for election, they have already been approved for employment by the bankers, who then invite the public to make the final choice, thus maintaining the illusion that there is something democratic about the political process.

The state has various means by which it excercises control over individuals and organisations, not least of which is the "Official Secrets Act". Politicians dare not expose certain matters deemed "sensitive" by those with something to hide. That's why there have been no leaks. They know a long prison term is the best they can expect if they defy their masters, and many have died suddenly in mysterious circumstances.

In addition to the state's "legal" and military powers, the bankers have been granted the exclusive right to create money, as much as they want for any purpose they choose. Imagine what you could do if you owned all the money in the world and could create more any time you wanted, without limit, simply by typing numbers on a computer. There's nothing you couldn't buy. One of the first things the bankers did was to buy up all the newspapers. No doubt some enthusiastic young reporter does occasionally stumble upon what seems the story of the century, but it will never be published while the bankers excercise total control over the press.

It may well be that a truly independent newspaper will come into existence from time to time, but it won't last long without advertising, or if the banker-owned distribution networks refuse to handle it. It may be allowed to operate for a while, but only as long as it allows the bankers to impose total control (otherwise known as censorship) over it's editorial content.

There are no investigative reporters operating independently of the banker-owned publishers, who also control every book publisher, every magazine, every radio and television station, whether presented as state-run or "independent". The bankers own or otherwise control everything, every possible outlet. The sole exception is the internet, where genuine investigative reporters do still exist, but not for much longer. Sooner or later, using the imaginary threats of "terrorism" or "child pornography", the bankers will complete their takeover of this, our one independent source of information.

The Solution

Every penny the government needs has to be borrowed from the central bankers, who never relinquish their ownership, even when the "money" exists only as numbers on a computer screen.

Money cannot be withdrawn from circulation and returned to it's banker "owners" for the simple reason that it is in use. It would mean shutting the entire economy down to pay all the money back to the bankers, and then there's more than three centuries of compound interest to consider. There was never any extra money created to cover the interest, so the debt can never be repaid.

It could have been so different. If the government really did create the money, there would be no associated debt - and no interest. Free, government-issued money, owned by the people, would never have to be repaid. It would belong to the nation. With no debt and no interest, there would be no need to tax the people. Whenever the government needed money, they could create it themselves, debt free, and spend it into circulation for everybody to use.

Permission is granted to republish this page while we still have the internet.
Click Here for a graphics-free version.