Besides, there was also another contributing factor, one of historical and global impact: the power of money was outdoing the power of constituted authority. We know that everything is but agreement, therefore when one commands others to give one something in exchange for less or even nothing, this occurs if – and only if – the others agree; whatever the reason why they agree, should they not agree, no such exchange would take place: “Shoot me, and shove it!” One may also threat others into agreeing, such as with weapons and uniforms, but both those threatened and those wearing the uniforms should agree for the threat to be effective. Evidently, selling one’s bows for money sounded less unfair an exchange than giving them away as a legal obligation; one of the reasons being probably that in the eyes of people aristocracy had already largely betrayed any duty of providing them with a sound and fair rule, while money masters were still far from getting caught with their hands in even more demonic a betrayal: tampering with the neighbour’s purchasing power with debt money and the infinite debt trap. As much evidently, aristocracy were realizing being swept off its feet by money masters, as the power slowly moved from their hands to those of the money masters, out of the frying pan into the fire. So when defeating an enemy is not an option, allying with it is. They may well have wasted even a couple of centuries competing and fighting each other, but realizing this was just a matter of time anyway.

It has been observed how a powerful motive for the ruler to ally with the banker is his or her megalomania, if not his or her outright craving for social engineering: tampering with his or her subjects is an expensive pastime, and the outcome of this alliance is an inextinguishable source of free money to pay for such amusement at the expense of those subjects, their children, and the children of their children, as taxpayers. This may raise doubts about who’s the boss in this alliance. Well, such doubts are obviously banished by observing who’s to gain the most, and it happens to be the ruler the one that rushes to become business partner – or, rather, partner in crime – to the banker, and not the other way around. Proof of that is that this is what happened when the first central bank, the Bank of England, was concocted.

This criminal conspiracy in my humble opinion answers a burning question: the banker has the money and the king borrows it, so the king gets indebted to the banker; but the king has the power, so why does not the king one fine day just kindly tell the banker, “You know what? I just ruled that my debt to you is history, magically cleared out of existence, and so will you if you ever mind to object.”? The credits of the banker, if not his neck as well, in order to survive, they must have a back−up providing suitable support. What back−up powerful enough to successfully stand its ground against the king and his rule there could be to support the banker?

The society, the king’s subjects in debt to a banker who threatened them to demand his credits back, if that banker were being plainly wiped out by the king, would they support him? Who would they side with, the king or the banker?

Or maybe some other king, maybe another king in debt with the banker as well? How would the other king respond when demanded by the banker to back him up against the debt clearing from first king by the threat of his own debt toward the banker? Who would the other king side, the banker or the first king?

Or mercenaries, perhaps? Let aside the feasibility due to the cost, and the liability to be overthrown by the impolite mercenaries, would kings allow him to build up a military force comparable to theirs, and if so, wouldn’t the circumstance be noticed in history, no matter how “history” is the “truth” written by winners?

When someone has force, is it better to have it as an ally or as an adversary?

Their plan is simple: one, the king wallet and his country’s wallet are now two quite separate entities; two, the king sees that the country squanders as much as possible, three, the squandered money is borrowed by the country and loaned by the banker, indebting citizens, not the king, to the banker and, four, it ends up as profit in the wallets of the king and the banker, now partners at the root of such shady dealings.

History then shows a progressive replacement of kings with politicians, of tyranny with democracy, of subjects turning into citizens… apparently. And in the process it doesn’t seem to show any significant decrease of the squandering, but rather its worsening, if ever. This means that if something has changed, it may be the crooks involved in this criminal conspiracy, in this robbing scheme, but sure enough not the basic plan at all. After all, in essence, the politician shares the same megalomania and crave for social engineering of the king, and simply adds to it the additional money needed to buy his or her own election.

King, politician, official? From the viewpoint of the criminal conspiracy, and particularly from that of its boss, who cares, as long as they have power to squander and create debt to the banker?